Don't know what language that is, but I was ok until I listened to the car radio today for a few minutes and Limbaugh was on. He has finally snapped---due to the election, I suppose, or oxicontin pills.
He said what Trent Lott said about Strom Thurmond needing to have been elected when he ran for President, fixing all of the race problems, wasn't nearly as bad as Keith Richard's comedic tirade against some blacks in the audience. Comedians do that all thwe time, don't they?
I thought Limbaugh's terrible actions making fun of people with Parkinsons was the very worst, myself.
He also "glossed over" what Lott said, glossed it terribly. You fellows better get rid of him or you will be done in forever.

Sorry for the typo -
By the way Dollaraday it's OxyContin not Oxicontin -

Trent Lott never mentioned anything about 'race problems'-

Keith Richards isn't a comedian, he's a rock star but Michael Richards is.

And I really don't think that "Comedians do that all thwe time,..." Whatever language "thwe" is.

Again - I'm sorry the missing 'r' caused a language problem for you.

I didn't know how to spell oxycontin since I'v never bought any, Rush made it famous: sorry for that error.
It is hard to think of the name Richards, without thinking of the music freak, whose latest act was falling out of a palm tree.
I have done a few "thwes" lately due to three inside operations on my right eye--everything blurs and there is no depth perception yet. It is getting better.
And, I wasn't being cocky questioning your word, bizare. I didn't know what you meant, since I saw nothing strange about my post.

You just gave me a HUGE gaffaw!!!!!! Keith Richards plays with the Rolling Stones. I believe you meant Michael Richards!!!!

Good one though!!!! LOL

My friend (and I mean that), you put too much thought into this post. I truly like dollar, but I'll be the first to say I don't follow the original blog.

HOWEVER:

How did Nancy Pelosi screw up? She gave a friend loyal support, and the majority vote did not go his way. It wasn't even close. But Trent Foot in Mouth Lott won the minority nod by 1 VOTE! How divided are conservatives? 1 vote Maj.

Senator Rangle, who asked for the draft to return, is a VETERAN like you and I. I respect the point he is making, that not enough Americans are sharing the BURDON of THIS WAR. I agree.
And Major, our military is in bad shape. I'm not sugar coating here. The Army is millions and millions under budgeted. The Army Chief of Staff, you may recall, withheld their budget for several days in protest for not receiving the needed funding. The Air Force is cutting F-22 orders and our ATF is in limbo. All is not rosey. The sooner we address these issues, the sooner we can start fixing them.

Anyway, ration your bullets better. This one was a stretch.

Take care,

Hack

Hack and Dollar,

If our military is underfunded, I propose cutting federal expenditures for pork barrel projects, NPR, NEH, NEA, the Department of Education, farm subsidies, et al. Then I'd bet we'd have plenty of money for the deserving military.

The problem is priorities. The federal government's primary responsibility is defending our country, and therefore the military should be the no. 1 funding priority, although of course there will still and always be argument about what exactly should be funded.

But, greedy, lazy, selfish citizens and politicians willing to pander to their demands for federal money have so expanded the scope of government largesse that the government can no longer properly fund and support its primary responsibilities.

Instituting the draft is NOT the solution for this problem. Most people who propose it do so for cynical reasons, or foolish ones. Using draftees to build infrastructure?? What are you, a Socialist? Seriously, although roads should be paid for by government, they should be paid for directly by gas taxes and private contractors should be used to build them. Not some 19-year old know nothing.

And this notion that we will hesitate to send our troops into war more if they come from a broader spectrum is exactly the problem. We are already too hesitant to properly use our military forces to defend our interests. If we force unwilling "volunteers" to do the fighting, we'll never go to war unless we've already been nuked by the crazy mullahs and imams, and by then it'll be too late.

Let's leave the fighting to the professionals and trust our political system a tad bit more to make these decisions.

We wouldn't have this problem of dragged out wars if we would only support our commander in chief once he made his decision. Otherwise, we're on the way to being another neutered, sit-while-you-pee Euro-wuss. NO thanks!

"We wouldn't have this problem of dragged out wars if we would only support our commander in chief once he made his decision." Is that right? Can anyone help me out here by citing a single decision that the administration would have made but didn't make because of lack of support. It looked to me like they did whatever they wanted when they wanted too with virtual contempt for any opposition opinions. Anybody out there? Any examples of how they've been constrained in their decision making at all? Any policy at all that they wanted that has not been implemented? Any restraints at all that have been placed on the administration's conduct of the war? Or are we where we are because of the lack off oversight?

I think they have already committed about one-half TRILLION dollars, 3000 of our lifes 100,000 of theirs, and 29,000 of our wounded, and a million of theirs, more to come.
Wonder what would have happened if everyone had been silent?

If our military is underfunded, I propose cutting federal expenditures for pork barrel projects, NPR, NEH, NEA, the Department of Education, farm subsidies, et al. Then I'd bet we'd have plenty of money for the deserving military.

Yeah, it's muuuuch better to have an uneducated population (unlikely to question propaganda and far less capable of disproving it with those nasty facts) than a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. The Teapot Museum is a great investment of taxpayer dollars when compared with NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I mean, really, Sponge Bob beats that wussy Bert and Ernie any day and why waste money on A Prairie Home Companion when Clear Channel Corp. can assault your ears with all the Britney, Madonna and Usher that you can stand.

The problem is priorities. The federal government's primary responsibility is defending our country, and therefore the military should be the no. 1 funding priority, although of course there will still and always be argument about what exactly should be funded.

IF you meant actually funding The Military -- the troops, their families, veterans' services --, I could agree with this. However, these days, "funding the military" actually means funding Haliburton, KBR and Lockheed with contracts that involved outright bid rigging or no competition at all.

Instituting the draft is NOT the solution for this problem. Most people who propose it do so for cynical reasons, or foolish ones. Using draftees to build infrastructure?? What are you, a Socialist? Seriously, although roads should be paid for by government, they should be paid for directly by gas taxes and private contractors should be used to build them. Not some 19-year old know nothing.

I truly don't know if I am for/against a draft; we need troop strength if we're going to "win" in Iraq (whatever "win" means). But, there you go again, suggesting that KBR get another no-bid contract to rip off the US and Iraqui governments. That's especially interesting given the fact that the President's henchmen eliminated the office tasked with auditing Iraq war contracts. (Talk about being left alone in the bank vault!) How 'bout we let the Iraqui people build their own roads? Last I heard, their unemployment rate is sky-high. I suspect we would win more hearts and minds with some jobs and pay.

We wouldn't have this problem of dragged out wars if we would only support our commander in chief once he made his decision.

Supporting this war would be easy if it weren't for the fact that the multiple bases for going there have been debunked. Whether it was a lie or aggressive interpretation of limited facts, there is no good reason for our continued occupation. We won at unseating Saddam but we are losing at keeping the civil war under control. Support him in further abusing the troops? I don't think so.

Otherwise, we're on the way to being another neutered, sit-while-you-pee Euro-wuss.

Unmarried man, huh? Otherwise, you would recognize that roughly 50% of the population of the US "sits-while-it-pees". Thank goodness the Dept. of Education still exists; otherwise, you might not get that joke.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Why do you think we have Halliburton and others of their type? We don't have enough soldiers is the answer. We don't cook for ourself anymore, we don't cut each other's hair anymore, we don't haul our own supplies anymore, and on and on. Halliburton does it. Some of those drafted, unfit to carry a rifle or fire a missle, could do those jobs as they used to do.
Next thing you hear will be that we are "hiring" foreigners to fight for us. England used to do a lot of that!

Lemme guess . . . previous administrations downsized the military to save money (all the while ordering computerized drone-type weaponry). And, at some point, some politician decided that the support services of war (chow, mail, laundry, etc.) could be privatized because we'd get the "benefit" of a public-private partnership. Those partnerships are great because businesses do everything better (especially turning a profit to overcompensate their CEOs at the taxpayers' expense). Yeah, and the check's in the mail....

If I can impart no other information to you folks, please understand this. The only entity that benefits from a public-private partnership is the private entity that gets the contract. They behave like welfare recipients; they tend to be slow in performing. They cut corners and it's a rare occasion that they deliver what was promised at the negotiated price. They know, at the start of the contract, that they can put in contract modifications up to a certain dollar amount without too much of a fuss. So, mysteriously, the contract expands up to that amount for any number of garbage reasons.

The tax-paying public Never benefits from those arrangements. Well, on second thought, one other party benefits . . . the politician that got the private entity the contract usually gets a large campaign contribution for himself or The Party.

Oh, and we won't have to "hire" foreigners to fight for us. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they're offering the illegal aliens a chance to earn quick citizenship by joining the Army. I mean, in the 60's they offered convicts the chance to join the military rather than being sentenced to jail. So, just substitute illegal aliens in the 21st century.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Hack,

You slay me man. You attack Trent Foot in Mouth Lott, but support John "get stuck in Iraq" Kerry.

Nancy screwed up by trying to intimidate Blue Dog democrtas to vote for a polarizing (see, some on your side can be polarizing too) candidate for Speaker. She screwed up by not being able to control her own party.

I can't wait for Alcee Hastings, the former impeached judge to be selected for Chair of the Intel committee, if she does.

149-86, 63 votes, how divided are the Dems Hack?

I know you never watch hannity and Colmes, but they in terviewed about 10 people from Rangles district and NONE agreed with him. talk about being out of touch with his constituants! Must come from party line voting.

Never too busy to opine on keeping today's military all volunteer, better motivated, disciplined and dedicated than the draft army of Vietnam pal. Charlie is just mad that there are no big anti war protests, mainly because the force volunteered to serve.

(sigh) ArmyMaj, I tried to stay out of this subject because the election is over and what will be, will be. But this comment goes only to your statement about Rangel's position.

As I understand Rangel's comment, he wasn't bemoaning the lack of anti-war protests. His point was that a "volunteer" army of poor people isn't really a "volunteer" army. The armed services only bribes today's recruits into service because they have no other means to earn a living or to go to college. Considering that the children of those who decide when and where to send troops have other options (and the money to pay for those other options), they are unlikely to be touched directly by the effects of war. And considering that many of those making deployment decisions today got out of service in Viet Nam, they, themselves have no direct combat experience upon which to draw when making those decisions. So, they are unlikely to give serious thought to sending the children of the poor off to die and be maimed. And, given that those same "deciders" have access to excellent health care, they won't pause to consider the real effect of decreasing the funding for treatment of traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress, decent prosthesis and physical therapy.

Is a draft likely to change any of that? No. We will still have politicians whose children magically end up deployed far from the risk of all-but the nastiest paper cut. But, I think Rangel was trying to point out the high cost of this econically-coerced "volunteer" army.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Today's Army isn't an army of poor people. You must come from the Jon Cary school of looking down your nose at something you know nothing about. Check out the link below.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/demographics.htm

If you have any proof that today's Army is poor, bring it on! (sigh)

You know nothing about today's volunteers to smear them with the "bribes" slur.

When you talk of "politicians whose children magically end up deployed far from the risk of all-but the nastiest paper cut" are you referring to Teddy Kennedy, who guarded SHAPE Hedquarters in Belgium during Korea, when he got kicked out of college for cheating?

Last time I checked many former Presidents never served, including the famous pot smoker.

I agree with you on one thing, we should stop pork and fully fund treatment of traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress, decent prosthesis and physical therapy.

swmbo remind me of your military experience?

Happy Thanksgiving Army.

You may notice that many people don't need the self affirmation of wearing their military experience on their posts like you and I. You will also recall that this military machine of ours is run by a bunch of CIVILIANS with NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE. If you are implying that all expertice lies in active military men (like myself) or retired military men (like yourself), heaven help us.
Which dope smoking president are you referring to by the way? We have a few to choose from, don't we?
Last time for this one, and then I must move along:
War veteran Charlie Rangel knows the draft won't come back. He wants a debate on the floor of congress which focuses on this: Why do we continue to support a war policy that people like Henry Kissinger have said is unwinnable, yet unabandonable? Because your average American is making NO SACRIFICE! It is a freebie. No rationing, no tax expenditure, no personal danger. Less than 8% of our population even has a relative in Iraq.
Armymaj, I will say straight out that, unless you are receiving briefings in retirement that I don't get on active duty, I have a better feel for the state of affairs here in the military. We are fighting the "war on Iraq" in a crucible which keeps all of the blood, sweat, and even guilt off of the American consciousness. We all need to invest in the lives we are losing in Iraq right now. We owe them a policy for either measured success or expeditious redeployment. We need to finish the job we abandoned in Afghanistan. We need to stop attacking the validity of arguments posed by civilians; civilians who are the backbone of this great nation. And we need to not pass another Thanksgiving in this country with 140,000 of our brave citizens stuck in the midsts of another nation's civil unrest.

Cheers,

Kevin Hack King

Happy Thanksgiving Warthog driver,

Imagine my suprise when swbo trash talks out poor dumb bribed "volunteers" and I am the only one to call BS!

There can be no doubt that his post

"His point was that a "volunteer" army of poor people isn't really a "volunteer" army. The armed services only bribes today's recruits into service because they have no other means to earn a living or to go to college."

is just plain wrong. I called him to back it up, or explain his expertise, he had neither.

Now as far as civilians commenting on military areas, here is what swbo said:

" And considering that many of those making deployment decisions today got out of service in Viet Nam, they, themselves have no direct combat experience upon which to draw when making those decisions."

I countered with "Last time I checked many former Presidents never served" clearly a SUPPORT of civilian control.

I am amazed that you state "Charlie Rangel knows the draft won't come back", then why is he calling for something he knows will not happen? Oh, I remember he voted against his own bill last time. Silly me I expected the most ethical congress ever to actually mean what they say and NOT play politics with defense issues.

Where do you stand on keeping the military all volunteer. Do you really want a draftee maintaining your T-38?

As far as briefings, don't need them, I have 3 good friends still serving that are either there now or just back! Maybe they don't know what it is like. Do you want to attack them now?

I will stop challenging the validity of arguments posed by civilians, when they top lying about today's all volunteer force! You may want to get aboard on that one.

I for one don't want another monument in DC with 3,000 or more names for a conflict we walked away from. That would be wasting their lives. Victory is an exit strategy.

Have a nice day.

Whatever group can tell me what “victory” will look like so we can all either recognize it when we get there or we can all see that we’re never going to get there.

What price for “victory” or not, depending. How much money and human life are you willing to pay for a “victory”?

Since we’re not talking about driving an enemy past a given longitude or latitude and making sure that they either can’t or wont come back; they aren’t wearing a uniform; they're in every corner of the world, including your own back yard; what is your plan for victory? To kill them all and let God sort them out hasn’t been working very well so far.

We’re fighting a radical religious belief.

How about getting the non-radical Muslims to fight the radical Muslims and we just pay them and supply them the arms to do it?

ArmyMajRetired,
I'm also a retired Major (AF) and while I agree with you about the draft not being a good idea, I think the dabacle in Iraq is only going to get worse. It was done for the wrong reasons, poorly planned and the occupation was obviously poorly executed. Not enough troops to do it right, and Rumsfeld would not listen to his generals. Need I mention what happened to Gen. Shinseki?

At this point, we need an honest assessment of where we stand and what our best options are. Nobody wants to see the 3000 lives of our troops "wasted", but throwing away more lives in an endless, futile effort is even more pointless.

One other thing I agree with you on is the benefit of people with real combat experience calling the shots. I don't think that Bush Sr. would have ever got us into this mess, nor would Colin Powell or Sen. McCain.

Since this is Thanksgiving, let me say thanks for the continued survival of our democracy, and the second chances that God has given each of us to recognize our errors and correct them. Let's hope we use those opportunities.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

You all make great points. I, an old AF enlisted man, also see the need for an assessment. It appears as if we are throwing darts at a dartboard with our eyes closed. We need to find out if we are needed, if the Iraqi people need us or even want us there and other countries have to be part of the formula. Why not Syria? Iraq will never be a democracy; trying to enforce this at all cost is not good policy.
We need to come home and take care of our business, such as sealing off the borders.

Today I would like to give thanks to all the brave men and women who are serving this country. Godspeed and I hope you return home safe and sound.

Saying that our forces are "poor" has little to do with who gets wounded and killed. Of course many of the Guard and Reserves, who have now gone to war as many as three times for Iraq, for the most part are older, have had a responsible job as a civilian, have children, and now are "poor" due to the length of time they have been forced to serve. If you will check the replacements only who have signed up in the last three years into the Army and Marines, I know you will see a different picture. I was a volunteer during a time of the draft and noticed that many of the "safe" positions, especially in the Navy and Air Force, were filled with people who could no longer get deferred, or into the guard, or high official's sons, corporate managers, professional's sons, and so forth.
We must also seperate the officers from the enlisted for obvious reasons when it comes to comparisons.
What on earth have you got against ALL serving, at anything? They simply do not now, nor have they ever, in any great quantity. There will be no end to useless wars if we continue to use mercenaries instead of all of our citizens.

For a moment I thought you were interested in serious debate and discussion. My intent was simply to suggest another perspective on Rangel's comment. I am neither Dem nor Rep; frankly, the current constitution of both parties is unattractive to me. So, you'll forgive me if I decline to join you in your Democrats-are-evil-Republicans-are-perfect rant.

I have never served in the military and, you will, no doubt, decide from this point forward that I have nothing of value to say about the subject. I care deeply for the troops. I have sent letters in past conflicts "To Any Soldier" to be sure some one got happy mail from home. Before you couldn't send edible items, I sent cookies at Christmas and candy on the 4th of July. I care that our troops are not abused; I care that they are deployed for appropriate reasons and I care that they are medically treated and properly rewarded for their service when they come home. There was no slur intended by my statement about bribing recruits. Recent reports about recruitment efforts included cosmetic surgery as an enhanced benefit. If I said that those who took up the offer were unintelligent, then, it would be a slur. My point was simply that the benefits offered had to be enhanced in order to meet recruitment goals. That sounds like bribery to me.

With that, I will leave you to playing commander in your little corner of this sandbox. But you might consider that the attacking tone of your posts can make well-intended support of the troops difficult.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Isn't it nice to see a Speaker of the house voted down by their party when they are wrong? Sometimes you are wrong, or maybe just smart: let's see where Murtha ends up!
I realize this COULD NOT happen under a Newt or a Trent--they would look around until someone suited everyone. People who have no plan and no principles rule in that fashion. We just threw them out, mostly. Notice now, suddenly that Rumsfeld is gone, how the Generals and Admirals, etc., acrually have some ideas. Marine Corp Commandant just today said enough mistreatment of his Marines, about time.

In 1994, after the Republican Revolution swept Republicans into power, new Speaker Gingrich tried to get his best buddy and political supporter elected Senate Majority Leader. He was soundly rebuffed. Gingrich was subsequently named Time's Man Of The Year.

In 2006, after the Republican Revolution was thoroughly discredited after only 12 years (not unlike Hitler's Third Reich), new Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to get her best buddy and political supporter elected Senate Majority Leader. She was soundly rebuffed. Faux News, Hate Radio and our own ArmyMajRetired subsequently declared Speaker Pelosi to be inept, discredited, unable to lead, yada, yada, yada.

I wish you wouldn't mention that name any where near dinner time.
Of all the House Speakers ever to serve, and that ever will serve, in my opinion, he is the worst. He is almost totally responsible for the last 12 years of American disasters. A glib, lightweight, who can deliver a good speech.

.

What Pelosi error? She doesn't operate by pre-counting votes, she is loyal, and could have worked with any of a hundred house members as her vote pusher in the house. Murtha will be there for awhile.
The draft: We met our goals in Korea also, and in Viet Nam, didn't we? The draft has nothing to do with this. Rangle is precisely correct, all must participate if we are to be a warrior society, or to avoid being one. Those damn bombs and jets and tanks don't always work to occupy and nation build, do they?
Sort for college: We do it now. If rich dudes want to go anyway, they can pay! You don't think very much do you--just yes sir, and no sir.
Volunteers: People who built the basic infrastructure in this country, by hand, were the CCC people during the great depression, I saw them. They were volunteers and needed to eat.
Also, don't you care that a million guard and reserve families have practically been destroyed by long service in Iraq? The guys during WW II were mostly single who served 3-4 years in a foreign country. Except of course the officers who are often rotated.