I see like most chickenhawks he didn't risk his tender pink ass in uniform. WHAT a surprise.

He's just taking part in the new Army plan of enlistment at a rank higher than E-1!

Works for me!

Quality is going down very rapidly in our services due to several reasons. I just know how different the Army was from when I joined in 1999 to when I got out in 2003. It was amazing.

They say they aren’t sacrificing quality? Bull, what happens when you up re-enlistment bonuses? You get people who are in the service based on greed. Not the person I want watching my back in a firefight.

I think in another year or two we will have no choice but to bring back the draft. Selective or not.

Quality is going down very rapidly in our services due to several reasons. I just know how different the Army was from when I joined in 1999 to when I got out in 2003. It was amazing.

They say they aren’t sacrificing quality? Bull, what happens when you up re-enlistment bonuses? You get people who are in the service based on greed. Not the person I want watching my back in a firefight.

I think in another year or two we will have no choice but to bring back the draft. Selective or not.

Sorry about that double posting...

I got an error the first time but I guess it went through.

So they think a guy enlisting as an E4 is qualified to lead men like a real corporal? I remember in the Navy they would give nuke MMs E5 rank for enlisting for 6 years. So the guys who flunked out of nuke school would join the fleet as second class pos and not know shit about the Navy or a ship. And expect guys who'd been in the fleet for 3 years to actually listen to them and respect them as POs. What a fucking joke. They were laughing stocks. Half of their time they would be in the fire room asking for BT punches, the other half they'd be out looking for 10 feet of waterline.

I know in my MOS 98 J elint analyst, they gave lots of E-6 and above early outs in the 90s, which caused a huge brain drain. The field suffered greatly. So the allowed people to fill those slots from other MOSs as well as the junior ranks. Ever had an E-7 tell you they didn't know what the F you were talking about?
It is not good when a junior enlisted soldier gets a dumb stare from a Sr. NCO.

The Army and Marines are dangerously thin, yet we have President big pants cowboy saying Iran needs to behave. I don't like what might come next, look like a draft.

Are they really bringing the JROTC/ROTC alums in at NCO level (E-4 and above)?. Last I recall reading about it, they were letting JROTC students and those that started (but didn't finish) college ROTC enlist as either E-2s or E-3s (I think E-2s, but don't quote me on it). If they're bringing them in as NCOs now we're really hurting for troops.

During the late unpleasantness in SE Asia, the Army noticed a scarcity of quality in first term re-ups. This begat the VRB, Variable Re-enlistment Bonus, which was a good thing in many ways, since it encouraged people to *think* about a second term. I believe they also started a college savings plan back then, too, which was a serious enhancement. However, if I recollect, the VRB paid the highest figures for technical MOSs of the sort envisioned as vital for the coming war in Europe. OK, planning doesn't always work out.

The problem with getting qualified first term re-ups affected the mid-level NCO ranks. No good candidates, and thus began the NCO Development program. I was one of those candidates. I figured since I was gonna go there anyway, I might as well pick up as many survival skills as possible, hence, jump school, Jungle School, and then the NCO Academy. I learned a LOT of theory and even some pracical skills.

So I went to Nam as a brand new E-6 shake and bake and realized just how deep the shit could be, since the Personnel pukes at USARV and IFFV thought i was qualified to lead a squad. At the company level, the CO & First Sgt thought I was barely qualified to burn shit in the latrines. And they were right. It took me two months to gain the confidence of my squad and the CO before I was allowed to lead, and even then I had a hand-holder, a dude with 10 months' survival in the bush. Everytime I gave an order, the squad looked at him, and after he nodded, they obeyed.

The thought of taking someone totally green and making him an NCO? EEEEEeeeeee....

This is not the way to rebuild a shattered Army. With book-learning and no practical experience, you get leaders like Bush, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith....

Don't worry, our Preznit is working on fixing the military manpower problem.
The economy will become so bad with outsourcing of jobs and the influx of "guest" workers, that young men and women will have to volunteer for the Armed Forces to have any opportunity if they can't afford college.
See, our Preznit ain't so dumb.....
I can't believe we have another 4 years of this moron.

maybe this is why pugsley limbaugh is going to afghanistan, to join the marines. he and boyfriend darrin will announce the clearing up of all cysts and lead the christian soldiers against the heathen herd!

Just once, DC, I would like to read one of your posts without a reference to the rightous Christians vs the heathens. I hate to break it to you, but not every conservative/Republican can be classified as a Bible thumping evangelical. In fact, you'd be surprised to find out just how little religion plays in many of our day-to-day lives.
Stereotyping every Republican as a "Jesus freak", as you've referred to us on several occasions, is every bit as offensive as your use of the term "darkies" to describe homeless people. You seem to underestimate conservatives and you obviously have NO idea what most conservatives are about. In general, I find your posts devoid of any meaning, point, or argument - and like I have already said, when you catch on to a few catch phrases, you tend wear them out, even when what you are saying bears zero relevance to the previous posts.

Seems like several former members of the armed forces on this site. Thanks for what you've all done. I didn't understand most of the initials, so I have no idea what you were all talking about most of the time. But Nick, that is an interesting theory. Unfortunately for your theory, first time jobless claims continue to drop. I haven't heard the term "outsourcing" since November. Go with oil - the price of oil will screw the economy up so people will have to enlist.

RR-
Thanks for contributing to the dialog here. I appreciate it.

If you don't understand the military-ese, just ask. We promise not to be too mean... :)

As for the republican-jeebus connection, hey, Fearless Leader brought it up and continues to play to the "moral values" crowd like charlie daniels fiddle...or mayhap they play him.

Not every republican is an asshole, but until proven differently, it's just a sort of -ahem- natural assumption. Present company excepted perhaps...

Again, welcome aboard.

Lurch, Great post.

RR, Jo was nicer to you than I will be. Sure, not every Republican/conservative is a bible thumping idiot. But, you dance with them what brung you. If being lumped in the same category as those folk offends you, than you might want to ask yourself why the right relies on the ignorant to stay in office. You might want to read the Texas Republican Platform to see if you qualify. Have a nice day.

Pace Lurch, what's past is prologue:

It sounds exactly like they're bringing back the shake n' bakes of the RVN era. Didn't work too well then, probably won't work too well now.

As for the Sec of the Army -- he's Donald "Failure Is Its Own Reward" Rumsfeld's way of punishing the Army for having the temerity to tell him that perhaps fighting Iraq the way he wanted to fight it wasn't such a good idea.

Anecdote: A retired USMC two - star recently was talking to a just - returned USMC Col. Per the Col., all the USMC's gear -- tracks, wheels, etc. -- is shot Corps - wide. They've done all the cannibalizing they can can do and now there's nothing left. The Col. said the rotations are about six months away from breaking the soldiers as well.

The Army is not far behind.

I hope the special place in Hell reserved for Robert Strange McNamara is right next to the special place in Hell reserved for Donald Rumsfeld. They'll have a lot to talk about.

Good comment Lurch. I, too, remember the shake n bake NCOs and Lieutenants. A lot of them didn't make it home. I'm afraid many of the new generation will not come back either. Myself, I was just interested in survival. Strangely enough after I was deep into my tour incountry I was leaned on more and more for guidance. I didn't make the stripes until after I returned. I actually volunteered to burn shit sometimes. It got me out of patrols.

Of course RR wouldn't understand military acronyms and jargon- he/she/it is just another chickenhawk republican. Why aren't all these goddamn "patriots" lining up at the recruiting offices? I guess it's easier to stick a fucking magnetic ribbon on the back of the SUV.

ps- I did my time, US Navy. Chickenhawks, do yours or put the flags away and STFU. And hands off Social Security, you bandits!

Hornet

Kudos on your reply to RR, the chickenhawk.

All the cute magnetic ribbons you wrote about are made in China. which helps ratchet up our next major confrontation- China v. the US for dwindling oil. Dollar going down the toilet and our military headed the same waythanks to the Rethugs. The Fifth Column in this country are the Rethugs. Outsource the manufacturing, undermine the unions and resonable living wages, cut corporate R&D and educational funding. Look at the billions wasted in brokerage commissions for the corporate mergers during Reagan aka "The Drooler". Money that could have made US businesses more competetive.

cont'd

America Sold Out- Thank A Republican.

RR, that's my take on Rethugs. If you pride yourself on being a conservative Republican with the Goebbels Gang, you are no friend to The United States of America.

Buzz Meeks

Sorry, forgot to put Constitution in front of the United States. Could have gone on much longer about Rethug perfidy but would have been much further from the thread.

Buzz Meeks

Supporting US troops makes me a chickenhawk, Buzz? Well, I've got to tell you, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Because you served in the military, that gives only you the right to support troops? If I would have posted something about how Bush needs to not change social security, and then said "thanks to the troops" - and you didn't know my political affiliation - you would have said "thanks for the kind words". Instead, I'm a chickenhawk. How many people on this site actually served in the military? I can't say for sure, but I really doubt Drunken Cheerleader was on the front line anywhere. Does that make him/her/it less able to speak his/her/its mind about how the war in Iraq sucks? He/she/it is probably as clueless about the military as I am. And I won't STFU just because I didn't serve in the armed forces. I can support this Administration, military troops, England, France, Germany, Russia, or whoever the hell I want. That is what makes this country great. Most of you all chose to enlist in the military and I'm glad that you did; I have nothing but respect for the people who have served the country in the military. I chose a different path. I had a scholarship to a university right out of high school and I chose that path. I didn't have the money to pay for college - probably like many people on this site. Some people take out loans (which I did for grad school), some people pay for it through the GI Bill, some people have scholarships, and the lucky ones have parents to pay for it.

The best thing about this country is that most people have choices or opportunities in their lives. But I won't STFU because I chose a different path than you, Buzz.

Jo, hopefully I'll show you (and anybody else interested) that not all Repubs are as hard-lined and religious as you may think. I've already learned, mainly from this site, that many stereotypes of liberals aren't true. So, for that, I appreciate this site - even if your readers hate me and wish I'd go away.

RR: You miss the point.

The debate you have decided to engage in will be decided not by ideology but by ground truth.

The ground truth is that this Administration has broght the two branches of the military which we most depend on for projecting force by going somewhere and holding territory -- the Army and the USMC -- to the point of breaking.

There are several readers of this blog who have been in the military and some part of that group experienced this same phenomenon 30 or so years ago. The result then was the notorious "hollow Army" of the 1970's.

Alot of what is occurring now looks/feels very much like what happened then. If nothing else, the wear and tear on soldiers and Marines from the ever - accelerating rotation/deployment cycle is breaking them down as well as wrecking their equipment. A senior Army officer in a private meeting one year ago said that at the present rate of deployment the Army would be broken in two years, the USMC about six months after that. Those rates of deployment have, if anything, sped up.

Simply stated, this Administration has chosen to take one of the most carefully developed and finest instruments of military force ever seen and squander it in Iraq.

I guess you can "support the troops" and back this Administration in its folly at the same time, but only if you're not a strong believer in consistency of thought.

Oh, Regular.... you're so shrill. LOL

All kidding aside, what you say is (technically) true. However, the fact remains that a great cultural, ideological and political divide has ripped this country in two. The Left did not create this rift, nor did we make it worse, and nor did we keep it alive for all these years. It was the Fascist Right that has torn this nation into two warring camps.

The difference in this little corner of bloptopia is that we here, ESPECIALLY the vets, won't fucking back down to Republican Thug bullying. Because you see, we've got the chops and the scars to spit in their faces. We did what they were too fucking cowardly to do themselves: put on a uniform, grab a weapon and stand a tour of guard.(Thanks COL Nicholson, you Nazi prick, you.)

You went to college on a scholarship? Good for you. Now use your education for good: understand the powers that are destroying this nation. Once upon a time we stood for the "common man" and praised the virues of liberty and equality. The Republican Party is working day and night to destroy that nation and create something different.

But what is the alternative? I can certainly understand that redeployment after redeployment can and will hurt the military. In the 60's and 70's, the threat - real or imagined - was communism. The reason for the military then - contain communism and stop its spread. I think that the threat to the US today is much greater than the spread of communism. At their worst, communists wanted to "convert" everyone and every country to a communist society - which is at odds with capitalism, etc. (Whether that is to be believed or not is debatable, but that was at least a large part of the argument). The people that the troops are fighting now don't want to convert us to Islam, they want to eradicate us from the face of the earth. Was Iraq a direct, imminent threat? Probably not. I would be personally more worried about Iran and Syria in that part of the world. But, Saddam was hostile to the US and would have helped (if he really wasn't) al Quada in any way possible. You can debate the wisdom of going into Baghdad and Iraq, and that's fine - I'm not going to dispute bad intelligence (at best) and a lack of an exit strategy. There's no doubt that a thousand soldiers have died because of no exit strategy - and the blame falls squarely on Bush and his military advisors for that.
But, what is the alternative? I don't think we can wait around for another attack in this country. Getting rid of a middle eastern regime like the Baath Party in Iraq is a step in securing borders in this country. I sincerely hope that Iran and Syria are more cooperative in the future. I think that a democracy in one of the largest countries in the region will cause important and lasting change there. But, I could be wrong and you all could be right - time will tell. And until then, it's fine to criticize Bush's strategy.

RR: Re: Your question "But what is the alternative?"

Simple: Don't send our soldiers to a place where the enemy isn't; rather, send them to the place where the enemy is and then turn them loose to do what they do better than anybody else -- killing bad guys and breaking things.

In this case, that means don't invade a country such as Iraq which was so tied down by "No Fly" zones and was so crawling with UN Weapons Inspectors that it was a sovereign nation in name only, and as a result was incapable of attacking us or helping Al Queda even if it wanted to.

Rather, from Day One, put the troops in Afghanistan where they stay until Osama Bin Laden's head is on a pike for all to see and the rest of Al Queda is killed/captured. If that means invading part of Pakistan, so be it, because being the Biggest Kid On The Block does mean we get to act in our national defense. (And that also means taking the Pakis' nukes away from them if we think that is in our national interest as well -- I'm sure we can find a nice home for AQ Khan in Ft. Leavenworth.)

But acting in our national defense doesn't mean the tragic farce which is unfolding in Iraq. That has weakened, not strengthened this country, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

If you scratch the surface of the military - types who write into Jo's blog you will find a homicidal rage re: the people who perpetrated 9/11 on this country. You will also find a rising level of frustration that this Administration continues to ignore the advice of its military leaders by not going after OBL/Al Queda with sufficient resources but rather invading a fifth - rate country which now has our forces tied down for God knows how long.

Is Islamic radicalism more or less a threat than communism? That's not really the question.

The question is whether Iraq advances our defending ourselves against such radicalism or detracts from it.

Many of us at this blog believe that, just as Vietnam was a tragic and expensive distraction from the military's main national security mission of making sure the Soviet Shock Armies didn't come pouring through the Fulda Gap, not stopping until they hit the English Channel, so Iraq is a distraction from hunting down/killing Al Q and making sure the countries which give them aid stop doing so.

FBG:
Believe or not, I think that we agree on more than we disagree on on this issue. I think that to a large extent, Iraq has taken the focus off of Afghanistan and the hunt for OBL. I can't wait for the day when I come home from work and learn that he's been captured and that he is en route to the US to face the nation here. I think that we both want the same thing, we just disagree to a certain extent on how best to achieve it. But, as I've said, I don't know first hand the ramifications of redeployment after redeployment and I certainly respect your opinion on how it is hurting the military.

fbg46 nailed it. To quote a former member of the Bush staff, "Attacking Iraq after 9/11 is like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor." Wrong place, wrong time and wrong leadership. I hate seeing precious American lives wasted in another pointless war. Hell, North Korea poses a greater threat than Iraq ever did. Why aren't we fighting over there? Because 1) there is no oil and 2) they know we would get our asses kicked. Better to attack Mexico.

RR has misstated the situation, either through carelessness, thoughtlessness, or deliberate obfuscation.

Let's correct the record, shall we? (In the last 16 years or so that everytime a Republican misspeaks you have to IMMEDIATELY point out the errors, lest they mysteriously become tomorrow's "facts".

1. Deployment after deployment will not hurt the military. They already have hurt. A drop in reenlistment of 35% and inability to meet first term enlistment goals show that. The refusal of the Bush malAdministration to provide sensible logistics, to include food, water, armor and ammunition are the clues.

2. Islam does not want to wipe us off the face of the earth. A small group of ideologues has distorted Islam's message and captured the jihadi movement. Kind of like what a small group ideologues has done by capturing the Conservative movement, the Republican Party, and the US Government. What that group does want to do is destroy the US economy, and turn it upside down. That's right; it's all about the dollars, or in this case, the euros. And by the way, Islam does not hate our freedom. The religion comes from a different culture, and doesn't quite understand what our idea of freedom is all about. But once they grasp the idea they seem pretty keen on it.

3. Of course Iraq was not a credible military threat. (Even RR agrees to that, but he can't quite force himself to make the leap of intellect necessary to understand how that small group of ideologues twisted available intelligence, flat made up shit, and lied to the American people to provide justification for an immoral and illegal war of aggression.) And, in the same breath, Saddam couldn't really help aQ, mainly because he was as secular as possible and he and the aQ detested each other. Now, he did controbute money to the families of Palestinian bombers. Say! Isn't that an Israeli issue? Why are we involved in that?

4. Next, two misrepresentations: a thousand dead soldiers, no exit strategy, and the voiceless Bush military advisers. It's more like 2,000 since BushCo is not releasing true figures. Plus, a wounded GI or Marine who dies after medevacuation isn't included in the "death" totals. Neither are accidents. And the Bush military advisers most certainly did voice protests. Those who did so publicly were immediately attacked by the Republican-owned Rottweiler media, and involuntarily retired. Exit strategy? There is none, because BushCo has no intention of exiting Iraq. That's why we're building those 14 "enduring" bases.

5. The Baath party was hardly a threat to our borders, as RR states. Unless they had their own, secret private army that no one knows about. That would be like saying the Republican Party has its own army and is a threat to the borders of, say, France.

Other than that, RR, a nice post.

I think that I need to clear up a few points made - lest Lurch think that I'm some bigoted Southerner. I never said that every Muslim was out to destroy the US. I said that the Muslims that we are fighting - the same ones you are referring to - want to eradicate us. And, if you want to break it down further, many of the Iraqi fighters just want the US out of Iraq. And yes, the Muslims who are out to destroy us are out to eradicate as many Americans as possible - not just destroy the economy. You read what you wanted to read and thought that I was referring to every Muslim - which nowhere in the post did I ever say that or imply that every Muslim was out to get us.

As to your first point, there was a study that just came out today, done by the GAO, that stated that the Pentagon's policy - the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy, is the reason for so many soldiers failing to reenlist. In fact, the report says that the policy has cost $200 million since its implementation. I can't remember for sure, so please remind which President mandated that policy. Now, I'm not here to bash gays or to judge them. I don't have a problem one way or the other with them. I'm not gay, but what they do is their business - not mine. I'm merely suggesting an alternate reason - given in an official government report - for lack of morale and low % of reenlistment.

Yeah, OBL and Saddam supposedly didn't like each other. I'm not going to dispute that or argue it, because I don't know. But, explain to me, if there is absolutely no connection between al Quada and Iraq, how Abu Moussab al Zarqowi (sorry, I have no idea how to spell his name) was in Iraq months, maybe even years, before the US went into Iraq? It is a confirmed fact that he was there - it's not just Bush Administration covering their asses.
As for the exit strategy, I already said that one doesn't exist - or didn't exist at the time the military went in. When Bush decides to leave tens of thousands of US military personnel in Iraq after all of the fighting is over, and when it serves no other purpose than to steal Iraqi oil, then complain all you want - you'll have every right. But until then, your speculation as to Bush's intent is just that - speculation.
As to the Baath Party comment that you make. Please point to me where I said that the Baath Party was a direct threat to the US borders. I believe, without looking at my previous post, that I said that having a stablized democracy (eventually) in the middle east will be a good thing for the region, and ultimately, the world, and getting rid of the Baath Party was a good thing because they stirred up a lot of shit in the region. Nowhere did I say that they posed a direct and imminent threat to the US. In fact, I even said that I didn't think that Iraq was an imminent threat.

If you want to debate what I said or laugh at what I say, or tell me to go to hell for expressing my views, that's one thing - but don't make things up and tell me that I've said things that I haven't. two of your 5 points that you made to "refute" my "assertions" were made for no reason, because I didn't say the things that you claim I said.

RR, replying to Lurch you said: "As to your first point, there was a study that just came out today, done by the GAO, that stated that the Pentagon's policy - the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy, is the reason for so many soldiers failing to reenlist. In fact, the report says that the policy has cost $200 million since its implementation." Cite please?

Are you saying that 35% of the soldiers are gay? Wow. I had no idea. Typically, from my limited military experience, service members who chose not to ship over made that choice because they were tired of shitty duty or family seperation from long deployments or inability to advance, or they just wanted out, period. I had no idea that so many men and women were not re-enlisting because they were gay. Simply amazing. Please provide the citation for that assertion, I'll be fascinated to read it.

RR

A lot of retreaded obfuscation running through your poorly constructed arguments. Reminds me of Ronnie the Drooler's chicken little claims that we would be fighting the Sandanistas in Harlingen. There is also one hell of a lot of difference between those cute made in China ribbons on your vehicle and how you are such a poor victim of a scholarship on your path to your path.

For the record RR, I have never served in the military and I don't need to make whiney statements about my terminal degree (MFA). It seems when worn out and poorly thought out statements defending this corrupt and facist administration come forth it is usually some race track tout like you spouting the line. You are really fucked in the head if you try to twist my statements about America's Fifth Column to your right to "support the troops".

Or perhaps you simply don't know what a fifth column is.

cont'd

RR, Back in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939, Franco besieged the the city of Madrid with four columns and had a "fifth" from within. You take the betrayal of this country and all the good things it represents and put squarely on the shoulders of the conservatives and that's what's destroying this country from within. Go back and carefully read my earlier post. I don't know where or what you got your degrees in, your cogitative skills are not way up there.

Oh, by the way. GFY.

Buzz Meeks

I don't have a lot of time right now, since I have some serious work to do, so let's go right to RR's latest claim. He says, "...I never said that every Muslim was out to destroy the US. I said that the Muslims that we are fighting - the same ones you are referring to - want to eradicate us..."

Now, I had said that he had said "...Islam does not want to wipe us off the face of the earth... Wow - I can see the easy logic of your claim that eradicate does not equal 'wipe us off the face of the earth.'

My bad. Skewered by the superior logic of Republican parsing. Obviously the fault of my education; I always thought eradicate and wipe off the face of the earth meant the same thing.

Now, about people leaving the military. Since I been there, and you ain't maybe I have that, you know, "personal knowledge" that you lack. I agree with Jo. People don't leave the military because of homosexuality. It's the shitty service. While I was laying in my hospital bed, waiting for the sutures to heal I tried to explain that the reenlistment NCO. (That was the third purple heart - the one that cost me a kidney and 23 inches of bowel.) Now maybe the fact that I laughed in his face made him think I was protesting the rampant homosexuality. I dunno. Good thing I couldn't get up off the bed and thrash him; he might have thought I was in favor of rough trade sex and then he would have quit.

Now then: why did al Zarqawi live in Iraq? Well, my understanding is that he's a Jordanian national, and there's a arrest warrant out for him in Jordan, so he don't live there. Say, come to think of it, I think there's an arrest warrant out for Chalabi in Jordan too. He lives in Iraq now, so I guess he's a terrorist too, huh?

Re: the Baath party. What you said was "...Getting rid of a middle eastern regime like the Baath Party in Iraq is a step in securing borders in this country..."

Now, color me stupid again, but sounds to me quite a bit like they're threatening us and our borders. Is this another case of Republican parsing? Have we moved the goalposts by changing the wording? (Are we in full denial mode yet? I didn't get the memo.)

Gotta go now, got some real work to do.

RR

How do you think people like Lurch must feel after watching conservative Republicans parading around their convention with Purple Heart band-aids. An insult on top of a insult to the City of New York after Sept. 11th by having a photo-op convention. Or, how I feel when I look at my late father's PH that he earned as B17 pilot over Germany in 1944. Everything good and decent you people come near ends up with a layer of slime and shit on it.

Again, GYF.

Buzz Meeks

RR:

Could you be so kind as to direct us to the GAO study you refer to which you state drapes the low retention rate on "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"? A website, etc., will do.

While you're at it, you may want to direct the Commandant of the Marine Corps to it as well. He was interviewed by the editors in today's NYT and, among other things, noted that the Corps' re - up rate after a first tour historically runs about 25%. No mention of "DA/DT", but what does he know?

Your failure to refer us to the study might lead some of us to believe that you are engaging in that well-known Republican version of High School Debate Trick No. 4: If you can't respond to the merits of an argument, distract the audience by . . . blaming Bill Clinton.

Get back at you on the rest of your post.

RR:
Not having heard from you (and because I've got to tend to my day job), I took a quick peek at the GAO website.

Lo and behold, I found a GAO study released yesterday entitled: "Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated". (GAO-05-299)

Hmmm, I thought, there could be another GAO study on this same topic issued this week which I missed, but I'm sure RR will point us all to it. (I didn't see any other report released during the past week remotely close to this subject matter. Ball is in your court, RR.)

While you're doing that, the report referred to above examines the last 10 - year period to determine if a dollar cost can be fixed to the loss sustained by the military branches because of the 9,488 servicemembers who have been involuntarily separated during that period b/c of "DA/DT". (One of the items the reports looked at was the costs of recruiting replacements for this group, as many of them held specialized MOS's.)

Not a word about, to use your phrase, ". . . the 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy is the reason for so many soldiers failing to reenlist."

Admittedly, I only looked at the one page abstract of the GAO report (my day job is calling) so I leave it to you to lead us to the report you were referring to.

Well an in-law married a Three Star. My nephew was in Iraq. Needless to say when Three Stars send letters they damned sure get delivered.

And that man didn't vote Bush. And nobody in the younger's company did, or even mentioned his name. In fact a large portion of them would tell you to 'go fuck yourself' than follow through, so he ended up riding more than his share whenever hot duty was called for.

It's lots of fun having bricks and stones thrown at you every time you ride out, being cursed at, and that is in the nice areas. But those bricks smell like flowers to you.And that isn't the worst of it.

Your bearings are straight up your ass. Get your head out of it, sign up. Then check back and tell us about supporting troops after you've pulled a few trips in riding the shotgun seat.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams