It’s blast from the past day. I have quote a few notes from the last six years on the Republican and Bush record on actually supporting the troops. I came across this one today, Shafting, Not ‘Supporting,’ the Troops – Soldiers Face Death in Iraq and Getting Screwed by GOP Pols at Home (July 31, 2003)
“What do you think about the ‘bring them on’ challenge President Bush issued July 2 from the White House, referring to those who attack U.S. troops in Iraq?” Nearly sixty percent agreed with the statement, “It was irresponsible and unnecessarily placed the lives of U.S. troops in even greater danger.”
[ ]…he troops in Iraq are suffering “from low morale that has in some cases hit ‘rock bottom,'” the Christian Science Monitor recently reported. And last week, several soldiers vented their frustration to U.S. television news reporters. “If Donald Rumsfeld were here, I’d ask him for his resignation,” one disgruntled soldier told ABC’s “Good Morning America” show, Reuters reported. ‘‘It pretty much makes me lose faith in the Army,” Pfc. Jason Punyhotra of the 3rd Infantry told ABC News in Fallujah, Iraq. ”I don’t really believe anything they tell me. If they told me we were leaving next week, I wouldn’t believe them.”
“I’ve got my own ‘Most Wanted’ list,” a sergeant at the 2nd Battle Combat Team Headquarters referring to the Administration deck of most wanted Iraqis, told ABC News’ Jeffrey Kofman. “The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz,” he said.
But hey this must all be something that the big bad media made up because whenever you go to a Republican blog they get very upset at the idea that not every soldier and marine in Iraq is a water carrier for the wingnuttery.
Bad decisions cannot always be blamed on sex even if with some folks that is often the case, Amen
Rudy is craaaaaaaaazy … Rudy was perfectly capable of getting crazy, stupid ideas, and then forcing them on everyone else, when there was absolutely no sex involved.
In recounting intelligence failures prior to 9/ll, the inspector general said there was neither “a single point of failure nor a silver bullet” that would have enabled the CIA to predict or prevent the 9/ll attacks.
But the report concludes there were “failures to implement and manage important processes, to follow through with operations, and to properly share and analyze critical data.”
The report says Tenet “did not use all his authorities in leading the IC’s (intelligence community’s) strategic effort” against bin Laden.
“That’s not fair,” said ABC News consultant Clarke. “Of course there was a strategic effort, and he did raise the issue at the highest levels of government.”
There are some details missing here so let’s wait for the follow-up. In the mean time aren’t we all a little confused. Bush is the Decider, The Commander Guy. Why didn’t he have a comprehensive plan in place nine months after being in office. Rice Falsely Claims Clinton Administration Did Not Leave A ‘Strategy To Fight Al Qaeda’
Clarke, who also worked for the Bush administration, wrote Condoleezza Rice a memo as soon as the Bush administration took office, stating, “[W]e urgently need…a Principals level review of the al Qida network.” His request was denied.
Title of a pdf file from this link, “A Comprehensive Strategy to Fight Al-Qaeda”? Vice versus Clinton on January 2001 Clarke Memo
Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 – The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice – the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration’s policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke’s memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke’s request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.
The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, “No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.”
Two days after Rice’s March 22 op-ed, Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, “there’s a lot of debate about whether it’s a plan or a strategy or a series of options — but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn’t really understand why they couldn’t have been done in February.”
The CIA makes priorities based on executive branch initiatives or lack there of. We’ve had this particular accountability moment before and the result is the same. The Bushies and the right-wing echo chamber will deny any and all accountability. Its what they do.
Should you light one up to get past writer’s block ? Is this the end of English literature?
What do the following have in common: Oscar Wilde, Henry James, Joseph Conrad, Virginia Woolf, T S Eliot, W B Yeats, Charles Dickens, William Makepeace Thackeray, Evelyn Waugh, Philip Larkin and Kingsley Amis?
[ ]…I have been racking my brains to find a single non-smoker among the great English poets or novelists of the 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. Possibly, Keats had to lay off the pipe tobacco a bit after he developed tuberculosis.
Otherwise, from Swift and Pope to Cowper and Wordsworth, from Byron to Charles Lamb, they were all smokers.