My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Awards

More People, Who Are Not Scum, As Far As I Know

Search The Empty Bottles


« Bush Still Not Supporting The Troops; Kerry No Longer Around To Take The Blame | Main | Bush Doing Everything Possible For Soldiers, Except, You Know, Some Possible Things »

December 08, 2004

Comments

Jerry

Epaulets, hell. What the f... is with the collar? Didn't they turn it down? or is that the new style a la Star Trek?

But he does have a pretty mouth.

ricky

So much the better to bite you with...

Jerry

Right you are...and so I say, "Bite me, Mr. President!"

ricky

Nice.

That made me laugh.

Roxanne

if I said it once, i've said it a million times. you write the best headlines.

jeremy

"Hmmm…wearing a tan military jacket and fucking epaulets, like some generalissimo dictator in a banana republic, Bush calls on Americans to find some way to help a military family down the street."

I don't think you needed to use the f word when describing epaulets... I can tell that a liberal is quite irritated though. Maybe it feeds into your conspiracy that Bush is a fascist.

"Commissaries and the Defense Department’s stateside schools are in the crosshairs of Pentagon budget cutters, and military advocates, families and even base commanders are up in arms."

I don't see the word Bush in there, do I?

"The two initiatives are the latest in a string of actions by the Bush administration to cut or hold down growth in pay and benefits, including basic pay, combat pay, health-care benefits and the death gratuity paid to survivors of troops who die on active duty."

It seems like liberals would love for the American public to have amnesia.
Last month, Bush signed the defense Act, which increased benefits and pay.
Unlike liberals, conservatives tend to actually cite reliable sources, not left-wing rants from the supposedly unbiased writer for the Times.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123006086

Since liberals think facts are so passé, they go on to either attack their opponents apparel; to them it makes perfect sense. When in doubt, just attack their looks.

Epaulets- of course Presidents aren't suppose to wear them! According to liberals, basically, anything that Bush wears makes him look like a "generalissimo dictator." Since liberals can't come up with a coherent argument they just start chanting inanities such as (indirectly/directly) calling him a "fascist" even though there is no logical argument for their reasoning.

At least when right-wingers rant there is a point.

It would be nice if liberals come up with a logical statement.

ricky

Right. Bush signed the Act a year after he had to back down from the cuts because of a near mutiny by the Pentagon, the American people, and the United States Congress.

I'm so impressed by his concern for our fighting men and women.

Flip flopping after being embarrassed by being caught trying to do something despicable is such an admirable thing...

And you don't see the word Bush in there? Hold on. Put on your glasses, here it comes:

...in a string of actions by the (here it is!)Bush administration(did you see it?) to cut or hold down growth in pay and benefits, including basic pay, combat pay, health-care benefits and the death gratuity paid to survivors of troops who die on active duty.

See it that time?

And you're the one who would like Americans to have amnesia. You'd like them to forget that while Bush was sending American men and women into combat, his administration was trying to cut their pay and benefits.

And, I'm sorry, the Army Times is a unreliable source now for matters regarding the military? It's a left wing rag, too?

My gosh, these fifth columnist lefties are everywhere!

You know what would be really nice? It would be nice if conservatives didn't cry "bias" everytime reported facts didn't comport with their faulty preconceived notions of how the world works.

ricky

Oh, yeah, and I'm sorry, I forgot to mention, let's not forget that Bush, after failing to sneak his despicable cuts through in 2003, didn't propose his increases for military pay--the ones he just signed--until February of 2004.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/politics/main605544.shtml

Which was when?

That's right, Mr. Amnesia! Right after the Democratic primaries! In an election year!

Gosh, what resolve! What character!

In a non-election year, he tried to quietly cut military pay and benefits.

And then, flip flop! In an election year, when John Kerry was hammering Bush about trying to cut military pay and benefits and Kerry was proposing his own increases in pay and benefits, Bush then boldly proposed... increases in military pay and benefits!

Wow, you're right. My liberal facts are just so "irrational"!

You're a clown. Or you're seven years old. Or both.

Roxanne

Hey Ricky.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the link you refer to as the Army Times is actually from the Public Affairs arm of the Pentagon, not the Army Times. And I actually know the dude who wrote it.

Had it been the AT, which is owned by Gannett, it would have been slightly less biased.

Roxanne

Ooops. Now that I've re-read the post, I'm in err. Delete this and the one above so I don't look like an ass.

Ralph

Too late Roxanne, you're exposed to the world looking like an ass - but since it is such a sweet ass, it doesn't really matter ;-)

Roxanne

Well, I thought Ricky was referring to the link Jeremy posted above, which is public affairs produced.

mark

Ricky,
You can unbunch your panties now. If you read the Army Times article closely you will see that it only discusses a STUDY. Were you against the base closing STUDY? How about cancer STUDIES?
Do you really relate studies to actual real life? A lttle reactionary don't you think?

Hey, How come no mention on your blog about the historic inaugural of Afghanistan's first democratically elected president that was made possible by not only our wonderful President but my some of the troops you are sheading crocodile tears over now. Too much good news for you to handle?

Mark

W.....still the PRESIDENT
Bush/Rice08

Ellen

Back to the epaulets...
I noticed them right away and thought of his little trip to the destroyer a few years ago in full military regalia. (Then I turned the page in disgust.)
Rumor has it that M. Jackson lent georgie the jacket and Condi thought it best if he take the loud decorations off the shoulders. The monkey wanted them and threw a shitfit, but then barbara stepped in and put her foot down. (Mikey now gets "special considerations" for the loan.)

Jack

Uh, no, Mark, if you read the article closely, it refers to actually closing commissaries and then conducting a study on closing more. It also refers to a "string" of other actions, including things like this:

The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.

The Pentagon's support for the idea of rolling back "imminent danger pay" by $75 a month and "family separation allowances" for the American forces by $150 a month collapsed after a story in The Chronicle Thursday generated intense criticism from military families, veterans groups and Democratic candidates seeking to unseat President Bush in 2004.

And Ricky's right. The Bush admininstration only flip-flopped after intense public criticism from military families and the Democrats.

pam

See the kid in the back with the digital camera? I want that photo. Will the mysterious line be on W's back again?

Jerry

Fascism! Touched a nerve there, eh? But you're right of course, if this were a fascist government there would be secret courts and citizens could be held incommunicado for months with no charges and no lawyer. They could even be tried in secret and executed. And of course that is not the case here, huh?

If this were a fascist government, we would be seeing corporatism* and, oh, say, the energy companies would be having secret meetings with the administration to set national energy policy. Of course, that's not the case here.

But, yes, when Bush dresses up in one of his "silly suits," (like the designer blue jeans for the "ranch work," the "air warrior" outfit for landing on a carrier to anounce the end of major hostilities in Iraq, or this newest (very Euro-trashy uniforme militaire (complete with his name and rank embroidered so either people will know who he is, or he can find it in the closet at the back of the room when the reading period is over)) he just looks like a little boy playing dress-up...like one of those, yes, generalissimos who have an exclusive one-off outfit for every occassion.

As to the other points, Bush is, as you keep pointing out, the President, head of the Executive, CinC, and all that. Now with a Congress in lock-step. Who the hell do you think is responsible for military pay-cuts, VA hospital closings, sending soldiers of the wealthiest nation on earth to war with inadequate body armor and tincan vehicles? Well, I guess we can forgive the latter, because, except for the intelligence estimates from State, the War College, The Army top brass, and some members of his own cabinet, he had no reason to think that we would be where we are today. And the kids got no right to bitch, anyway, cuz they are in the army they are in, not the one the would like to be in.

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains....This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.
--"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments," by Justin Kruger and David Dunning Department of Psychology Cornell University, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology December 1999

*also corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

Jerry

And, oh, yeah, Jeremy? Can you really sit there and type with a straight face that that AF puff-piece is reliable, unbiased journalism? Really? Well, then hurry, Rush is on!!

Jeremy

At least they are citing factual information.

"*also corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process."

Do you mean unelected activist judges?
The last time I checked, Bush was legally re-elected.

"And Ricky's right. The Bush admininstration only flip-flopped after intense public criticism from military families and the Democrats."

That's right, I forgot, whenever Bush (aka the retarded, dyslexic idiot) does something right, it was from pressure from the Democrats.

Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, emphatically stated, ''This may not be Vietnam, but it sure smells like it. And every time I see those bills coming down for the money, it’s costing like Vietnam too.'' Some democrats didn't want to pass the 87 billion dollars for Iraq, but now they are the champions of military spending!

Jack

That's ridiculous. Not one single Democrat opposed providing the $67 billion dollars in the bill for military spending. The only thing they disagreed on was the other $20 billion of grants for Iraqi reconstruction that Bush inserted into the bill.

Democrats proposed an alternate bill with the $20 billion dollars as loans, which Americans would have gotten back. And Bush opposed that version of the bill and threatened to veto it if it passed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/politics/main580877.shtml

The Bush administration threatened for the first time Tuesday to veto an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress converts any Iraqi rebuilding money into loans.

How many times are you people going to repeat that lie? Or didn't you know the truth?

ricky

I guess facts are passé with him. I guess he can't make a logical argument without making things up.

Jeremy

"Not one single Democrat opposed providing the $67 billion dollars in the bill for military spending."

Kerry voted for the amendment

"To provide funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers."--SAMDT.1796

But against the actual bill:
S. 1689, which came to a vote on October 17, 2003, at 04:49 PM.

Jeremy

"...in a string of actions by the (here it is!)Bush administration(did you see it?) to cut or hold down growth in pay and benefits, including basic pay, combat pay, health-care benefits and the death gratuity paid to survivors of troops who die on active duty."
However, it fails to cite anyone of those "string of actions."

Quotes from

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/politics/main605544.shtml

"Mr. Bush would boost military spending by 7 percent in 2005, but that does not include the money needed to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officials said a supplemental request for these funds will be sent to Congress but not until after the November elections. Congress last year approved $87.5 billion wartime supplemental for the current budget year."

"Scores of government programs outside those two areas will be restrained to an overall increase of just 0.5 percent, below the rise in inflation, and some agencies will suffer outright cuts.

“The proposed military budget, which goes to Congress to decide its fate, rings in at $401.7 billion. According to figures from the nonprofit Center for Defense Information, that will make U.S. military spending greater than the combined total of the next 21 biggest spenders, including Russia, Britain, China and France.”

“Under the president's budget, missile defense efforts would receive almost $10.2 billion in the new budget. That is nearly a $1.2 billion increase over this year, according to budget books provided by the Pentagon.”

“The proposed budget also includes a 3.5 percent raise in base pay for military personnel.”

“The budget also includes money to purchase 11 V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, 8 for the Marine Corps and 3 for the Air Force. The program was plagued by deadly crashes during its development.”

That's right, I forgot, Mr. Bush is Mr. Scrooge when it comes to the military, sorry, I forgot how "logic" works with the left.

"You're a clown. Or you're seven years old. Or both."

When it doubt, just start the name calling. This demonstrates how highly intellectual the left really is.

ricky

Dude, you are retarded. Or maybe you just really do have no idea how the legislative process in your own country works.

Yes, Kerry voted against Bush's bill because he supported the alternate bill, providing the same exact amount of funding for the military, which if it had passed, Bush would have vetoed.

Meaning, yes, Bush would have voted against the 87 billion dollars himself.

Meaning, yes, Kerry supported the 67 billion for the troops.

Nobody--Democrat or Republican opposed providing money for the troops. The troops were always going to get whatever money they needed.

The question was over the 20 billion dollars of reconstruction money.

Kerry voted against giving our taxpayer money away. Bush would have voted against loaning it.

For you to keep pretending Kerry voted against the troops is either willful dishonesty or willful ignorance. Take your pick.

And the article you cite about Bush's proposed military spending is, again, from February of 2004, after the Bush administration had to back down from cutting military pay and benefits, and after the Democratic primaries, where Bush's approval level had dropped to 40%, and after Kerry had already proposed increases.

You're not proving your point, if you even have one. You're proving mine.

And you're the one who showed up on my page and started calling liberals illogical and wrote about them spewing "inanities".

I guess that just shows how highly intellectual the right really is. Not to mention entirely without any understanding of irony.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Essential Reading

February 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28