You're characterization is a complete unadulterated joke, Gene. Just like you. Christ, you are demented.

Wow, how does one explain all of the equipment and vehicles I have been hauling to all of those Reserve and National Guard bases? Must be budget over-runs because I have been delivering millions of dollars worth of equipment to these bases. Damn Bush anyway!

This is NOT my characterization. It is the assessment of the HEAD of the National Guard and the Pentagon so far as the active military is concerned. The fact there is NO funding
to replace the equipment is because Bush did not request the money in the defense budget. The money will be massive. The National Guard alone was estimated at $21 Billion. The Army Reserve, Marines and the Army will drive that number into the hundreds of Billions. The equipment will not replace itself! Declaring units are not combat-ready is a VERY serious matter!

Tell me this is not because of Bush. His war destroyed the equipment and he failed to include the money in the budget to replace the equipment!!!!!!!

Yep, I'm sure all of the stuff I've been hauling around the country was budgeted by Clinton.

This has NOTHING to do with Clinton. Nice try. This is 100% Bush. His war destroyed the equipment and his budget request failed to provide the money NEEDED to replace the equipment.

What the Head of the National Guard is saying is that 2/3 of the guard can not be assigned to combat. The designation of non combat-ready is the most serious
declaration that can be made about a military unit. Joke all you want, better pray we do not need our military for any new trouble spot until that equipment is replaced and they are returned to effective fighting status! This is not just a few select units. The equipment issue is for the National Guard, Army Reserve, Marines and the Active Army!

Both Bush and the Congress have failed to act! See the article below:

Posted on Thu, Jun. 29, 20
Congress stiffs Army, Marines on fixing worn-out equipment
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers
The chiefs of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps this week begged Congress not to do what it's done for decades _ force our military to rob Peter to pay Paul, even in wartime.
Army chief Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker and Marine commandant Gen. Michael Hagee are clearly concerned by a budget process on Capitol Hill that, in essence, hangs their services out to dry when it comes to providing the money to fix or replace equipment that's worn out or destroyed by combat.
With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq dragging on for years already and, if we take President Bush at his word, probably for several more years, the Army and Marines are grinding down their vehicles and aircraft at a rate that's approaching $17 billion a year to repair or replace.
But Congress isn't coming up with all the money that's needed in anything like a timely fashion. This year's bill for what the military calls "resetting" the machinery of war includes nearly $5 billion that was carried over from last year because Congress didn't provide sufficient funds.
That's forced the military chiefs to begin dipping into other funds to pay for items that have an immediate impact on our military's readiness and combat capability. Toward the end of each fiscal year, that typically means tapping base maintenance funds, military housing accounts, the travel budget and operations and maintenance budgets.
What this translates to, Gen. Schoomaker told lawmakers, is that when 9/11 came along, Army budget accounts in the preceding decade had been under funded by about $100 billion, and half a million soldiers had been cut out of the Army. It meant that when we invaded Iraq in early 2003, the Army had $56 billion worth of equipment shortages.
Although the need to fix and replace the equipment that's being eaten up in Iraq and Afghanistan is growing more acute, congressional budget masters are already beginning to consider doing away with the supplemental appropriations bills that fund those wars outside the normal defense budget strictures. But money for fixing or replacing the equipment has come from those supplemental budgets.
One influential retired Army general warned this week that the end of the wars we're now fighting doesn't mean an end to funding for equipment eaten up by those wars. In fact, the two service chiefs told Congress that this money would be needed for two or three years after the end of combat operations so our military can be ready for its next mission, or for continuing the global war on terrorism.
Schoomaker told the legislators that he also was worried that any defense funding crunch would begin to eat away at the money that's needed for the Army's ambitious $160 billion Future Combat Systems program. That fear was made very real by the Department of Defense's latest Quadrennial Defense Review, which looks out 20 years and sets priorities for big-ticket items such as weapons systems. Although Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had pledged to cut back or do away with huge and outmoded Cold War programs such as the F-22 fighter and nuclear submarines, he didn't.
The Army and the Marines, who've borne the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, know all too well what that means. They even have an acronym for it: BOHICA, or Bend Over, Here It Comes Again!
M
meanwhile, the harsh environments in which our soldiers and Marines are operating is consuming equipment such as Humvees, helicopters, heavy trucks, Bradley fighting vehicles and M1 Abrams tanks at a rate four times higher than normal. The need to combat improvised roadside bombs by adding heavy armor to the thin-skinned Humvees and the heavy trucks that supply the troops only accelerates the wear and tear.

Yeah. Couldn't be he's angling for more budget money or has any sort of political goals could it?

Look. Actually try to comprehend what I am writing here. My primary business is hauling MILITARY equipment. I know exactly what is being purchased and where it's being distributed. Get that? It's WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. I HAUL MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES.

I have been very busy hauling a shitload of equipment and vehicles to the very people your cited article claims aren't being resupplied. Get it yet? People say and write things because they have some agenda (kinda like you). I have no agenda. I haul stuff for a living and don't give a shit about politics so I have a pretty good idea of what is being moved from point A to point B on a regular basis. The entire claim is biased bullshit whether you're capable of understanding this or not.

I didn't use any words you don't understand did I?

So let me see if I understand:

Units that have taken their equipment into combat now report that their equipment has been destroyed or damaged in combat? And Gene's point is that going into combat uses up military equipment?


I mean, the whole point of having military equipment is to use it, right? And it's not like we have a pressing need for battle-ready National Guard and Reserve troops elsewhere right now. Neither Canada nor Mexico is gearing up for an invasion (immigration issues aside, heh). And any other military adventure besides actual occupation and nation-building would be resolved by air and sea without involving ground troops anyway.

Me? I say it's good for an army to go into battle from time to time. It builds a cadre of veterans who can pass on their first-hand battlefield experience to the next generation of recruits. As a former officer, Gene should certainly understand the benefit of this. And so what if the equipment gets used up. That's what it's for. It's not like the U.S. is even remotely defenseless right now, against any kind of attack, because these units are recovering from battle rather than preparing for it.

Oh, by the way oh illiterate one, it's spelled "military's".

Colonel, even if you do have a valid point in your articles (and every once in a while you do), it's lost in your presentation. Personally, I think you've brought up a valid point, and if you can write an intelligent article, citing reliable sources, or link to a few that do, you might actually get somewhere. Why did you write the article you wrote instead of just supplying a link to the article you ended up wholly copying and pasting in comment #5? In your mission to demonize everything about the President, you draw out reflexive defenses of Bush. Even someone like me who thinks the President is one of the worst this country has ever had, I find myself compelled to jump in on GWB's behalf.

MasonM

You are like a tick on a leaf that by your limited view predicts what the forest looks like.

I trust the TOP generals about the condition of our military equipment not your limited view from trucking what amounts to a drop in the bucket with regard to the total military equipment.

Good point

I sighted several articles that quote the Head of the National Guard and the heads of the military services. What better sources would you like to suggest?

@ Col Coldwar....HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

#10 by COL Gene Thu, August 03, 2006 07:50 AM

And you are a dimwit without any view at all. You simply accept what someone says as long as it agrees with your anti-Bush mentality without ever asking yourself what possible agenda the person may have while ignoring any opposing comments from people who have direct first-hand knowledge that demonstrates the fact that it's flat out wrong.

I am one of literally thousands of truckers who are hauling this equipment full time to the very posts that are being claimed to not be reequipped. This amounts to billions of dollars in equipment and vehicles that are supposedly not being replaced but in fact are being replaced on a daily basis. The plants that build this equipment and vehicles are running 24/7 with extra shifts to get all of this stuff built fast enough to meet the demand. Guess what? Those who are actually invovled in the manufacturing and distribution of the goods and equipment in this country have a far better view of what's going on in this country than some dimwit sitting at a computer screen obsessing over his hatred of a President.

This is just more political bullshit that just happens to fit in with your obsessive mentality.

I sighted several articles that quote the Head of the National Guard and the heads of the military services. What better sources would you like to suggest?

Put html quote tags around the article you are quoting, and supply the link. After you leave a comment in the forums, click on the "edit" function and you can see what the coding looks like. Visit a web site that teaches html coding. And be cool and rational when you present your case. You are as annoyingly repetative when it comes to Jorge Bush as the HeadOn commercial I wrote about.

Look at # 5. You do not need a link I gave you the article.

The rate at which equipment was used was 10 times the normal rate due to the adverse conditions in Iraq. The Heat and sand destroys equipment which is why the 3.5 year use in this environment has destroyed almost ALL the equipment of our ground forces.

This is the National Guard Article:

Army Guard 'in dire situation'
General: More than two-thirds not combat ready

Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Posted: 8:43 p.m. EDT (00:43 GMT)

story.guard.gi.jpg
More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's brigades are not ready for war, according to Lt. Gen. Blum

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready, mostly because of equipment shortages that will cost up to $21 billion to correct, the top National Guard general said Tuesday.

Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum spoke to a group defense reporters after Army officials, analysts and members of Congress disclosed that two-thirds of the active Army's brigades are not ready for war.

The budget won't allow the military to complete the personnel training and equipment repairs and replacement that must be done when units return home after deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, they say.

"I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just have a higher fever," Blum said.

One Army official acknowledged Tuesday that while all the active Army units serving in the war zone are "100 percent" ready, the situation is not the same for those at home.

"In the continental United States, there are plenty of units that are rated at significantly less than a C-1 rating," said Lt. Col. Carl S. Ey. "Backlogs at the depots, budget issues and the timeliness of receiving funds to conduct training are all critical to the Army's ability keep their force trained, ready and at the highest readiness level possible."
Readiness score based on four factors

Once a taboo subject for the military, often buried deep in classified documents, readiness levels -- generally ranked from C-1 (the best) to C-4 (the worst) are now being used as weapons themselves to force money out of Congress and the administration.

And while Army officials still won't specify how many units are at which levels, they are being more open about the overall declining state of readiness.

A key element of the problem is that Army units returning from the war have either left tanks, trucks or other equipment behind or are bringing them home damaged. Once back, many soldiers either leave the Army or move to other posts, forcing leaders to train others to replace them. As a result, the unit's ratings drop, said Ey, an Army spokesman.

Last week several House Democrats said publicly that two-thirds of the Army brigades are rated not ready for combat, and Army officials have not disputed that figure. On Tuesday, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Connecticut, also declined to be specific, but said the Army is "very much worse off" that it was in late 1999 when the military said two of the 10 Army divisions were ranked at the lowest readiness level, C-4. At the time, two divisions equaled six brigades.

The issue gained political momentum when then-candidate George Bush, during his nominating convention, said the Clinton administration allowed the U.S. military might to erode. Now, as the 2006 elections approach, Democrats are saying the Bush administration is shortchanging the military.

The Senate late Tuesday agreed to an amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, to add $7.8 billion for the Army and $5.3 billion for the Marine Corps to the defense spending bill for 2007. The added funding would bring the bill to a total of $467 billion, including $63.1 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Stevens said the new $13.1 billion is for equipment repair and replacement, and to meet the requirements for continued combat operations, primarily in Iraq. The Senate planned to continue debate on the bill Wednesday.

Stevens said earlier that lawmakers were talking with the Pentagon "to see if they really need that money." Congress members, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, discussed the issue at a breakfast meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the Pentagon late last week.

In addition to the National Guard's needs, the Army has said it needs $17 billion this year to meet its equipment and combat needs. Dodd said Tuesday he wants to see the Army's full request met, and he plans to offer an amendment to do that later this week.

The Army's readiness score is based on four factors: whether a unit has all the equipment needed; whether the equipment is working; whether it has the number and types of personnel needed; and whether they are properly trained.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Now you idiots tell me how my Blog is not correct!