On September 11, 2001 at 0700 in a breakfast meeting in the pentagon Sec Def argued for almost an hour the need for more people. That does not mean Bush sent a request to Congress to increase the authorized troop strength. As I said, Bush NEVER took action to request the increase in strength he himself said was needed in the 2000 campaign. A meeting with the sec def is not a request to Congress by the President!

I had both the clearance and the detailed knowledge about the nuclear weapons and the disposition of those weapons. That was TOP secret and was the reason I was restricted from assignment to Vietnam.

Gen Schoonover Army CoS; LTG Stultz Chief Army Reserve; LTG Blum Chief National Guard; Gen Conway Marine Corps Commandant.

DoD has admitted that West Point grads are leaving the Army after their Five years of required service. In the past between 10- 30% got out after five years. In 2006 that has jumped to 60%. That is a loss of experience that we can not afford.

DoD has also revealed the total cost to recruiting is in excess of $4 Billion per year. Two more clear indications of the HARM Bush is doing to the Army with his policies!!!

You can't be serious. One of his cabinet officers calls up the the Congressional leadership, invites them over for breakfast and askes for a serious increase in troop strength, without the permission of his boss? This is how it start, because the president does not make a significant request of the Congress without finding out how big a fight he might have. The request was made and turned down. You can get as technical as you wish but requests have been made.



Glad to know the military did not put you in charge of combat troops that would have been scary. All jokes aside. I asked if you were PRP certified? Do you know what that is and means?

I can't find the statements of the people you listed. Care to help me out?



Right, this is important if you forget that it is normal, if you have served in combat most people get out or get promoted to the point that they don't have to fight again. You did not notice your buddies that went to Vietnam were leaving after tasting combat? A few people stay in after killing people, most can understand combat killing but very few want to do it for a living. You on the other hand do not understand this, and think it is normal to stay in the military after killing people or watching people being killed.

Paladon77

On September 11, 2001 at 0700 in a breakfast meeting in the pentagon Sec Def argued for almost an hour the need for more people.

Hey FOOL that meeting according to you was Sept 2001. What action has Bush taken to request an increase in the troop strength? NONE! Has Bush included the added funding for the added troops in the 2002, 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Budgets? HELL NO. Talking about something at a cabinet meeting and sending a request to Congress for legislation are two very different things. Bush has done NOTHING to increase the troop strength during the PAST SIX YEARS!

I agree with you. That is why the meeting was held with Congress not the cabinet. A pitty you did not bother to use reading comprehension.

Paladin 77

SHOW me where Bush sent a legislative request for an increase in the END strength of the Army or Marines. Show me where Bush asked Congress for the added funding for more Army or Marines in his budgets from 2002-2007. YOU will not be able to show me one single such request. Again discussion with the cabinet and some members of Congress is NOT a formal request for more troops. If Bush had said we need more troops for our security and given the fact that the GOP controlled Congress for the past 6 years, do you really want us to believe that the added troops would not have been approved? If that is you position you are in dream land!

Not some members of Congress, the Congressmen responsible for military oversight, the ones that control the troop strenth and the money the military spends. If you dnn't get the ok from them then your request is dead before it starts.

Paladin77

That is BS. Bush NEVER requested an increase in the size of the military. Had he asked for that increase to protect our security, Congress would NEVER have refused any reasonable request to increase the size of the military. The GOP is the BIG National Defense advocate and they were in control of Congress. Again the facts do not fit what you want to believe so you ignore them!

YES we are winning in Iraq:

4 Bombs Kill 160 People in Baghdad
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
April 18, 2007 10:24 AM EDT
BAGHDAD - Four large bombs exploded in mostly Shiite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 160 people and wounding scores as violence climbed toward levels seen before the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital began two months ago.

In the deadliest of the attacks, a parked car bomb detonated in a crowd of workers at the Sadriyah market in central Baghdad, killing at least 112 people and wounding 115, said Raad Muhsin, an official at Al-Kindi Hospital where the victims were taken.

Is your point col Gene, that becaue they have not given up that we should?

If they were in control of the Congress why was it that the Democrats stopped so many bills and programs that the GOP wanted to pass? By the numbers yes they had the majority just like now the democrats have the majority but they can't seem to get anything passed. A simple majority is not enough to get things done unless you have the other side agree. If the democrats would not agree to an increase in troop levels then it won't get done, just like the stupid laws the ignorant democrats want to pass won't make it. It is called gridlock.

Paladin 77

Unless the Senate Filibusters which requires 60 votes to end, a simple majority is all that is needed if the President does not veto the bill. Thus the GOP could have increased the size of the military IF the President had requested that even with the slim GOP majority. The only reason the democrats are unable to pass the funding for the troops with the withdrawal dates is because Bush will veto the bill which requires a 2/3 majority in BOTH houses to override. If we had a democrat in the White House, the bill that passed Congress and is about to come out of conference committee with the required date to begin withdrawal from Iraq would become law. You, as usual, are FULL OF BS!!!!!

Look at the four attacks today that Killed at least 160 in Iraq today. YES we are surely winning this war! This war is lost and all we are doing is killing more of our brave troops by staying!

Our President threatened a veto and you cry. For years Senator Reed threatened a filibuster with every thing proposed that there was a chance of passing. The republicans being spineless never called his bluff instead they just dropped the subject each time the threat was made. It was in the papers each time but just enough coverage to say it was covered not enough to inform and enrage the people at their actions. You are still a political hack.

Paladin77

In places where Bush should have used his Veto on all the PORK the Congress passed when the GOP controlled it he signed EVERY BILL. When he should have used his VETO to stop the 12 Billion gift to BIG OIL he did not. Now he wants to use his veto to stop what the MAJORITY of Americans want as shown by the 2006 election. He also says he will veto the Stem Cell Bill that could help find cures for diseases and is also supported by the majority of both Congress and the American people. Bush is out of touch with the VAST MAJORITY of Americans on just about EVERYTHING! Most of the people on this Blog site support what the MINORITY in America want. That is clear from the postings that are made.

I love the hypocrisy you spout. In one sentence you say he should have vetoed the pork in the bill when the republicans were in the “majority” but now that democrats have the majority he should respect the majority and not veto the pork and the unconstitutional limits on the president’s power that is okay with you. You are a political hack! Which way do you want it or do you just want your party in power? The vast majority as you call it put Mr. Bush in office and you did not respect that majority but now he is supposed to respect the idiots that have a slim majority. Keep in your twisted little mind that Mr. Clinton won with a smaller margin of victory than Mr. Bush both times so don't hand that majority crap to me.