Bush, on Rumsfeld

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:50:43
From: annika1980
Subject: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
experienced armed forces in the history of the world."

Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
your head.

Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
one you want?"

THAT Rumsfeld?

Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:05:00
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166474361.958428.43780@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > this discussion was not about anything military. it was about the
> > congressional approps. process.
> >
>
> You just told us how the military disburses the funding it receives. Did
> you forget already?

Yes, actually, I have no recollection of that at all.

You started out complaining that it was all Rumsfields
> fault for not buying enough flack jackets. You wanted him to go to jail
> remember?

No, I said I wanted him to hang alongside Saddam Hussein.
>
> What a nut job.

I'm flattered that you consider me only a nut job and not a cretin.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:39:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166295245.590829.319080@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I spent 17 years working on Capitol Hill and I understand the approps.
> > process better than you or anybody in this group does or ever will.
> >
>
> You said you didn't claim to be an expert, yet here you go again. Your
> expertise does not extend to anything military. You are the left side of
> larry.

this discussion was not about anything military. it was about the
congressional approps. process.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:56:10
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166474361.958428.43780@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> this discussion was not about anything military. it was about the
> congressional approps. process.
>

You just told us how the military disburses the funding it receives. Did
you forget already? You started out complaining that it was all Rumsfields
fault for not buying enough flack jackets. You wanted him to go to jail
remember?

What a nut job.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 17:06:41
From:
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Head Shot wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Miss Anne Thrope wrote:
> >> We oil the jaws of the war machine, and feed it with our babies.
> >
> > So do you think anything is worth fighting for?
>
> America. But Iraq was not planning to invade us. They had no navy, no
> air force, and an already decimated army. They were less of a threat to
> USA than killer bees from Guatemala.

I doubt that the War on Terror is targeted at forces who are set to
invade the USA.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:06:27
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> Miss Anne Thrope wrote:
>>>> We oil the jaws of the war machine, and feed it with our babies.
>>>
>>> So do you think anything is worth fighting for?
>>
>> America. But Iraq was not planning to invade us. They had no
>> navy, no air force, and an already decimated army. They were
>> less of a threat to USA than killer bees from Guatemala.
>
> I doubt that the War on Terror is targeted at forces who are set to
> invade the USA.

War on Terror is an ambiguous term that Blowhound Bushtard is using to
invade anyone he wants, whenever he wants. I believe he may try and annex
France next; as they have WMD's and a rogue Disney.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 16:00:26
From:
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Miss Anne Thrope wrote:
> We oil the jaws of the war machine, and feed it with our babies.

So do you think anything is worth fighting for?

Date: 17 Dec 2006 19:42:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Miss Anne Thrope wrote:
>> We oil the jaws of the war machine, and feed it with our babies.
>
> So do you think anything is worth fighting for?

America. But Iraq was not planning to invade us. They had no navy, no
air force, and an already decimated army. They were less of a threat to
USA than killer bees from Guatemala.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 10:16:35
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

We oil the jaws of the war machine, and feed it with our babies.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 06:21:52
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Jack Hollis wrote:
> >> On 16 Dec 2006 10:54:05 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Are you sure you worked for the American government John?
> >>
> >>> The committees don't "have to" eark the approps.
> >>> bills.
> >> LOL, it doesn' have to, but it always does.
> >>
> >> "The annual Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (defense
> >> appropriations bill) is, by far, the single largest spending measure
> >> that Congress passes each year. The fiscal year (FY) 2005 version
> >> weighed in heavier than most at $391 billion. In such a large bill,
> >> Congress has plenty of opportunities to hide the pet projects coveted
> >> by individual lawmakers. This year's bill includes 2,671 parochial and
> >> politically motivated earks worth $12.2 billion, both record highs.
> >> These projects were not requested by the President, but were instead
> >> inserted at the request of individual legislators while the bill was
> >> in subcommittee, committee, or conference committee."
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >> And if you think that these earks don't slow down the budget
> >> process, you're crazy.
> >>
> >>> And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
> >>> defense.
> >> "The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism
> >> research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
> >> earked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't
> >> request. There is a $1 million eark for the eradication of brown
> >> tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they
> >> will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
> >> Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality
> >> spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for
> >> vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon
> >> trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska."
> >>
> >
> > What I meant was that DoD doesn't share an approps. bill with any other
> > agency, unlike the State Dept., which shares its bill w/Commerce and
> > Justice. Most federal agencies have this misfortune. But DoD doesn't
> > have to compete with other agencies for funding from the same pool of
> > money.
> >
> > But none of this has anything to do with the fact that US soldiers were
> > sent into combat lacking basic equipment they needed, and as a result
> > some have been killed who otherwise probably wouldn't have. You will
> > have a very difficult time demonstrating that this is because of the
> > slowness of the appropriations process or a consequence of earks.
> > Nobody made that argument when this was being covered in the press --
> > not even Rumsfeld.
> >
>
> There is always new technology around the corner. Do you drive a car if
> yes, why? There are newer and better safety features coming out next
> year. Shouldn't you stop driving until you have a car that has those new
> safety features?

You tried this tack with your golf club analogy and this is equally
inane. If I thought that driving the car I have was putting my life in
jeopardy, then yes I'd stop driving it.
>
> You are soon to acquire the moniker of Chicken Little.

I don't give a flying fuck what moniker you come up with for me.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 19:07:01
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>> On 16 Dec 2006 10:54:05 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure you worked for the American government John?
>>>>
>>>>> The committees don't "have to" eark the approps.
>>>>> bills.
>>>> LOL, it doesn' have to, but it always does.
>>>>
>>>> "The annual Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (defense
>>>> appropriations bill) is, by far, the single largest spending measure
>>>> that Congress passes each year. The fiscal year (FY) 2005 version
>>>> weighed in heavier than most at $391 billion. In such a large bill,
>>>> Congress has plenty of opportunities to hide the pet projects coveted
>>>> by individual lawmakers. This year's bill includes 2,671 parochial and
>>>> politically motivated earks worth $12.2 billion, both record highs.
>>>> These projects were not requested by the President, but were instead
>>>> inserted at the request of individual legislators while the bill was
>>>> in subcommittee, committee, or conference committee."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And if you think that these earks don't slow down the budget
>>>> process, you're crazy.
>>>>
>>>>> And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
>>>>> defense.
>>>> "The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism
>>>> research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
>>>> earked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't
>>>> request. There is a $1 million eark for the eradication of brown
>>>> tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they
>>>> will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
>>>> Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality
>>>> spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for
>>>> vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon
>>>> trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska."
>>>>
>>> What I meant was that DoD doesn't share an approps. bill with any other
>>> agency, unlike the State Dept., which shares its bill w/Commerce and
>>> Justice. Most federal agencies have this misfortune. But DoD doesn't
>>> have to compete with other agencies for funding from the same pool of
>>> money.
>>>
>>> But none of this has anything to do with the fact that US soldiers were
>>> sent into combat lacking basic equipment they needed, and as a result
>>> some have been killed who otherwise probably wouldn't have. You will
>>> have a very difficult time demonstrating that this is because of the
>>> slowness of the appropriations process or a consequence of earks.
>>> Nobody made that argument when this was being covered in the press --
>>> not even Rumsfeld.
>>>
>> There is always new technology around the corner. Do you drive a car if
>> yes, why? There are newer and better safety features coming out next
>> year. Shouldn't you stop driving until you have a car that has those new
>> safety features?

It proves the point that when you make a decision to go, you go with
what you have and not with what you want.

> You tried this tack with your golf club analogy and this is equally
> inane. If I thought that driving the car I have was putting my life in
> jeopardy, then yes I'd stop driving it.
>> You are soon to acquire the moniker of Chicken Little.
>
> I don't give a flying fuck what moniker you come up with for me.
>

Excellent, we need more people like you around here.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 19:21:05
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:qvadnUZhW_w4RhjYnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com...
> John B. wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> John B. wrote:
>>>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>>> On 16 Dec 2006 10:54:05 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure you worked for the American government John?
>>>>>
>>>>>> The committees don't "have to" eark the approps.
>>>>>> bills.
>>>>> LOL, it doesn' have to, but it always does.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The annual Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (defense
>>>>> appropriations bill) is, by far, the single largest spending measure
>>>>> that Congress passes each year. The fiscal year (FY) 2005 version
>>>>> weighed in heavier than most at $391 billion. In such a large bill,
>>>>> Congress has plenty of opportunities to hide the pet projects coveted
>>>>> by individual lawmakers. This year's bill includes 2,671 parochial and
>>>>> politically motivated earks worth $12.2 billion, both record highs.
>>>>> These projects were not requested by the President, but were instead
>>>>> inserted at the request of individual legislators while the bill was
>>>>> in subcommittee, committee, or conference committee."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And if you think that these earks don't slow down the budget
>>>>> process, you're crazy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
>>>>>> defense.
>>>>> "The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism
>>>>> research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
>>>>> earked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't
>>>>> request. There is a $1 million eark for the eradication of brown
>>>>> tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they
>>>>> will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
>>>>> Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality
>>>>> spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for
>>>>> vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon
>>>>> trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska."
>>>>>
>>>> What I meant was that DoD doesn't share an approps. bill with any other
>>>> agency, unlike the State Dept., which shares its bill w/Commerce and
>>>> Justice. Most federal agencies have this misfortune. But DoD doesn't
>>>> have to compete with other agencies for funding from the same pool of
>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> But none of this has anything to do with the fact that US soldiers were
>>>> sent into combat lacking basic equipment they needed, and as a result
>>>> some have been killed who otherwise probably wouldn't have. You will
>>>> have a very difficult time demonstrating that this is because of the
>>>> slowness of the appropriations process or a consequence of earks.
>>>> Nobody made that argument when this was being covered in the press --
>>>> not even Rumsfeld.
>>>>
>>> There is always new technology around the corner. Do you drive a car if
>>> yes, why? There are newer and better safety features coming out next
>>> year. Shouldn't you stop driving until you have a car that has those new
>>> safety features?
>
> It proves the point that when you make a decision to go, you go with what
> you have and not with what you want.
>

Jack doesn't seem to want to answer -- so I'll ask you --- do you think
Rumsfeld used the army he had in any kind of effective way?

>> You tried this tack with your golf club analogy and this is equally
>> inane. If I thought that driving the car I have was putting my life in
>> jeopardy, then yes I'd stop driving it.
>>> You are soon to acquire the moniker of Chicken Little.
>>
>> I don't give a flying fuck what moniker you come up with for me.
>>
>
> Excellent, we need more people like you around here.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:57:24
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 17 Dec 2006 06:21:52 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>You tried this tack with your golf club analogy and this is equally
>inane. If I thought that driving the car I have was putting my life in
>jeopardy, then yes I'd stop driving it.

You're always putting your life in jeopardy when you drive. Do you
have Electronic Stability Control in your car? If not, you should
stop driving your car immediately and buy a car with one before you
drive again.

It is estimated that if every car in the US had ESC, it would save up
to 3,000 lives a year, which is almost three times the number of lives
saved by airbags.

Now, knowing this, you would imagine that the government would
immediately pass a law that all cars sold in the US will have ESC. In
fact they did that but the first year that this takes effect is 2010.
This is because the manufacturers that make the ESCs don't have the
capabilities to suddenly triple production and the car companies have
to redesign their lower end models to include ESCs.

This is no different than what the military faces when they want to
buy new and better equipment. Things take time.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 17:30:21
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2006 10:54:05 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you sure you worked for the American government John?
>
> >The committees don't "have to" eark the approps.
> >bills.
>
> LOL, it doesn' have to, but it always does.
>
> "The annual Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (defense
> appropriations bill) is, by far, the single largest spending measure
> that Congress passes each year. The fiscal year (FY) 2005 version
> weighed in heavier than most at $391 billion. In such a large bill,
> Congress has plenty of opportunities to hide the pet projects coveted
> by individual lawmakers. This year's bill includes 2,671 parochial and
> politically motivated earks worth $12.2 billion, both record highs.
> These projects were not requested by the President, but were instead
> inserted at the request of individual legislators while the bill was
> in subcommittee, committee, or conference committee."
>

>
> And if you think that these earks don't slow down the budget
> process, you're crazy.
>
> >And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
> >defense.
>
> "The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism
> research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
> earked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't
> request. There is a $1 million eark for the eradication of brown
> tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they
> will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
> Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality
> spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for
> vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon
> trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska."
>

What I meant was that DoD doesn't share an approps. bill with any other
agency, unlike the State Dept., which shares its bill w/Commerce and
Justice. Most federal agencies have this misfortune. But DoD doesn't
have to compete with other agencies for funding from the same pool of
money.

But none of this has anything to do with the fact that US soldiers were
sent into combat lacking basic equipment they needed, and as a result
some have been killed who otherwise probably wouldn't have. You will
have a very difficult time demonstrating that this is because of the
slowness of the appropriations process or a consequence of earks.
Nobody made that argument when this was being covered in the press --
not even Rumsfeld.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:39:45
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 16 Dec 2006 17:30:21 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>But none of this has anything to do with the fact that US soldiers were
>sent into combat lacking basic equipment they needed, and as a result
>some have been killed who otherwise probably wouldn't have.

They were sent into combat with the equipment that they had. When
better equipment was funded for and procured, they got it.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:37:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 16 Dec 2006 17:30:21 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>> >And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
>> >defense.
>>
>> "The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism
>> research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
>> earked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't
>> request. There is a $1 million eark for the eradication of brown
>> tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they
>> will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
>> Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality
>> spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for
>> vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon
>> trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska."
>>
>
>What I meant was that DoD doesn't share an approps. bill with any other
>agency, unlike the State Dept., which shares its bill w/Commerce and
>Justice. Most federal agencies have this misfortune. But DoD doesn't
>have to compete with other agencies for funding from the same pool of
>money.

This is known as implausible denial. Obviously, there are lots of
things in the defense bill unrelated to defense. And earks slow
down any bill.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 17:46:05
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:uq6bo2p6hvcq3nujjtthc6me2nochpv6fu@4ax.com...
> On 16 Dec 2006 17:30:21 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
>>> >defense.
>>>
>>> "The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism
>>> research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
>>> earked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't
>>> request. There is a $1 million eark for the eradication of brown
>>> tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they
>>> will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
>>> Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality
>>> spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for
>>> vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon
>>> trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska."
>>>
>>
>>What I meant was that DoD doesn't share an approps. bill with any other
>>agency, unlike the State Dept., which shares its bill w/Commerce and
>>Justice. Most federal agencies have this misfortune. But DoD doesn't
>>have to compete with other agencies for funding from the same pool of
>>money.
>
> This is known as implausible denial. Obviously, there are lots of
> things in the defense bill unrelated to defense. And earks slow
> down any bill.

How do earks slow down a bill? Aren't almost all of them placed in a bill
at the vary last moment so no one has time to read them?

Please explain.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 23:05:01
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:22:30 -0500, Head Shot wrote:
> Carbon wrote:

>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an illegitimate
>> fraud.
>
> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war crimes.

As the disaster deepens over the next couple of years there probably will
be some sort of movement against Bush. But it would be better to round up
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the other architects of the failure in
Iraq. Bush is just the guy who tries to read the teleprompter.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:44:57
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:06:48 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>There is always new technology around the corner. Do you drive a car if
>yes, why? There are newer and better safety features coming out next
>year. Shouldn't you stop driving until you have a car that has those new
>safety features?
>
>You are soon to acquire the moniker of Chicken Little.

This is exactly the point. By the time the military gets anything,
there's always something better in the pipeline. John expects that
this stuff just magically appears on the battlefield overnight. I was
reading an article on the newest and best armored vehicle available.
The company that makes them has a production capability of two a week.
This criticism that the troops are not properly equipped is pure
pettiness.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 23:45:27
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

In article <1166226643.352149.185520@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>
> "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
> America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
> experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
>
> Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
> your head.
>
> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
> for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
> one you want?"
>
> THAT Rumsfeld?

The only reason Rummy doesn't appear to be the dumbest ass in that bunch is because Bush is still there.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 10:54:05
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2006 05:52:36 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That is a very weak analogy. With a $400 billion budget, DoD can afford
> >to buy the best driver in the world and buy it right now.
>
>
> John, you have very little understanding of exactly how the
> appropriations process works. It starts in Congress. Congress
> doesn't give the DoD money to spend anyway they want. A lot of the
> delay in getting things done starts in Congress. There are committees
> to be gotten through then they have to put earks on the bills (that
> have nothing to do with the military) which can delay the process even
> more.

I spent 17 years working on Capitol Hill and I understand the approps.
process better than you or anybody in this group does or ever will.

The Armed Services commitees and the approps. committees do not
micromanage the defense budget to the extent that the Pentagon has to
go begging for inexpensive items such as body armor and bullet-proof
glass for the Humvees. Many GIs have been killed in Iraq for lack of
these basic things. The committees don't "have to" eark the approps.
bills. And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
defense. Congress posed no obstacle whatsoever to DoD getting the body
armor and other protective gear it needed.

>
> You also don't understand that manufactured items don't simply pop up
> out of nowhere. Once something is approved, the DoD has to contract
> with someone to procure the items. Hundreds of thousands of items
> don't just appear overnight, especially if those items are things like
> the latest design armored personnel carriers, or high tech ceramic
> body armor.

>
> A few years ago, I got a call from a company that makes ceramic body
> armor that was awarded a DoD contract. Their production capability at
> the time was around 75 units a day. They were in the process of
> hiring new workers to run the production lines 24/7 but this would
> only bring the daily production to 225. However, they had to find and
> train these workers, so it would take time to get to this level. Even
> so, this still only brought the production level to around 1,500 units
> a week. They were planning to add another production line which would
> double production but this would also take time. Production lines
> also don't pop up over night. You have to buy equipment and install
> it. Then you need to hire and train people to run the lines. When
> you add all this in, it will take well over a year to produce all the
> items needed.

The administration spent a year or more gearing up for this war. They
had plenty of time to think about what they would need and get it. To
send soldiers unprotected into combat is no more excusable than sending
them without ammo for their M-16s.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 13:48:52
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166295245.590829.319080@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I spent 17 years working on Capitol Hill and I understand the approps.
> process better than you or anybody in this group does or ever will.
>

You said you didn't claim to be an expert, yet here you go again. Your
expertise does not extend to anything military. You are the left side of
larry.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:46:29
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166295245.590829.319080@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2006 05:52:36 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That is a very weak analogy. With a $400 billion budget, DoD can afford
>> >to buy the best driver in the world and buy it right now.
>>
>>
>> John, you have very little understanding of exactly how the
>> appropriations process works. It starts in Congress. Congress
>> doesn't give the DoD money to spend anyway they want. A lot of the
>> delay in getting things done starts in Congress. There are committees
>> to be gotten through then they have to put earks on the bills (that
>> have nothing to do with the military) which can delay the process even
>> more.
>
> I spent 17 years working on Capitol Hill and I understand the approps.
> process better than you or anybody in this group does or ever will.
>
> The Armed Services commitees and the approps. committees do not
> micromanage the defense budget to the extent that the Pentagon has to
> go begging for inexpensive items such as body armor and bullet-proof
> glass for the Humvees. Many GIs have been killed in Iraq for lack of
> these basic things. The committees don't "have to" eark the approps.
> bills. And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
> defense. Congress posed no obstacle whatsoever to DoD getting the body
> armor and other protective gear it needed.
>
>
>>
>> You also don't understand that manufactured items don't simply pop up
>> out of nowhere. Once something is approved, the DoD has to contract
>> with someone to procure the items. Hundreds of thousands of items
>> don't just appear overnight, especially if those items are things like
>> the latest design armored personnel carriers, or high tech ceramic
>> body armor.
>
>>
>> A few years ago, I got a call from a company that makes ceramic body
>> armor that was awarded a DoD contract. Their production capability at
>> the time was around 75 units a day. They were in the process of
>> hiring new workers to run the production lines 24/7 but this would
>> only bring the daily production to 225. However, they had to find and
>> train these workers, so it would take time to get to this level. Even
>> so, this still only brought the production level to around 1,500 units
>> a week. They were planning to add another production line which would
>> double production but this would also take time. Production lines
>> also don't pop up over night. You have to buy equipment and install
>> it. Then you need to hire and train people to run the lines. When
>> you add all this in, it will take well over a year to produce all the
>> items needed.
>
> The administration spent a year or more gearing up for this war. They
> had plenty of time to think about what they would need and get it. To
> send soldiers unprotected into combat is no more excusable than sending
> them without ammo for their M-16s.
>

I'm reminded of the beginning of the airwar in Viet Nam, when our pilots and
crews in fighter bombers went into the SAM rich environment of the North.
Their aircraft were lacking in equipment to detect the electronic emissions
from SAMs and radar directed AAA that indicated that they were being tracked
and locked on. The crews did some innovative things such as using Radar
Detectors, the type used in their stateside cars to avoid speeding tickets.
They were mounted with tape and velcro and served the purpose.

It's what happens in wartime.

Mike

Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:01:51
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 16 Dec 2006 10:54:05 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

Are you sure you worked for the American government John?

>The committees don't "have to" eark the approps.
>bills.

LOL, it doesn' have to, but it always does.

"The annual Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (defense
appropriations bill) is, by far, the single largest spending measure
that Congress passes each year. The fiscal year (FY) 2005 version
weighed in heavier than most at $391 billion. In such a large bill,
Congress has plenty of opportunities to hide the pet projects coveted
by individual lawmakers. This year's bill includes 2,671 parochial and
politically motivated earks worth $12.2 billion, both record highs.
These projects were not requested by the President, but were instead
inserted at the request of individual legislators while the bill was
in subcommittee, committee, or conference committee."

And if you think that these earks don't slow down the budget
process, you're crazy.

>And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
>defense.

"The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism
research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
earked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't
request. There is a $1 million eark for the eradication of brown
tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they
will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality
spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for
vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon
trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska."

http://www.taxpayer.net/budget/fy05defense/

Date: 16 Dec 2006 14:08:24
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

John B. wrote:
> The administration spent a year or more gearing up for this war. They
> had plenty of time to think about what they would need and get it. To
> send soldiers unprotected into combat is no more excusable than
> sending them without ammo for their M-16s.

Dubya "the buck stops at my coke dealer" Bushtard is a complete fuckup not
only as a President, but as a human being. He should be tried in the
Hague for War Crimes; and should be tried in USA courts for gross
negligence in the deaths of 3,000+ troops.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 08:56:10
From: chatnoir
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> > > Bert Robbins wrote:
> > >> annika1980 wrote:
> > >>> "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
> > >>> America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
> > >>> experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
> > >>>
> > >>> Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
> > >>> your head.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
> > >>> for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
> > >>> one you want?"
> > >>>
> > >>> THAT Rumsfeld?
> > >>>
> > >> It is a true statement in more than just war.
> > >
> > > So, before Rumsfeld came along, what country had better-equipped,
> > > better-trained and more experienced armed forces than the US?
> > >
> >
> > When you make a decision to take action you tack action now. You don't
> > wait unitl the sky is purple. And, when you go to war you go with the
> > army you have, not the army you want. If you sat around waiting for the
> > army you wanted to go to war with you would never go to war.
>
> That's all very glib and clever, but it doesn't address the question
> that I asked. Moreover, there is no excuse for the best-equipped army
> in the history of the world to send soldiers into combat without the
> most basic equipment they need for self-protection. That is criminal
> and Donald Rumsfeld ought to hang alongside Saddam Hussein for it. That
> "army you've got" line is a load of horseshit.

They can't even provide Silly string to the troops!"

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/index.php?ntid=111079&ntpid=1

avid McCune: Silly String from Halliburton?
A letter to the editor
Dear Editor: I could not help but smile when I spotted the news service
article in the paper about the inventiveness of the people on the
ground who came up with such a simple method for dealing with such a
grim reality in Iraq: using Silly String to detect explosives' trip
wires.

It is more than unfortunate the people on the ground and we poor
citizens do not have leadership nearly so inventive at cleaning up the
messy big picture. Especially Occupant.

I wonder how long it will be before Congress passes some bill
authorizing Halliburton or some other defense contractor to provide
military grade Silly String at $649.95 a can.

David McCune
shall

http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2006/12/13/news/local_news/1019839.txt

pdated: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:22 AM CST
Silly String, used by some soldiers to detect trip wires, can't be
mailed to Iraq
By SHEILA SMITH - H&R Staff Writer
DECATUR - Something simple and silly turned into a big deal for Decatur
Postmaster Richard Glass.

Glass received a notice Tuesday afternoon from the Aviation Mail
Security's headquarters in Washington, D.C., saying any package
containing Silly String could not be shipped overseas to soldiers.

Based on the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements, Silly String is an airsole, nonflammable gas and
considered a class 2 hazard, Glass said.

Packages of Silly String are prohibited by air or trucks to
international military bases.

"People have to fill out a customs declaration form on anything sent
international," Glass said. "That is why we ask at the window if the
package is fragile or hazardous. We also are allowed to open any
package for inspection."

The novel way to help troops in Iraq came about when a New Jersey mom,
celle Shriver, said her son in the ines asked her to send him
some Silly String. She collected 1,600 cans during her campaign that
started a month ago.

Before entering buildings or rooms, soldiers can spray the silly goo
into the air and watch to see if it hangs in the air after getting
caught on a trip wire.

Because of postal regulations, a private pilot heard about Shriver's
cause and agreed to fly boxes of Silly String to Kuwait.

"We don't have a pilot," said Betty Gaumer with the Operation Enduring
Support in Decatur, but it will be brought up at the group's meeting
next week on if and how to send Silly String over to Iraq.

"We will talk about it, but I heard from a soldier who just returned
from Baghdad that they really don't have time to use it," she said.

Glass said Monday of next week will be the busiest mailing day during
the holiday season. He said people need to be more aware of what types
of items they can ship overseas and try to avoid adding to the
frustration of already long lines.

"People might think it's a good idea, but you just can't send anything
like this," he said.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 14:46:57
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 16 Dec 2006 08:56:10 -0800, "chatnoir" <wolfbat359a@mindspring.com >
wrote:

>I wonder how long it will be before Congress passes some bill
>authorizing Halliburton or some other defense contractor to provide
>military grade Silly String at $649.95 a can.
>
>David McCune
>shall

The way the military (and the rest of the federal government) buys
things is absurd. If they want shampoo, they have to hire someone to
decide exactly what ingredients the shampoo must have and then they
award the contract to a manufacturer who has to develop a production
line to produce the federal designed shampoo. In the end the shampoo
cost 400% or more than if they just bought a commercial brand. This
goes on and on with just about everything they buy. BTW, this is not
the military's fault, it's the system designed by Congress.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 05:52:36
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>> annika1980 wrote:
> >>>>> "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
> >>>>> America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
> >>>>> experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
> >>>>> your head.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
> >>>>> for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
> >>>>> one you want?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> THAT Rumsfeld?
> >>>>>
> >>>> It is a true statement in more than just war.
> >>> So, before Rumsfeld came along, what country had better-equipped,
> >>> better-trained and more experienced armed forces than the US?
> >>>
> >> When you make a decision to take action you tack action now. You don't
> >> wait unitl the sky is purple. And, when you go to war you go with the
> >> army you have, not the army you want. If you sat around waiting for the
> >> army you wanted to go to war with you would never go to war.
> >
> > That's all very glib and clever, but it doesn't address the question
> > that I asked. Moreover, there is no excuse for the best-equipped army
> > in the history of the world to send soldiers into combat without the
> > most basic equipment they need for self-protection. That is criminal
> > and Donald Rumsfeld ought to hang alongside Saddam Hussein for it. That
> > "army you've got" line is a load of horseshit.
> >
>
> It's not horse shit, it is just something for you to use as a point to
> try and crucify Rumsfeld.
>
> If you are saving up your money to buy a new driver do you stop playing
> golf or do you continue to play using the driver you have and not the
> driver you want?

That is a very weak analogy. With a $400 billion budget, DoD can afford
to buy the best driver in the world and buy it right now. It doesn't
have to save for it. What we're talking about is not a world-class
driver. We're talking about a $2.00 bag of tees.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:59:25
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Jack Hollis wrote:
> >> On 17 Dec 2006 17:34:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> How many wars do you know of where the invader knew it was going to
> >>> invade a year and a half beforehand and still sent its its soldiers
> >>> into combat underequipped when it had the money and the wherewithal to
> >>> do it right?
> >> This is nonsense. The soldiers went in with the best equipment they
> >> had at the time. Do you think that there was better equipment sitting
> >> around somewhere that they didn't send?
> >
> > No, I think they should have had the equipment on hand or procured it
> > prior to the invasion. I guess you're going to tell me that was
> > impossible because of earks in the Defense Approps. bill.
> >
>
> You proclaim vast knowledge about the appropriation process which might
> be true. However, you don't know a damn thing about R&D and acquisition.
>
> If it ain't on the shelf in the supply shack then it ain't going on the
> truck.

I didn't proclaim "vast knowledge" of it, only that I knew more about
it than some others here, which ain't saying much. You are pretty close
to right about my knowledge of R&D and acquisition. But I hold to my
opinion - and it's only that - that GIs should not have been sent into
combat without armor. If DoD didn't have it, it should have.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:36:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2006 10:49:07 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Why don't you jst admit you don't know what you're talking about. It
> >wouldn't speak poorly of you.
>
> This is coming from someone who says that there's nothing in defense
> bills other than defense spending. You obviously don't know what
> you're talking about.

Is that all you've got? I told you what I meant by that and you've
chosen to ignore it.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:40:59
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2006 17:34:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >How many wars do you know of where the invader knew it was going to
> >invade a year and a half beforehand and still sent its its soldiers
> >into combat underequipped when it had the money and the wherewithal to
> >do it right?
>
> This is nonsense. The soldiers went in with the best equipment they
> had at the time. Do you think that there was better equipment sitting
> around somewhere that they didn't send?

No, I think they should have had the equipment on hand or procured it
prior to the invasion. I guess you're going to tell me that was
impossible because of earks in the Defense Approps. bill.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:38:28
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Date: 18 Dec 2006 13:55:02
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166467108.484462.46650@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> No, I think they should have had the equipment on hand or procured it
> prior to the invasion. I guess you're going to tell me that was
> impossible because of earks in the Defense Approps. bill.
>
You mean during the Clinton years?

Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:36:31
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:03:22
From: multi
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 18 Dec 2006 10:36:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2006 17:34:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >How many wars do you know of where the invader knew it was going to
>> >invade a year and a half beforehand and still sent its its soldiers
>> >into combat underequipped when it had the money and the wherewithal to
>> >do it right?
>>
>> This is nonsense. The soldiers went in with the best equipment they
>> had at the time. Do you think that there was better equipment sitting
>> around somewhere that they didn't send?
>
>No, I think they should have had the equipment on hand or procured it
>prior to the invasion. I guess you're going to tell me that was
>impossible because of earks in the Defense Approps. bill.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/11354595.htm
published 4/10/2005:
"The decline of steel and other heavy U.S. industry was not the main
obstacle. For example: Most steel for the armor comes from the ISG
steel firm's plant in Conshohocken. But ISG says it rarely got enough
armor orders to run at full capacity. "Over the course of the last
year we could have made a lot more," said Gary P. Sarpen, the plant
manager.

The Army's own depots took a similar stop-and-start approach, making
armor kits full tilt at times but then stopping as they waited weeks
or months for new orders. "I don't think any of them was ever
producing at their maximum capacity consistently," says Kern.

The military did not expect a fight after Baghdad fell, and, even as
the sneak attacks grew in frequency and ferocity, the Army expected
the insurgency to fizzle and the troops to start coming home. That
meant the Army was slower to put in orders for more armored vehicles,
and industry, in turn, was slower to add capacity.

The Army still hasn't fully shielded its cargo trucks. Its analysts
had warned of risks to these targets, and designed add-on armor kits
before the war - but the Army didn't start making truck armor until
last year. It won't be done until fall, officials say."

Date: 18 Dec 2006 15:42:58
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

John B. wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2006 17:34:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many wars do you know of where the invader knew it was going to
>>> invade a year and a half beforehand and still sent its its soldiers
>>> into combat underequipped when it had the money and the wherewithal to
>>> do it right?
>> This is nonsense. The soldiers went in with the best equipment they
>> had at the time. Do you think that there was better equipment sitting
>> around somewhere that they didn't send?
>
> No, I think they should have had the equipment on hand or procured it
> prior to the invasion. I guess you're going to tell me that was
> impossible because of earks in the Defense Approps. bill.
>

You proclaim vast knowledge about the appropriation process which might
be true. However, you don't know a damn thing about R&D and acquisition.

If it ain't on the shelf in the supply shack then it ain't going on the
truck.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:01:05
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 18 Dec 2006 10:36:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>> This is nonsense. The soldiers went in with the best equipment they
>> had at the time. Do you think that there was better equipment sitting
>> around somewhere that they didn't send?
>
>No, I think they should have had the equipment on hand or procured it
>prior to the invasion. I guess you're going to tell me that was
>impossible because of earks in the Defense Approps. bill.

This process could go on forever. There's always something better in
the pipeline. All you can do is the get the best equipment to the
troops as fast as you can.

Defense appropriation bills are very complicated and earks add to
the complications. There's no way that they can't add to the time it
takes to get the bill passed.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 11:53:40
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 16 Dec 2006 05:52:36 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>That is a very weak analogy. With a $400 billion budget, DoD can afford
>to buy the best driver in the world and buy it right now.

John, you have very little understanding of exactly how the
appropriations process works. It starts in Congress. Congress
doesn't give the DoD money to spend anyway they want. A lot of the
delay in getting things done starts in Congress. There are committees
to be gotten through then they have to put earks on the bills (that
have nothing to do with the military) which can delay the process even
more.

You also don't understand that manufactured items don't simply pop up
out of nowhere. Once something is approved, the DoD has to contract
with someone to procure the items. Hundreds of thousands of items
don't just appear overnight, especially if those items are things like
the latest design armored personnel carriers, or high tech ceramic
body armor.

A few years ago, I got a call from a company that makes ceramic body
armor that was awarded a DoD contract. Their production capability at
the time was around 75 units a day. They were in the process of
hiring new workers to run the production lines 24/7 but this would
only bring the daily production to 225. However, they had to find and
train these workers, so it would take time to get to this level. Even
so, this still only brought the production level to around 1,500 units
a week. They were planning to add another production line which would
double production but this would also take time. Production lines
also don't pop up over night. You have to buy equipment and install
it. Then you need to hire and train people to run the lines. When
you add all this in, it will take well over a year to produce all the
items needed.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 17:32:45
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Jack Hollis wrote:

>
> A few years ago, I got a call from a company that makes ceramic body
> armor that was awarded a DoD contract. Their production capability at
> the time was around 75 units a day. They were in the process of
> hiring new workers to run the production lines 24/7 but this would
> only bring the daily production to 225. However, they had to find and
> train these workers, so it would take time to get to this level. Even
> so, this still only brought the production level to around 1,500 units
> a week. They were planning to add another production line which would
> double production but this would also take time. Production lines
> also don't pop up over night. You have to buy equipment and install
> it. Then you need to hire and train people to run the lines. When
> you add all this in, it will take well over a year to produce all the
> items needed.

I have a good friend that has developed and is keting a self
contained, one time use bio-hazard containment for highly infectious
humans. It allows transport vehicles to be put right back in service
without a decontamination step.

He is stuck selling to local ambulance and hospital services because his
production level is like your example, 25 -75 per day. He did a trade
show and homeland security liked it and wanted to order 10,000 units, 3
month delivery after award. He had to walk on the opportunity because
there was no way to spool up the process, pass all the required certs
find the funding and meet the timelines. Well, he might have been able
to, but the financial risk of missing and have HS walk was too great.

Of course, if an Avian flu epidemic broke out, all the red tape would be
cut, but production capability still wouldn't be in place for months. I
don't really see a solution short of some kind of financial support /
risk sharing by the Fed to get these kinds of products / opportunities
off the ground.

No comment or agenda, just an observation.

Joe

Date: 16 Dec 2006 09:00:37
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

The analogy has legs as one can't run over to the local tank store and buy a
dozen in assorted colors.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166277155.940138.117420@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> It's not horse shit, it is just something for you to use as a point to
>> try and crucify Rumsfeld.
>>
>> If you are saving up your money to buy a new driver do you stop playing
>> golf or do you continue to play using the driver you have and not the
>> driver you want?
>
>
> That is a very weak analogy. With a $400 billion budget, DoD can afford
> to buy the best driver in the world and buy it right now. It doesn't
> have to save for it. What we're talking about is not a world-class
> driver. We're talking about a $2.00 bag of tees.
>

Date: 16 Dec 2006 18:50:01
From: Daisy
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 15 Dec 2006 15:50:43 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>"Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
>America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
>experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
>
>Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
>your head.
>
>Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
>for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
>one you want?"
>
>THAT Rumsfeld?

What has this post got to do with golf?

Daisy

Carthage demands an explanation for this insolence!

Date: 16 Dec 2006 06:38:42
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"Daisy" <DaisyL@emailaccount.com > wrote in message
news:u727o29bl08fj00vhsrk715blf9d03n250@4ax.com...
>>
> What has this post got to do with golf?
>

Finally, someone newer than me!

Scott

Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:22:30
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> annika1980 wrote:
> >>> "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
> >>> America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
> >>> experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
> >>>
> >>> Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
> >>> your head.
> >>>
> >>> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
> >>> for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
> >>> one you want?"
> >>>
> >>> THAT Rumsfeld?
> >>>
> >> It is a true statement in more than just war.
> >
> > So, before Rumsfeld came along, what country had better-equipped,
> > better-trained and more experienced armed forces than the US?
> >
>
> When you make a decision to take action you tack action now. You don't
> wait unitl the sky is purple. And, when you go to war you go with the
> army you have, not the army you want. If you sat around waiting for the
> army you wanted to go to war with you would never go to war.

That's all very glib and clever, but it doesn't address the question
that I asked. Moreover, there is no excuse for the best-equipped army
in the history of the world to send soldiers into combat without the
most basic equipment they need for self-protection. That is criminal
and Donald Rumsfeld ought to hang alongside Saddam Hussein for it. That
"army you've got" line is a load of horseshit.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:49:07
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2006 17:39:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Please explain to me in
> >detail how and why earks slow down a bill's progress.
>
> Are you suggesting that they appear out of nowhere without time being
> spent to discuss them in committees. Or that the Committee Chairs
> don't have to spend time making sure they have their votes in line
> with the proper earks?
>
> Nothing happens in Washington that doesn't take time.

Just as I thought. You know nothing about it. Generally, an eark
goes into a bill after the member who wants it calls the chairman of
the relevant approps. subcommittee and asks for it. By the time the
bill goes to k-up (you don't know what that is, do you?), all
earking is done and they're not brought up. The bill goes to the
floor under a rule imposed by the Rules Committee that says either no
amendments will be allowed or only a limited number which have been
agreed upon beforehanrd and have nothing to do with earks. The
process of putting them into a bill is simply a drafting exercise done
by staff and takes maybe a day.

Why don't you jst admit you don't know what you're talking about. It
wouldn't speak poorly of you.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:15:31
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166467747.428836.137540@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2006 17:39:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Please explain to me in
>> >detail how and why earks slow down a bill's progress.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that they appear out of nowhere without time being
>> spent to discuss them in committees. Or that the Committee Chairs
>> don't have to spend time making sure they have their votes in line
>> with the proper earks?
>>
>> Nothing happens in Washington that doesn't take time.
>

ding ding sing -- as I expected ---

> Just as I thought. You know nothing about it. Generally, an eark
> goes into a bill after the member who wants it calls the chairman of
> the relevant approps. subcommittee and asks for it. By the time the
> bill goes to k-up (you don't know what that is, do you?), all
> earking is done and they're not brought up. The bill goes to the
> floor under a rule imposed by the Rules Committee that says either no
> amendments will be allowed or only a limited number which have been
> agreed upon beforehanrd and have nothing to do with earks. The
> process of putting them into a bill is simply a drafting exercise done
> by staff and takes maybe a day.
>
> Why don't you jst admit you don't know what you're talking about. It
> wouldn't speak poorly of you.
>

Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:56:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 18 Dec 2006 10:49:07 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>Why don't you jst admit you don't know what you're talking about. It
>wouldn't speak poorly of you.

This is coming from someone who says that there's nothing in defense
bills other than defense spending. You obviously don't know what
you're talking about.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 15:40:22
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:56:46 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>>Why don't you jst admit you don't know what you're talking about. It
>>wouldn't speak poorly of you.
>
>This is coming from someone who says that there's nothing in defense
>bills other than defense spending. You obviously don't know what
>you're talking about.

In addition, there are 2,847 individual earks in the 2006 Defense
Appropriations Bill. To think that this takes about a day is absurd.
This would mean that each eark would have to take about 30 seconds
of staff time.

Here is a description of the eark process.

"In both committees, the process consists of the committee staff
soliciting the view of bureaucrats in the Pentagon. If the latter
want, or at least can tolerate, the additional spending, the committee
will almost certainly accept the eark and some spending for it; if
the DOD bureaucrat does not want the add-on, it will almost certainly
be rejected by either committee."

This is times 2,847.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/wheeler_lipstick.htm

Sorry John, you're out in left field on this one.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 07:41:04
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Jack Hollis wrote:
> >> On 17 Dec 2006 06:21:52 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You tried this tack with your golf club analogy and this is equally
> >>> inane. If I thought that driving the car I have was putting my life in
> >>> jeopardy, then yes I'd stop driving it.
> >>
> >> You're always putting your life in jeopardy when you drive. Do you
> >> have Electronic Stability Control in your car? If not, you should
> >> stop driving your car immediately and buy a car with one before you
> >> drive again.
> >>
> >> It is estimated that if every car in the US had ESC, it would save up
> >> to 3,000 lives a year, which is almost three times the number of lives
> >> saved by airbags.
> >>
> >> Now, knowing this, you would imagine that the government would
> >> immediately pass a law that all cars sold in the US will have ESC. In
> >> fact they did that but the first year that this takes effect is 2010.
> >> This is because the manufacturers that make the ESCs don't have the
> >> capabilities to suddenly triple production and the car companies have
> >> to redesign their lower end models to include ESCs.
> >>
> >> This is no different than what the military faces when they want to
> >> buy new and better equipment. Things take time.
> >
> >
> > How many wars do you know of where the invader knew it was going to
> > invade a year and a half beforehand and still sent its its soldiers
> > into combat underequipped when it had the money and the wherewithal to
> > do it right? Your analogies are ridiculous. What Rumsfeld did to those
> > young men was criminal.
> >
>
> It is not criminal, it happens each and every time a an army goes to
> war. You just can't accept the fact that Rumsfeld's statement is true.

The US Army is not just any army. And for once, you're right: I can't
accept that Rumsfeld's statement is true -- because it isn't.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 13:53:34
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166456462.874415.167250@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The US Army is not just any army. And for once, you're right: I can't
> accept that Rumsfeld's statement is true -- because it isn't.
>
No, it is a magic Army and Rumsfeld didn't wave his magic wand.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 17:34:08
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2006 06:21:52 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You tried this tack with your golf club analogy and this is equally
> >inane. If I thought that driving the car I have was putting my life in
> >jeopardy, then yes I'd stop driving it.
>
>
> You're always putting your life in jeopardy when you drive. Do you
> have Electronic Stability Control in your car? If not, you should
> stop driving your car immediately and buy a car with one before you
> drive again.
>
> It is estimated that if every car in the US had ESC, it would save up
> to 3,000 lives a year, which is almost three times the number of lives
> saved by airbags.
>
> Now, knowing this, you would imagine that the government would
> immediately pass a law that all cars sold in the US will have ESC. In
> fact they did that but the first year that this takes effect is 2010.
> This is because the manufacturers that make the ESCs don't have the
> capabilities to suddenly triple production and the car companies have
> to redesign their lower end models to include ESCs.
>
> This is no different than what the military faces when they want to
> buy new and better equipment. Things take time.

How many wars do you know of where the invader knew it was going to
invade a year and a half beforehand and still sent its its soldiers
into combat underequipped when it had the money and the wherewithal to
do it right? Your analogies are ridiculous. What Rumsfeld did to those
young men was criminal.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:28:40
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 17 Dec 2006 17:34:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>How many wars do you know of where the invader knew it was going to
>invade a year and a half beforehand and still sent its its soldiers
>into combat underequipped when it had the money and the wherewithal to
>do it right?

This is nonsense. The soldiers went in with the best equipment they
had at the time. Do you think that there was better equipment sitting
around somewhere that they didn't send?

Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:08:08
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2006 17:34:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How many wars do you know of where the invader knew it was going to
>> invade a year and a half beforehand and still sent its its soldiers
>> into combat underequipped when it had the money and the wherewithal
>> to do it right?
>
> This is nonsense. The soldiers went in with the best equipment they
> had at the time. Do you think that there was better equipment sitting
> around somewhere that they didn't send?

They should have sent Bushtard and his children. Fair is fair, and I think
someone could teach Jenna to fire an M16.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 21:18:54
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

John B. wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2006 06:21:52 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You tried this tack with your golf club analogy and this is equally
>>> inane. If I thought that driving the car I have was putting my life in
>>> jeopardy, then yes I'd stop driving it.
>>
>> You're always putting your life in jeopardy when you drive. Do you
>> have Electronic Stability Control in your car? If not, you should
>> stop driving your car immediately and buy a car with one before you
>> drive again.
>>
>> It is estimated that if every car in the US had ESC, it would save up
>> to 3,000 lives a year, which is almost three times the number of lives
>> saved by airbags.
>>
>> Now, knowing this, you would imagine that the government would
>> immediately pass a law that all cars sold in the US will have ESC. In
>> fact they did that but the first year that this takes effect is 2010.
>> This is because the manufacturers that make the ESCs don't have the
>> capabilities to suddenly triple production and the car companies have
>> to redesign their lower end models to include ESCs.
>>
>> This is no different than what the military faces when they want to
>> buy new and better equipment. Things take time.
>
>
> How many wars do you know of where the invader knew it was going to
> invade a year and a half beforehand and still sent its its soldiers
> into combat underequipped when it had the money and the wherewithal to
> do it right? Your analogies are ridiculous. What Rumsfeld did to those
> young men was criminal.
>

It is not criminal, it happens each and every time a an army goes to
war. You just can't accept the fact that Rumsfeld's statement is true.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 11:30:07
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 15 Dec 2006 19:22:30 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> Moreover, there is no excuse for the best-equipped army
>in the history of the world to send soldiers into combat without the
>most basic equipment they need for self-protection.

Isn't there a contradiction here. How can the best-equipped army in
the world go into combat without basic equipment?

Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:13:38
From: A Brick In The Wall
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:gj78o29bdeuols4nko4dllp4eoulhjsrmc@4ax.com...
> On 15 Dec 2006 19:22:30 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Moreover, there is no excuse for the best-equipped army
>>in the history of the world to send soldiers into combat without the
>>most basic equipment they need for self-protection.
>
> Isn't there a contradiction here. How can the best-equipped army in
> the world go into combat without basic equipment?

Not really --- the best equipped could still be ill-equipped.

Will you acknowledge that Rummy did not plan the war to suit the army he
had?

Date: 16 Dec 2006 17:41:55
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"A Brick In The Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.net > wrote in message
news:45840514_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:gj78o29bdeuols4nko4dllp4eoulhjsrmc@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Dec 2006 19:22:30 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Moreover, there is no excuse for the best-equipped army
>>>in the history of the world to send soldiers into combat without the
>>>most basic equipment they need for self-protection.
>>
>> Isn't there a contradiction here. How can the best-equipped army in
>> the world go into combat without basic equipment?
>
> Not really --- the best equipped could still be ill-equipped.
>
> Will you acknowledge that Rummy did not plan the war to suit the army he
> had?
>

I hear crickets.....

Date: 17 Dec 2006 17:44:53
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Jack -- I hear crickets...

"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:45844363_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "A Brick In The Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
> news:45840514_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:gj78o29bdeuols4nko4dllp4eoulhjsrmc@4ax.com...
>>> On 15 Dec 2006 19:22:30 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moreover, there is no excuse for the best-equipped army
>>>>in the history of the world to send soldiers into combat without the
>>>>most basic equipment they need for self-protection.
>>>
>>> Isn't there a contradiction here. How can the best-equipped army in
>>> the world go into combat without basic equipment?
>>
>> Not really --- the best equipped could still be ill-equipped.
>>
>> Will you acknowledge that Rummy did not plan the war to suit the army he
>> had?
>>
>
> I hear crickets.....
>

Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:59:14
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Jack -- I hear crickets...

"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:458595a0_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>> >>
> >> Will you acknowledge that Rummy did not plan the war to suit the army
he
> >> had?
> >>
> >
> > I hear crickets.....
> >

I think the military aspect of the war has been outstanding. It is the
political aspect of the war that is taking more time.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:16:43
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Jack -- I hear crickets...

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:PIWdnT4iY9y5nBrYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:458595a0_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>> >>
>> >> Will you acknowledge that Rummy did not plan the war to suit the army
> he
>> >> had?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I hear crickets.....
>> >
>
> I think the military aspect of the war has been outstanding. It is the
> political aspect of the war that is taking more time.
>
>

Can we come home then?

Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:31:04
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Jack -- I hear crickets...

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:59:14 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

>I think the military aspect of the war has been outstanding. It is the
>political aspect of the war that is taking more time.

Whether you are right or not - politics has always been part of war
and always will be.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:21:17
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Jack -- I hear crickets...

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:59:14 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the military aspect of the war has been outstanding. It is the
>> political aspect of the war that is taking more time.
>
> Whether you are right or not - politics has always been part of war
> and always will be.

War is just an extension of politics.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 07:41:18
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Date: 15 Dec 2006 17:29:51
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Bert Robbins wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
> > America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
> > experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
> >
> > Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
> > your head.
> >
> > Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
> > for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
> > one you want?"
> >
> > THAT Rumsfeld?
> >
>
> It is a true statement in more than just war.

So, before Rumsfeld came along, what country had better-equipped,
better-trained and more experienced armed forces than the US?

Date: 17 Dec 2006 17:39:13
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2006 17:30:21 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
> >> >defense.
> >>
> >> "The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism
> >> research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
> >> earked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't
> >> request. There is a $1 million eark for the eradication of brown
> >> tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they
> >> will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
> >> Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality
> >> spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for
> >> vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon
> >> trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska."
> >>
> >
> >What I meant was that DoD doesn't share an approps. bill with any other
> >agency, unlike the State Dept., which shares its bill w/Commerce and
> >Justice. Most federal agencies have this misfortune. But DoD doesn't
> >have to compete with other agencies for funding from the same pool of
> >money.
>
> This is known as implausible denial. Obviously, there are lots of
> things in the defense bill unrelated to defense. And earks slow
> down any bill.

Really? Have you ever been to a k-up? Even know what one is? How
about a House-Senate conference? Ever been to one of those? You seem to
think you know how things work in Congress. Please explain to me in
detail how and why earks slow down a bill's progress.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:42:41
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 17 Dec 2006 17:39:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>Please explain to me in
>detail how and why earks slow down a bill's progress.

Are you suggesting that they appear out of nowhere without time being
spent to discuss them in committees. Or that the Committee Chairs
don't have to spend time making sure they have their votes in line
with the proper earks?

Nothing happens in Washington that doesn't take time.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:29:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On 17 Dec 2006 17:39:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>You seem to
>think you know how things work in Congress.

Well you certainly don't if you think that there's nothing unrelated
to defense in a defense bill.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 22:04:09
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166405953.356030.208120@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2006 17:30:21 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >And there is nothing in the defense approps. bill unrelated to
>> >> >defense.
>> >>
>> >> "The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism
>> >> research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
>> >> earked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't
>> >> request. There is a $1 million eark for the eradication of brown
>> >> tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they
>> >> will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
>> >> Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality
>> >> spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for
>> >> vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon
>> >> trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska."
>> >>
>> >
>> >What I meant was that DoD doesn't share an approps. bill with any other
>> >agency, unlike the State Dept., which shares its bill w/Commerce and
>> >Justice. Most federal agencies have this misfortune. But DoD doesn't
>> >have to compete with other agencies for funding from the same pool of
>> >money.
>>
>> This is known as implausible denial. Obviously, there are lots of
>> things in the defense bill unrelated to defense. And earks slow
>> down any bill.
>
> Really? Have you ever been to a k-up? Even know what one is? How
> about a House-Senate conference? Ever been to one of those? You seem to
> think you know how things work in Congress. Please explain to me in
> detail how and why earks slow down a bill's progress.
>

Jack is doing his cricket imitation when I ask questions --- good luck with
your questions.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 23:45:21
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

In article <1166232591.916248.266920@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com >
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
> > > "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
> > > America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
> > > experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
> > >
> > > Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
> > > your head.
> > >
> > > Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
> > > for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
> > > one you want?"
> > >
> > > THAT Rumsfeld?
> > >
> >
> > It is a true statement in more than just war.
>
> So, before Rumsfeld came along, what country had better-equipped,
> better-trained and more experienced armed forces than the US?

We didn't do real well in the Korean "conflict." We lost the Vietnam war to pajama-clad squirts with outdated equipment, rice and rats. We didn't finish the job and oust Saddam in the first Gulf War and here we are today, losing in the worst way possible. "Splain that Lucy."

Date: 17 Dec 2006 03:24:37
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:45:21 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
<nobody@mixmaster.it > wrote:

>> So, before Rumsfeld came along, what country had better-equipped,
>> better-trained and more experienced armed forces than the US?
>
>We didn't do real well in the Korean "conflict." We lost the Vietnam war to pajama-clad squirts with outdated equipment, rice and rats. We didn't finish the job and oust Saddam in the first Gulf War and here we are today, losing in the worst way possible. "Splain that Lucy."

Of course the definition of "well-equipped" can vary. Some of the
German weapons of WWII were clearly superior, but they had no match
for our jeeps and logistics. The Japanese had the big battleships,
but again, our supply ships may have won the Pacific war.

Date: 17 Dec 2006 20:34:38
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

In article <uvd9o25hi82p4lq7j2f3ggapa0i91tpfut@4ax.com >
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:45:21 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> >> So, before Rumsfeld came along, what country had better-equipped,
> >> better-trained and more experienced armed forces than the US?
> >
> >We didn't do real well in the Korean "conflict." We lost the Vietnam war to pajama-clad squirts with outdated equipment, rice and rats. We didn't finish the job and oust Saddam in the first Gulf War and here we are today, losing in the worst way possible. "Splain that Lucy."
>
> Of course the definition of "well-equipped" can vary. Some of the
> German weapons of WWII were clearly superior, but they had no match
> for our jeeps and logistics. The Japanese had the big battleships,

It's not a unique thought that certain things change certain wars or we could all be drinking tea in the afternoon if not for Valley Forge, maybe drinking mint julips if not for Chamberlain's second day at Round Top or speaking German if not for cold winter weather. We were the "ill-equipped" in the Revolution and won. Brain-wise, when compared to the Germans, we again were "ill-equipped." Lots of reasons to lose wars but we're doing it again and we can't blame "ill-equipped."

Date: 15 Dec 2006 21:58:15
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> annika1980 wrote:
>>> "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
>>> America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
>>> experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
>>>
>>> Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
>>> your head.
>>>
>>> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
>>> for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
>>> one you want?"
>>>
>>> THAT Rumsfeld?
>>>
>> It is a true statement in more than just war.
>
> So, before Rumsfeld came along, what country had better-equipped,
> better-trained and more experienced armed forces than the US?
>

When you make a decision to take action you tack action now. You don't
wait unitl the sky is purple. And, when you go to war you go with the
army you have, not the army you want. If you sat around waiting for the
army you wanted to go to war with you would never go to war.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 21:31:11
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

In article <1u2dndHOz5Fa_R7YnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> annika1980 wrote:
> >>> "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
> >>> America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
> >>> experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
> >>>
> >>> Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
> >>> your head.
> >>>
> >>> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
> >>> for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
> >>> one you want?"
> >>>
> >>> THAT Rumsfeld?
> >>>
> >> It is a true statement in more than just war.
> >
> > So, before Rumsfeld came along, what country had better-equipped,
> > better-trained and more experienced armed forces than the US?
> >
>
> When you make a decision to take action you tack action now. You don't
> wait unitl the sky is purple. And, when you go to war you go with the
> army you have, not the army you want. If you sat around waiting for the
> army you wanted to go to war with you would never go to war.

You are right and wrong at the same time! ;-)

For Afghanistan, we needed to do that, no question. And we had the
troops, equipment and plan that would work well there.

In the case of Iraq, we did not have to go in at that time. Saddam was
contained. We could have better prepared our forces for the need much
better there, and we had time on our side.

Of course, we didn't take the time and then made a piss poor plan to
implement the decision to go to war.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 03:44:17
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-E7755D.21311115122006@individual.net...
>>
> You are right and wrong at the same time! ;-)
>
> For Afghanistan, we needed to do that, no question. And we had the
> troops, equipment and plan that would work well there.
>
> In the case of Iraq, we did not have to go in at that time. Saddam was
> contained. We could have better prepared our forces for the need much
> better there, and we had time on our side.
>
> Of course, we didn't take the time and then made a piss poor plan to
> implement the decision to go to war.

I don't think it was a question of time. If Rumsfeld had all the time in
the world, he still would have done it that way. Iraq was to be a proving
ground for the Rumsfeld doctrine and his vision of RMA, and specifically a
repudiation of the Powell doctrine. Imagine that: an aviator for 3 years
some 50 odd years ago believing he knew how to wage war more effectively
than a former and highly successful JCS.

Of course, no Secretary of Defense could make such a monumental decision on
his own. There was buy-off by a lot of people, obviously including the
President. But it was definitely not a case of excessive hurry. We went
into battle with more troops than Rumsfeld wanted. He was sure it could be
done with 60,000. I bet he was pissed off when 140,000 was shoved down his
throat.

Scott

Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:01:43
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

annika1980 wrote:
> "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
> America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
> experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
>
> Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
> your head.
>
> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
> for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
> one you want?"
>
> THAT Rumsfeld?
>

It is a true statement in more than just war.

Date: 16 Dec 2006 14:39:54
From: larry
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:01:43 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>annika1980 wrote:
>> "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
>> America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
>> experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
>>
>> Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
>> your head.
>>
>> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
>> for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
>> one you want?"

So that is not true? That seems to be the pragmatic truth, the actual
fact of every army going to war in recorded history. When Roman
Legions went to war, they either attacked or defended "with the army
(the arms and materials) they had." They couldn't wait for more
swords to be pounded out-- nor could they wait for gunpowder to be
invented.

It is simply fallacious and downright mean, partisan politics, to
blame Rumsfeld for saying exactly what the facts are--were, and always
will be. Thank goodness people as st and experienced as Rumsfeld
step forward, came out of retirement, to take a very very difficult
job. Had it not been for someone as resolute as Rumsfeld taking the
job, the military today would be ready to fight WWII all over again,
buying more tanks, etc. because the defense industry was ready to sell
them! There is immense resistence to change-- because there is less
profit (and possibly loss of contracts) when the military modernizes
and buys from new companies. The old suppliers HATED Rumsfeld
because his forced changes meant less profit....

I doubt Gates will have the guts to take them on. Few in future
will.

Larry
>>
>> THAT Rumsfeld?
>>
>
>It is a true statement in more than just war.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:40:08
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

In article <41t8o2hrr88l2k970vnv0sg60l2mhsqvpb@4ax.com >
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:01:43 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
> >annika1980 wrote:
> >> "Because of Don Rumsfeld's determination and leadership,
> >> America has the best-equipped, the best- trained, and most
> >> experienced armed forces in the history of the world."
> >>
> >> Everybody who believes Rumsfeld should get the credit for that stand on
> >> your head.
> >>
> >> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who asked
> >> for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you have, not the
> >> one you want?"
>
> So that is not true? That seems to be the pragmatic truth, the actual
> fact of every army going to war in recorded history. When Roman
> Legions went to war, they either attacked or defended "with the army
> (the arms and materials) they had." They couldn't wait for more
> swords to be pounded out-- nor could they wait for gunpowder to be
> invented.
>
> It is simply fallacious and downright mean, partisan politics, to
> blame Rumsfeld for saying exactly what the facts are--were, and always

For someone who practices "fallacious and downright mean, partisan politics" on a daily basis, you now konw what it means to say "you reap what you sow." Reap away moron.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:08:13
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush, on Rumsfeld

Bert Robbins wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>> Is this the same Rumsfeld who went to Iraq and told a soldier who
>> asked for more armor that "you've gotta fight with the army you
>> have, not the one you want?"
>>
>> THAT Rumsfeld?
>>
>
> It is a true statement in more than just war.

You got that right. I had a buddy in the USN that used to quote roughly
the same saying. His was "If if's were skiffs, we'd all take a boat ride."

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson