I beg to differ.

I have some basic questions, please pardon my inability to articulate the leftist positions.

1)They support the troops, but don't support the war;

2)They believe the troops are ignorant, mouth-breathers...who "didn't study hard and get good grades", otherwise...they wouldn't have wound up in Iraq (in a actual place where "soldiering" is being done).

3)They believe that they have no chance at a "good" career...otherwise they would never have joined the military.

4)The poor and oppressed people of color are "doing the fighting" for all of us.

5)We should believe them...because Kerry and Murtha tell us so...

Please reconcile 1-4....with #5?????

cfbleachers,

Here I'll help you:

1. I know, it's as confusing as claiming Iraq was a central front in The War Against Terror, before we turned it into a front in said war.

2. Wrong. But I'm starting to believe that people who do believe that the Left believes this, "are ignorant, mouth-breathers...who 'didn't study hard and get good grades'."

3. I don't know where you got that one from. It used to be that you'd get good training for a career by joining the military, but because they are so far behind in technology now 'a days (especially in communications and networking, AKO is a prime example), it's a wash.

4. I don't recall anyone specifically saying that.

5. Ah, ...

I beg to differ.

Just another moonbat conspiracy theorist...

And your words, Purple Avenger, have the weight of...oh, ya, they don't have any weight. Shouldn't you be off googling Ahmadinejad?

"Here I'll help you:"

Thanks, anything that can illuminate the reasons why leftist politicians want to trash our troops would be helpful.

"1. I know, it's as confusing as claiming Iraq was a central front in The War Against Terror, before we turned it into a front in said war."

Forgive me, Frederick...but how does this address the issue?

Secondly, ...are you grieving at the loss of Saddam...or were you simply heavily invested in woodchipper stocks? I mean, I suppose the rape rooms were probably something you wouldn't want to eliminate, but...where is the anguish stemming from?

My take on Iraq is that upon driving Al Qaeda from Afghanistan...they would look for someplace to reset their base. You can't keep them on the run, if they are being state-protected all over again.

Iraq had USED weapons of mass destruction, had ALLIED with terrorists and had intentionally lobbed missiles at a non-combatant. They were firing at our fly-by's. They had INTENTIONS of building nuclear weapons and had ANNOUNCED that they were in favor of eradicating Israel and attacking the US. Again...you are sad to see Saddam go...for what reason?

We can fight the terrorists over there, while keeping them on the run...or fight them here AFTER they have killed more of my countrymen.

Perhaps you didn't have any friends in the World Trade Center who died on 9-11. I did.

"2. Wrong. But I'm starting to believe that people who do believe that the Left believes this, "are ignorant, mouth-breathers...who 'didn't study hard and get good grades'."

I'd be happy to match my resume' against yours...if that's where you are headed. Should we slam them up on the table, Frederick? I think you might want to shirk from this...but you never know.

And again...John Kerry and now Rangel have blurted out what I have heard over and over from the smug and pedantic leftists. The troops are stupid. Hell, Ted Rall ROOTS for their deaths.
Your comrades at Berkeley scoff at them all the time. As do the Kos Kidz. Do you wish for me to avalanche you with examples...or are you willing to concede?

"3. I don't know where you got that one from. It used to be that you'd get good training for a career by joining the military, but because they are so far behind in technology now 'a days (especially in communications and networking, AKO is a prime example), it's a wash."

You don't know where I got that from. Is this a reading problem, a language problem or a comprehension problem, Frederick? Rangel said as much...we are talking about Rangel's statement...try to keep up, Frederick.

4. I don't recall anyone specifically saying that.

"I don't recall...."..."SPECIFICALLY saying that".

As an attorney who has cross-examined thousands of witnesses, Frederick...those two phrases are in the dissembler's Hall of fame.

"5. Ah, ..."

Should I interpret this as sudden revelation, surrender in utter futility, or the climax of your mental masturbation?

cfbleachers,

Let me be very clear. The Left does not hate the military, or think people who join the military are stupid. If your proof of this stereotype or any other of the others you mentioned revolve around Kerry's remarks earlier this month, or Rangel's Draft Bill, then you are on very poor footing.

...and #5 was close to a, "surrender in utter futility." That being trying to explain anything to the likes of you.

Frederick,

What about the recent comments by Rangel that claim those who join the military only do so because they don't have options?

That does not seem very supportive of the military. It discounts the patriotism that many in the military have, and the fact that they are turning down other opportunities so that they can serve.

I don't agree with the way Rangel phrased things in the interview with Wallace. He should have been more clear.

But so should CY.

This is how he put it:

"...along with Rangel's new pronouncement that people will only join the military if they don’t have 'an option of having a decent career...'"

This is the direct quote from Hot Air:

If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

Big difference. If I were to take Cy's at face value I would be pissed at the Congressman. If you look at the full quote from Rangel and the faulty logic that Allahpundit follows it up with, not so much.

Allahpundit suggests, "let the morality of every war be judged by the number of patriots willing to volunteer for it. “Bad” wars will attract few enlistees and end quickly in defeat as we run out of troops; “good” wars, just the opposite. With the Army missing its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, in 2005, I think Allahpundit may just get his wish.

Meh. USA Today lied.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20051212-5225.html

SicSemperTyrannus,

Just how are the results for one month suposed to refute figure for the whole year?

After falling 6,000 short of its 74,000 goal for FY2005, the Army raised the bar to 80,000 for FY2006. They began the fiscal year last Oct. 1 with only 12% of that goal "banked" in the delayed enlistment program, compared to 25% a year earlier. Further, Congress didn't enact needed new bonus incentives until January, more than three months into the fiscal year. So many - including MOAA - had doubts whether the new goal was attainable.

...

But the Army met the challenge by adding over 1,300 recruiters since 2005 and expanding various criteria to widen the prospect pool. So we congratulate the Army and the other services, all of whom met or exceeded their active duty recruiting goals.

Nevertheless, other numbers offer reasons for legitimate concerns for FY2007 and beyond

Get your facts striaght.

Frederick

When has the left EVER said that we were fighting a "good" war. They've opposed America every step of the way.

You don't seem very well informed, except in reciting each leftist groupthink mantra, like a programmed stepford child.

Do you ever think for yourself on ANY issues...or do you simply regurgitate leftist talking points?

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "rightwing" "dumb", "homophobic", "racist",
"greedy" , ...you don't have a clue how to think for yourself any longer, do you? I find that oh, so sad. But you are quite typical of the lemmings created by leftist propaganda.

Truly sad.

Wrong again cfbleachers,

The whole world, left, right, and otherwise, was united behind the U.S. after 911...you can't have that short of an attention span to have forgotten all the "Lefty" votes towards an autherized use of force.

I'm very well informed, that why when I saw that 'SicSemperTyrannus' was trying to pull that typical Righty bull$h!t saying, "USA Today lied," I called him on it and got the source to back my claim up.

...and when did I call anyone here in this thread dumb, homophobic, or any of the other words you put in my mouth? That's pretty much a consession by you...attributing things to me that I didn't say as a last ditch effort to win an argument. That tactic is pre Nov. 6th thinking.