Sunday, August 28, 2005
DadManly Refutes Liberal Lies
Thanks to DadManly for another terrific post, this time in his own words. 
"We have had astounding victories in the field. We took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in time frames and with so few losses and collateral damage as to be unparalleled in history, by any Army in the world. It is true that building a democracy in a basket case such as Iraq has not been easy, there have been setbacks, but no one who watched history unfold on 30 January of this year could think that this effort has been anything but an outstanding achievement. The Soldiers who are fighting this war are re-enlisted in record numbers, and helping the military exceed re-enlistment quotas. Does this sound like the poor, misguided minions who have so spectacularly failed in their objectives...Again, please surf over and read the whole thing! ¶ Sunday, August 28, 2005
You will not find a significant number of Soldiers on the ground who will agree with this assessment. Something close to 75% of Soldiers supported President Bush in the last election. They may not all agree with the war, or how we're fighting it.
(Many want us to be tougher, meaner, and less careful about civilian casualties, I might add. America has always had a "Nuke the Bastards" attitude about our enemies, and Soldiers reflect these views no less than their civilian counterparts in the heartland.)
But there is one thing a huge majority of Soldiers know in their hearts. This President is proud of them, cares for them, fights for them, and tremendously respects their service, and sacrifice. Those that hate him will never see it, for their own antipathy blinds them."
Comments:
<< Home
We took out the Taliban...
Actually, that's not true. While they no longer control Kabul, the Taliban has a well-armed presence in Afgahnistan. [source]
This President is proud of them, cares for them, fights for them, and tremendously respects their service, and sacrifice.
That's not true either. The Bush regime 2004 budget CUT funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by $25 billion. The Bush regime has shown unbelievable incompetence in arming and protecting our troops. [source] [source] [source] [hey, kid, LOOK!...a source!] [Nude Girls! Nope, just kiddin'...it's a source]
...helping the military exceed re-enlistment quotas...
And that's a whopper of a lie! The Army has REDUCED it's goals and will probably fail 10% below that by the end of the fiscal year! [source] [source]
Actually, that's not true. While they no longer control Kabul, the Taliban has a well-armed presence in Afgahnistan. [source]
This President is proud of them, cares for them, fights for them, and tremendously respects their service, and sacrifice.
That's not true either. The Bush regime 2004 budget CUT funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by $25 billion. The Bush regime has shown unbelievable incompetence in arming and protecting our troops. [source] [source] [source] [hey, kid, LOOK!...a source!] [Nude Girls! Nope, just kiddin'...it's a source]
...helping the military exceed re-enlistment quotas...
And that's a whopper of a lie! The Army has REDUCED it's goals and will probably fail 10% below that by the end of the fiscal year! [source] [source]
Actually, it is true, Don. According to Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, Army deputy chief of staff, the Army surpassed its re-enlistment projections so far for fiscal year 2005. The Army's active duty re-enlistment rate is 107 percent of projected estimates, with 58,480 soldiers re-enlisting between Oct. 1, 2004 and July 31, 2005. The Army was hoping to re-enlist 54,510 soldiers during that time. Lovelace said the Army National Guard and Reserve re-enlistment rates are also exceeding 100 percent of projections. Source
Wow! Another source.
Recruiting: The Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their active duty recruiting goals in July.
Retention/reenlistment:All services met or exceeded their overall retention goals for July and are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year.
Reserve recruiting: The Marine Corps Reserve and Air Force Reserve met their July recruiting goals.
Reserve retention: Army National Guard retention - 105 percent of goal of 27,664, and Air National Guard retention - 109 percent of goal of 8,552.
Only the Army was below it's active duty recruiting goal for the fiscal year , 89%, and was nearly 10% over its goal for July.
Recruiting: The Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their active duty recruiting goals in July.
Retention/reenlistment:All services met or exceeded their overall retention goals for July and are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year.
Reserve recruiting: The Marine Corps Reserve and Air Force Reserve met their July recruiting goals.
Reserve retention: Army National Guard retention - 105 percent of goal of 27,664, and Air National Guard retention - 109 percent of goal of 8,552.
Only the Army was below it's active duty recruiting goal for the fiscal year , 89%, and was nearly 10% over its goal for July.
"There has been much achieved, amid undoubted setbacks in Afghanistan. ...The ousted Taliban have failed to prevent this democratic process in the most spectacular way. The former regime has been forced to promise not to attack the polls on election day next month.
...
The Taliban have fought constantly and remorselessly since an American-led invasion pushed them out of Kabul in 2001. ... But their promise to refrain from attacks on election day is a clear admission which side is winning."
Source
...
The Taliban have fought constantly and remorselessly since an American-led invasion pushed them out of Kabul in 2001. ... But their promise to refrain from attacks on election day is a clear admission which side is winning."
Source
"Since 2001, President Bush's budget requests have allowed the VA to enroll 2.5 million more veterans in health care services, increase outpatient visits from 44 million to 54 million, and increase the number of prescriptions filled from 98 million in 2001 to 116 million as of August 2004. Under the President's leadership, 194 new community-based clinics have been opened since 2001 and are now available for veterans."
" He has committed $1.5 billion in the FY 2004 and FY 2005 budgets, and additional funding will be requested in the future to increase outpatient health care services for veterans, build new hospitals, and replace outdated, pre-World War II facilities."
"The President twice signed legislation providing "concurrent receipt" of both military retired pay and VA disability compensation for those military retirees most deserving -- combat-injured and highly-disabled veterans -- finally reversing a century-old law preventing concurrent receipt."
Source
" He has committed $1.5 billion in the FY 2004 and FY 2005 budgets, and additional funding will be requested in the future to increase outpatient health care services for veterans, build new hospitals, and replace outdated, pre-World War II facilities."
"The President twice signed legislation providing "concurrent receipt" of both military retired pay and VA disability compensation for those military retirees most deserving -- combat-injured and highly-disabled veterans -- finally reversing a century-old law preventing concurrent receipt."
Source
Jim:
Forst of all, let me compliment you on your new-found ability to include sources. Good job! This is definately movement in the right direction.
Next you should learn to cite sources that 1) actually say what you claim they say, and 2) SUPPORT your argument rather than proving you wrong.
For example, you brag about reenlistment in comment #2, while linking to a FoxNews.com article entitled General: Army to Miss Recruiting Goals in '05
The US Army will miss its recruiting goals this year...The Army National Guard, which has been a key part of the the U.S. force in Iraq, missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength, military officials said last month.
See what I mean?
By touting the reenlistment numbers and ignoring the total recruitment numbers, you're intentional misleading your reader (and perhaps yourself)
Forst of all, let me compliment you on your new-found ability to include sources. Good job! This is definately movement in the right direction.
Next you should learn to cite sources that 1) actually say what you claim they say, and 2) SUPPORT your argument rather than proving you wrong.
For example, you brag about reenlistment in comment #2, while linking to a FoxNews.com article entitled General: Army to Miss Recruiting Goals in '05
The US Army will miss its recruiting goals this year...The Army National Guard, which has been a key part of the the U.S. force in Iraq, missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength, military officials said last month.
See what I mean?
By touting the reenlistment numbers and ignoring the total recruitment numbers, you're intentional misleading your reader (and perhaps yourself)
Here's another example:
In comment #3 you link to a press release, which isn't a good verifiable source. The press release, moreover, clearly states that 4 out of six branches will miss their recruitment goals this year.
When you take one or two sentences out of context you can sorta make your case, but all the reader has to do is click the link to find out you're blowing smoke up our collective asses.
The same is true of the rest of your comments---you rely on press releases, take statements out of context, etc etc.
In comment #3 you link to a press release, which isn't a good verifiable source. The press release, moreover, clearly states that 4 out of six branches will miss their recruitment goals this year.
When you take one or two sentences out of context you can sorta make your case, but all the reader has to do is click the link to find out you're blowing smoke up our collective asses.
The same is true of the rest of your comments---you rely on press releases, take statements out of context, etc etc.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040818-3.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040816-3.html
http://www.vnis.com/story.cfm?textnewsid=1536
http://www.vnis.com/story.cfm?textnewsid=761
http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040816-3.html
http://www.vnis.com/story.cfm?textnewsid=1536
http://www.vnis.com/story.cfm?textnewsid=761
http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html
James,
Is Don a friend of yours? Does he jknow you from somewhere other than the blogosphere?
I've been blogging a year now, and I can't say I've picked up any ankle-biters quite as persistent as Don.
You must be doing something right, or he likes your photo.
Either way, thanks for all the links and the very nice compliments.
Is Don a friend of yours? Does he jknow you from somewhere other than the blogosphere?
I've been blogging a year now, and I can't say I've picked up any ankle-biters quite as persistent as Don.
You must be doing something right, or he likes your photo.
Either way, thanks for all the links and the very nice compliments.
I deleted any comments (including my own) that were, in my opinion, getting away from the point of the original post. I also deleted comments for profanity.
Post a Comment
<< Home
