vpFREE2 Forums

Troops put tough questions to Rumsfeld

#1

Pretty sad to go to war like this. Rob, you think this as a good
thing, right??

Troops put tough questions to Rumsfeld

Defense secretary gets his own "talking to" from disgruntled GIs

The Associated Press

Updated: 9:06 a.m. ET Dec. 8, 2004CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - After
delivering a pep talk designed to energize troops preparing to head
for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld got a little "talking
to" himself from disgruntled soldiers.

In his prepared remarks, Rumsfeld urged the troops — mostly National
Guard and Reserve soldiers — to discount critics of the war in Iraq
and to help "win the test of wills" with the insurgents.

Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own — not of the
war itself but of how it is being fought.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat
Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee
Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session
why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly three years after
the war in Iraq.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces
of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our
vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately
2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear
the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,"
Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not
the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing
manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly
possible.

Level 3 armor
And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the
kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents'
weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive
device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of
American troops since the summer of 2003.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can
(still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

#2

If you listened to the entire report on Fox instead of just what your
liberal stations reported, you'd see that the vehicle armor questions
were posed by a liberal reporter dressed as a soldier. Either way,
Rummy's answers were very enlightening and surprised the drag
reporter. He gave clear responses about the phases of vehicle body
armor. Kerry and his puppet would have said "I have a plan to get
every vehicl fully protected by Feb. 28, 2005". Then we would have
all been left scratching our asses waiting to hear yet another
phantom plan.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

Pretty sad to go to war like this. Rob, you think this as a good
thing, right??

#3

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> Pretty sad to go to war like this. Rob, you think this as a good
> thing, right??

If you listened to the entire report on Fox instead of just what

your

liberal stations reported, you'd see that the vehicle armor

questions

were posed by a liberal reporter dressed as a soldier. Either way,
Rummy's answers were very enlightening and surprised the drag
reporter.

Easy Rob, faux news got it wrong. The question was suggested to a
soldier by a reporter who was embedded with his unit. Whoever it cam
from, it was a valid question. But Rummy stating that "we go to war
with the army we have not the one we might want" was very supportave
to the troops. And his "I'm an old man and it's early" response was
quite enlightening. 3 days off and this is the best you can come up
with. Reread your previous and you will find a first class example
of a post that makes you the fool.

He gave clear responses about the phases of vehicle body
armor. Kerry and his puppet would have said "I have a plan to get
every vehicl fully protected by Feb. 28, 2005". Then we would have
all been left scratching our asses waiting to hear yet another
phantom plan.

Again Rob, the election is over. You can't blame Kerry anymore. Your
speculations are juvenile at best and make you appear shallow.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#4

> If you listened to the entire report on Fox instead of just what
your liberal stations reported, you'd see that the vehicle armor
questions were posed by a liberal reporter dressed as a soldier.

Either way, Rummy's answers were very enlightening and surprised the
drag reporter.

Easy Rob, faux news got it wrong. The question was suggested to a
soldier by a reporter who was embedded with his unit.

That's not the verified version--only the liberal take. What I said
was the way it happened.

Whoever it cam

from, it was a valid question. But Rummy stating that "we go to war
with the army we have not the one we might want" was very

supportave to the troops.

Well Duh, what are we going to do--stay home until the time
is 'right'?

And his "I'm an old man and it's early" response was

quite enlightening. 3 days off and this is the best you can come up
with. Reread your previous and you will find a first class example
of a post that makes you the fool.

Again, you've done what Kerry taught you to do during his failed
campaign and read only what you want out of it. If it all went down
exactly as you state there's be a mass desertion we'd have to deal
with. Guess why it doesn't happen.

> He gave clear responses about the phases of vehicle body
> armor. Kerry and his puppet would have said "I have a plan to get
> every vehicle fully protected by Feb. 28, 2005". Then we would

have all been left scratching our asses waiting to hear yet another

> phantom plan.

Again Rob, the election is over. You can't blame Kerry anymore.

Your speculations are juvenile at best and make you appear shallow.

To the contrary. Your insinuation reek of what Kerry taught during
his fiasco. If you had any originality left in you after such a long
and sour life, you might make some sense. But you simply parrot
others without thinking, and that equates to a lack of common sense
on every issue before you.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

#5

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> > If you listened to the entire report on Fox instead of just

what

> your liberal stations reported, you'd see that the vehicle armor
> questions were posed by a liberal reporter dressed as a soldier.
Either way, Rummy's answers were very enlightening and surprised

the

drag reporter.
>
> Easy Rob, faux news got it wrong. The question was suggested to

a

> soldier by a reporter who was embedded with his unit.

That's not the verified version--only the liberal take. What I

said

was the way it happened.

Because you and sex-offender O'Reilly say so?? Not true.

Whoever it cam
> from, it was a valid question. But Rummy stating that "we go to

war

> with the army we have not the one we might want" was very
supportave to the troops.

Well Duh, what are we going to do--stay home until the time
is 'right'?

The time will never be right for this dirty little war.

And his "I'm an old man and it's early" response was
> quite enlightening. 3 days off and this is the best you can come

up

> with. Reread your previous and you will find a first class

example

> of a post that makes you the fool.

Again, you've done what Kerry taught you to do during his failed
campaign and read only what you want out of it.
>

Again Rob, the election is over. You can't blame Kerry anymore.
Your speculations are juvenile at best and make you appear shallow.

To the contrary. Your insinuation reek of what Kerry taught during
his fiasco. If you had any originality left in you after such a

long

and sour life, you might make some sense. But you simply parrot
others without thinking, and that equates to a lack of common

sense

on every issue before you.

As you do with Rush and the other windbag chickenhawks.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#6

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>
wrote:

>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > > If you listened to the entire report on Fox instead of just
what
> > your liberal stations reported, you'd see that the vehicle

armor

> > questions were posed by a liberal reporter dressed as a

soldier.

> Either way, Rummy's answers were very enlightening and surprised
the
> drag reporter.
> >
> > Easy Rob, faux news got it wrong. The question was suggested

to

a
> > soldier by a reporter who was embedded with his unit.
>
> That's not the verified version--only the liberal take. What I
said
> was the way it happened.

Questionable Origins?
Friday, December 10, 2004
By Brit Hume

Fox news

It turns out that tough question Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
got from a GI in Kuwait yesterday was fed to the soldier by a
reporter.

The truth from your own source, Rob or Bobby. I'm fighting a battle
of wits with an unarmed man.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#7

No, because the NY Times says what you believe. That automatically
means it ain't so and O'Reilly knows it as well as you do. Salzburg
is just as bitter as you over the election and it's eating him away
inside just as it is you. and that really, really, REALLY warms my
heart.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

> > Easy Rob, faux news got it wrong. The question was suggested to
a
> > soldier by a reporter who was embedded with his unit.
>
> That's not the verified version--only the liberal take. What I
said was the way it happened.

Because you and sex-offender O'Reilly say so?? Not true.

#8

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> > > Easy Rob, faux news got it wrong. The question was suggested

to

> a
> > > soldier by a reporter who was embedded with his unit.
> >
> > That's not the verified version--only the liberal take. What I
> said was the way it happened.
>
> Because you and sex-offender O'Reilly say so?? Not true.

No, because the NY Times says what you believe. That automatically
means it ain't so and O'Reilly knows it as well as you do.

Salzburg

is just as bitter as you over the election and it's eating him

away

inside just as it is you. and that really, really, REALLY warms my
heart.

Read later post. This is proven FALSE, A LIE.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#9

> > > That's not the verified version--only the liberal take. What

I said was the way it happened.

> >
> > Because you and sex-offender O'Reilly say so?? Not true.
>
> No, because the NY Times says what you believe. That

automatically means it ain't so and O'Reilly knows it as well as you
do. Salzburg is just as bitter as you over the election and it's
eating him away inside just as it is you. and that really, really,
REALLY warms my heart.

Read later post. This is proven FALSE, A LIE.

A liberal repor again. That automatically means it's only readers are
Michael Moore look-alikes.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

#10

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> > > > That's not the verified version--only the liberal take.

What

I said was the way it happened.
> > >
> > > Because you and sex-offender O'Reilly say so?? Not true.
> >
> > No, because the NY Times says what you believe. That
automatically means it ain't so and O'Reilly knows it as well as

you

do. Salzburg is just as bitter as you over the election and it's
eating him away inside just as it is you. and that really, really,
REALLY warms my heart.
>
> Read later post. This is proven FALSE, A LIE.

A liberal repor again. That automatically means it's only readers

are

Michael Moore look-alikes.

I quoted faux news, your conservative source. Damn Bobby, you can't
see the forest from your fingers poking in your eyes. Your retorts
are childish and comical.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#11

And did I see you say you took it word-for-word??? Or did you apply
the same bitter spin to it for some more of that waning liberal
satisfaction that's self-processed.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

> > Read later post. This is proven FALSE, A LIE.
>
> A liberal repor again. That automatically means it's only readers
are Michael Moore look-alikes.

I quoted faux news, your conservative source. Damn Bobby, you can't
see the forest from your fingers poking in your eyes. Your retorts
are childish and comical.

#12

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> > > Read later post. This is proven FALSE, A LIE.
> >
> > A liberal repor again. That automatically means it's only

readers

> are Michael Moore look-alikes.
>
> I quoted faux news, your conservative source. Damn Bobby, you

can't

> see the forest from your fingers poking in your eyes. Your

retorts

> are childish and comical.

And did I see you say you took it word-for-word??? Or did you

apply

the same bitter spin to it for some more of that waning liberal
satisfaction that's self-processed.

Word for word. I don't need to spin to prove my point, it's obvious
to anyone with a working braincell.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#13

Word for word, but it got scrambled in that mutated mind of yours.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

> > I quoted faux news, your conservative source. Damn Bobby, you
can't
> > see the forest from your fingers poking in your eyes. Your
retorts
> > are childish and comical.
>
> And did I see you say you took it word-for-word??? Or did you
apply
> the same bitter spin to it for some more of that waning liberal
> satisfaction that's self-processed.

Word for word. I don't need to spin to prove my point, it's obvious
to anyone with a working braincell.

#14

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> > > I quoted faux news, your conservative source. Damn Bobby,

you

> can't
> > > see the forest from your fingers poking in your eyes. Your
> retorts
> > > are childish and comical.
> >
> > And did I see you say you took it word-for-word??? Or did you
> apply
> > the same bitter spin to it for some more of that waning

liberal

> > satisfaction that's self-processed.
>
> Word for word. I don't need to spin to prove my point, it's

obvious

> to anyone with a working braincell.

Word for word, but it got scrambled in that mutated mind of yours.

Just as it appears on your only source for news. Word for word,
unscrambled.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#15

And this is something new? This is your proof that the war is wrong?
Tell me what war was ever fought that didn't have bad equipment or
the lack of equipment? You demand answers, let's hear yours.

And while your at it why not tell us what CIC ever had to go to war
after the previous retrobate in office, that passed himself off as
President, totally gutted the military.
Do your homework pantload. It was Clinton who couldn't see past his
pecker that the world was an evil place. He cut the military budget
and used it to shore up his base of fools like you with more
largesse. What was it that you posted where the money should be
going? Was it more firehouses and schools? Screw our security and
line the pockets of the CSEA.

You brag that you deal in facts well then lets see them.
Give us a war where the soldiers had all the equipment they wanted
when they needed it.

Pretty sad to go to war like this. Rob, you think this as a good
thing, right??

Troops put tough questions to Rumsfeld

Defense secretary gets his own "talking to" from disgruntled GIs

The Associated Press

Updated: 9:06 a.m. ET Dec. 8, 2004CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - After
delivering a pep talk designed to energize troops preparing to head
for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld got a

little "talking

to" himself from disgruntled soldiers.

In his prepared remarks, Rumsfeld urged the troops — mostly

National

Guard and Reserve soldiers — to discount critics of the war in Iraq
and to help "win the test of wills" with the insurgents.

Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own — not of the
war itself but of how it is being fought.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental

Combat

Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee
Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer

session

why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly three years

after

the war in Iraq.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces
of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our
vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately
2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and

hear

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,"
Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not
the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing
manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly
possible.

Level 3 armor
And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the
kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents'
weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive
device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of
American troops since the summer of 2003.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can
(still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

#16

Oh geez, look what's back. The anti-union contractor from a right-to-
work red state. The morine. Slavery's been abolished, it's in all
the papers. Have you figured out what scuba means yet?? Ask your
wife, I explained it to her the other night.

Considering that the chickenhawk in charge was determined to invade
Iraq since he won the election, had a republican house and senate to
work with and three plus years to get together a military to his
liking, the fault of the militarys rediness is his alone. The
republican stance of blame Clinton and blame the democrats doesn't
work here. Although republicans don't seem to be able to take
responsibility for anything they fuck up. The armor manufacturers
producing at half capacity, how is that Clinton's fault. If you
assholes want to take credit for something you also must assume
responsibility. Welcome back, shit stain. I'm ready for your idiot
logic.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

And this is something new? This is your proof that the war is

wrong?

Tell me what war was ever fought that didn't have bad equipment or
the lack of equipment? You demand answers, let's hear yours.

And while your at it why not tell us what CIC ever had to go to

war

after the previous retrobate in office, that passed himself off as
President, totally gutted the military.
Do your homework pantload. It was Clinton who couldn't see past

his

pecker that the world was an evil place. He cut the military

budget

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:

and used it to shore up his base of fools like you with more
largesse. What was it that you posted where the money should be
going? Was it more firehouses and schools? Screw our security and
line the pockets of the CSEA.

You brag that you deal in facts well then lets see them.
Give us a war where the soldiers had all the equipment they wanted
when they needed it.

#17

Oh geez, look what's back. The anti-union contractor from a right-

to-

work red state. The morine.

Ummm John Boy, New York state is home to that liberal cesspool known
as New York city. That makes us a blue state.
I know your're a shining example of the failed public school system
but you really should bone up on your geography...

Slavery's been abolished, it's in all

the papers.

I hate to be the one to destroy your news scoop but I think everyone
in here knows the republicans did this over a century ago.

I'm a little disappointed in you John Boy. I thought you would be a
little farther ahead in your current events reading by now. I wrote
in an earlier post that it wouldn't be long before you would be
telling us that Lindberg made it. I can see now that this little bit
of news from you is years away.

I imagine it's slow going having to put your little finger under all
the words in the paper and trying to sound them out. Buck up little
camper, you'll get there eventually.

Have you figured out what scuba means yet?? Ask your

wife, I explained it to her the other night.

Was that you? She told me some pervert called mumbling something
about bite me and circle jerk so she hung up. You have to excuse her
john boy. You see up here when the snow starts flying and the
derelicts can't get to the adult book stores on a daily basis they
start with these random phone calls. I'm sure everyone in this forum
can understand why she thought you were one of them. Just to show you
what a nice guy I am tell you what I'm going to do. Next time you
have your Hustler magazine in your lap and you get this urge again
give us a call. I'll talk drty to you until you get off. At least we
know then you'll get a good nights sleep. Fair enough?

Considering that the chickenhawk in charge was determined to invade
Iraq since he won the election, had a republican house and senate

to

work with and three plus years to get together a military to his
liking, the fault of the militarys rediness is his alone. The
republican stance of blame Clinton and blame the democrats doesn't
work here. Although republicans don't seem to be able to take
responsibility for anything they fuck up. The armor manufacturers
producing at half capacity, how is that Clinton's fault. If you
assholes want to take credit for something you also must assume
responsibility. Welcome back, shit stain. I'm ready for your idiot
logic.

John Boy, I know you and the press are trying to tie this around the
Presidents neck but it isn't working.
The press isn't doing their work and you, the good sheeple that you
are, regurgitate all the pablum they spoon feed you.

Instead of posting this whole article I'll just give you the URL. The
truth is that the Army is getting just as many Hummers as they
requested. They screwed up not Bush. Sorry John Boy. Again you look
like a total fool.

Still waitng for the answer to my post. You seem to be in a high
speed cut and paste mode but so far no answer to my question.
What's wrong John boy can't answer the simple question?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040507-army-humvees.htm

>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>
wrote:
>
> And this is something new? This is your proof that the war is
wrong?
> Tell me what war was ever fought that didn't have bad equipment

or

> the lack of equipment? You demand answers, let's hear yours.
>
> And while your at it why not tell us what CIC ever had to go to
war
> after the previous retrobate in office, that passed himself off

as

> President, totally gutted the military.
> Do your homework pantload. It was Clinton who couldn't see past
his
> pecker that the world was an evil place. He cut the military
budget
> and used it to shore up his base of fools like you with more
> largesse. What was it that you posted where the money should be
> going? Was it more firehouses and schools? Screw our security and
> line the pockets of the CSEA.
>
> You brag that you deal in facts well then lets see them.
> Give us a war where the soldiers had all the equipment they

wanted

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:
> when they needed it.
>

#18

Richmond Post Dispatch, Indianapolis Star!! Come on Tommy, get in
the mainstream. If you have bothered to read any of the posts that
have your name in them, you would see that your stupid questions
have been answered, in spades. Somehow I trust MSNBC a little more
than your backwoods sources. Are all you conservatives this stupid?
Or is that just you and Robbie Bob? Oh, by the by, it's spelled
Lindbergh. I hope you don't post anthing from the Scarsdale Shopping
News next.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

>
> Oh geez, look what's back. The anti-union contractor from a

right-

to-
> work red state. The morine.

Ummm John Boy, New York state is home to that liberal cesspool

known

as New York city. That makes us a blue state.
I know your're a shining example of the failed public school

system

but you really should bone up on your geography...

Slavery's been abolished, it's in all
> the papers.

I hate to be the one to destroy your news scoop but I think

everyone

in here knows the republicans did this over a century ago.

I'm a little disappointed in you John Boy. I thought you would be

a

little farther ahead in your current events reading by now. I

wrote

in an earlier post that it wouldn't be long before you would be
telling us that Lindberg made it. I can see now that this little

bit

of news from you is years away.

I imagine it's slow going having to put your little finger under

all

the words in the paper and trying to sound them out. Buck up

little

camper, you'll get there eventually.

Have you figured out what scuba means yet?? Ask your
> wife, I explained it to her the other night.

Was that you? She told me some pervert called mumbling something
about bite me and circle jerk so she hung up. You have to excuse

her

john boy. You see up here when the snow starts flying and the
derelicts can't get to the adult book stores on a daily basis they
start with these random phone calls. I'm sure everyone in this

forum

can understand why she thought you were one of them. Just to show

you

what a nice guy I am tell you what I'm going to do. Next time you
have your Hustler magazine in your lap and you get this urge again
give us a call. I'll talk drty to you until you get off. At least

we

know then you'll get a good nights sleep. Fair enough?

>
> Considering that the chickenhawk in charge was determined to

invade

> Iraq since he won the election, had a republican house and

senate

to
> work with and three plus years to get together a military to his
> liking, the fault of the militarys rediness is his alone. The
> republican stance of blame Clinton and blame the democrats

doesn't

> work here. Although republicans don't seem to be able to take
> responsibility for anything they fuck up. The armor

manufacturers

> producing at half capacity, how is that Clinton's fault. If you
> assholes want to take credit for something you also must assume
> responsibility. Welcome back, shit stain. I'm ready for your

idiot

> logic.

John Boy, I know you and the press are trying to tie this around

the

Presidents neck but it isn't working.
The press isn't doing their work and you, the good sheeple that

you

are, regurgitate all the pablum they spoon feed you.

Instead of posting this whole article I'll just give you the URL.

The

truth is that the Army is getting just as many Hummers as they
requested. They screwed up not Bush. Sorry John Boy. Again you

look

like a total fool.

Still waitng for the answer to my post. You seem to be in a high
speed cut and paste mode but so far no answer to my question.
What's wrong John boy can't answer the simple question?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040507-army-humvees.htm

>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...>

wrote:

> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John"

<three2theroyal@y...>

> wrote:
> >
> > And this is something new? This is your proof that the war is
> wrong?
> > Tell me what war was ever fought that didn't have bad

equipment

or
> > the lack of equipment? You demand answers, let's hear yours.
> >
> > And while your at it why not tell us what CIC ever had to go

to

> war
> > after the previous retrobate in office, that passed himself

off

as
> > President, totally gutted the military.
> > Do your homework pantload. It was Clinton who couldn't see

past

> his
> > pecker that the world was an evil place. He cut the military
> budget
> > and used it to shore up his base of fools like you with more
> > largesse. What was it that you posted where the money should

be

> > going? Was it more firehouses and schools? Screw our security

and

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:

> > line the pockets of the CSEA.
> >
> > You brag that you deal in facts well then lets see them.
> > Give us a war where the soldiers had all the equipment they
wanted
> > when they needed it.
> >