One day, not so long ago, a United States Senator, one of one hundred of the most significant legislators in this country, was busted for playing footsie with an undercover cop in an adjacent stall in an airport restroom. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. When this was publicized, he was pressured by many of his colleagues, most, if not all, from his own party, to resign. He complied. Then he didn't. Then he vowed to resign if he could not get his guilty plea overturned. It wasn't and he didn't. He has now decided to finish his term and risk facing the "Ethics?" Committee in the Senate.
He protests that he is not gay. Gay Republicans, though rare, ARE more common than Conservative African-Americans on the Supreme Court. But do we really care? And, does it really matter?
He played footsie, perhaps, with the undercover cop in the next stall. Maybe it was a "gay signal"; maybe it was not. Does it really justify an arrest? Does it really justify a prolonged interrogation? It does not appear that any money was exchanged. It does not appear any offer was proffered. It certainly does not appear that any fluid exchange was even made or proffered! Nor does it appear any improper bodily parts were exposed. Just footsie!!!
So, how does one of the top one hundred legislators get himself arrested, interrogated, and plead guilty to such a weak and obviously unsupportable charge? How can he claim ignorance? How can he demonstrate such poor judgement? I REPEAT, he is one of the TOP ONE HUNDRED LEGISLATORS IN THE UNITED STATES. He is a LAWMAKER!!! This man cannot be ignorant of the law. The people of Idaho trust him to be a LAWMAKER!!! There is only one word for such a person. There is only one reason that the people of Idaho should feel betrayed. That word IS NOT GAY!!! That word is STUPID!!! After all, if the shoe fits......(regardless of what that shoe may be doing).....
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
Ill-logistics
Over the past year, arguments on both sides of the aisle "debate" the war (?police action?) in Iraq. Democrats demand that the troops be removed yesterday .... today .... October.... Christmas... by January 20, 2008..... Pleeeaaasssseee!!!!!
Republicans say that the "surge" needs to have time to work.....as our soldiers over 6 to 8 months meander into Iraq to effectuate (sic)... institute... impose... win?... the "surge".
Meanwhile, Blackwater and their ilk, whose numbers seem to outnumber our armed forces, continue perform the duties for which they have been hired. These "contractors", (the older term is mercenaries), are providing the bulk of the security and support in Iraq....so why are our troops there??????
When President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", he was right. What Congress authorized and what our armed forces did was what was asked by him. They did it admirably.
Our forces are designed to attack and win. "Shock and Awe" worked against Iraq, and probably would work against most nations today. Unfortunately, our forces are not well designed to be occupation forces. They are not police.... they are soldiers. Nation building was not part of the directive that Congress authorized... which is why the bulk of that stabilization duty was outsourced to our mercenaries (er...contractors). And that is where the State Department comes in using a silly thing called diplomacy.
The "Mission" was accomplished. And yet, common opinion of our leadership is that we are incapable of moving more than a brigade or two of our armed forces per month......HUH???????
I've been watching a little documentary called "The War" on PBS. These primitive troops of ours, from some 65 years ago, were moving troops incrementally larger than our forces in Iraq, in Normandy, and in Italy, and in the Philippines, and through the Pacific islands, and in a followup invasion in southern France.....and all at virtually the same time. I had an uncle in the 4th Marine Division that set off from San Diego, and traveled more than 3000 miles, to invade some po-dunk island in the Pacific, the longest invasion to that time. Today, we can barely move a brigade in a month..... HUH? On the Russian front in WWII, Germans were being captured in numbers larger than our current forces in Iraq. Yet today, our sophisticated mechanized forces can hardly move???? In WWII, Patton was moving a whole army across France, and would have gone further but for fuel. Today, in Iraq, with its oil, we can't even move a division??? HUH???
The argument that we cannot get out of Iraq in days is either A BIG LIE; or, our defense capabilities over the last 65 years have so eroded, that EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD SHUDDER!!!!
Republicans say that the "surge" needs to have time to work.....as our soldiers over 6 to 8 months meander into Iraq to effectuate (sic)... institute... impose... win?... the "surge".
Meanwhile, Blackwater and their ilk, whose numbers seem to outnumber our armed forces, continue perform the duties for which they have been hired. These "contractors", (the older term is mercenaries), are providing the bulk of the security and support in Iraq....so why are our troops there??????
When President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", he was right. What Congress authorized and what our armed forces did was what was asked by him. They did it admirably.
Our forces are designed to attack and win. "Shock and Awe" worked against Iraq, and probably would work against most nations today. Unfortunately, our forces are not well designed to be occupation forces. They are not police.... they are soldiers. Nation building was not part of the directive that Congress authorized... which is why the bulk of that stabilization duty was outsourced to our mercenaries (er...contractors). And that is where the State Department comes in using a silly thing called diplomacy.
The "Mission" was accomplished. And yet, common opinion of our leadership is that we are incapable of moving more than a brigade or two of our armed forces per month......HUH???????
I've been watching a little documentary called "The War" on PBS. These primitive troops of ours, from some 65 years ago, were moving troops incrementally larger than our forces in Iraq, in Normandy, and in Italy, and in the Philippines, and through the Pacific islands, and in a followup invasion in southern France.....and all at virtually the same time. I had an uncle in the 4th Marine Division that set off from San Diego, and traveled more than 3000 miles, to invade some po-dunk island in the Pacific, the longest invasion to that time. Today, we can barely move a brigade in a month..... HUH? On the Russian front in WWII, Germans were being captured in numbers larger than our current forces in Iraq. Yet today, our sophisticated mechanized forces can hardly move???? In WWII, Patton was moving a whole army across France, and would have gone further but for fuel. Today, in Iraq, with its oil, we can't even move a division??? HUH???
The argument that we cannot get out of Iraq in days is either A BIG LIE; or, our defense capabilities over the last 65 years have so eroded, that EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD SHUDDER!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)