Posted on 09/23/2007 12:50:00 PM PDT by mdittmar
No additional funds without withdrawal plan from Iraq: Hillary
She’s a liar who has done practically all she can to undermine the presidedent and ensure defeat in Iraq.
The unmitigated gall of this woman. She used the direct questions from Tim Russert about the Hsu scandal to call for public financing of campaigns. If only she had saintly tax money to pay for her politics, then the taint of corruption would go away.
She is a smoldering pile of monkey poop.
“saintly tax money to pay for her politics, then the taint of corruption would go away”
It never occurs to the bitch that the real problem is that SHE’S corrupt.
C’mon... no fair... you’re keeping score!
Our country is standing resolutely behind the Men and Women in our Armed Forces.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and the dems are not.
“She’s a liar who has done practically all she can to undermine the presidedent and ensure defeat in Iraq.”
Indeed she has.
No way she said this. Someone from the VRWC obviously planted it.
Bump.
And I want your vote.
He wants you to give me your vote too!!!!!!!!!July 14, 2005
Senate Democrats Call for Increase in Troops
By DAVID S. CLOUD
WASHINGTON, July 13 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and other Democrats proposed Wednesday to increase the size of the Army by 80,000 troops as a way to alleviate what she called a “crisis” in the military caused by lengthy deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The lawmakers said they would introduce an amendment to the annual Defense Department authorization bill to raise the Army’s authorized strength by 20,000 troops annually in each of the next four years, raising the total force to 582,400. Joining Ms. Clinton at a news conference announcing the proposals were three other Democratic senators, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and Ken Salazar of Colorado.
Increasing the size of the military, which the Pentagon has called unnecessary, is not a new idea for Democrats who have sought to highlight their differences with the Bush administration on national security. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts proposed a similar plan during his presidential campaign.
But the latest proposal comes amid growing debate, even within the Pentagon, about whether the military at its current size can handle indefinite deployments of 140,000 troops in Iraq and more than 17,000 in Afghanistan.
On Wednesday, the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research group that does extensive work for the military, released a two-year study of force levels commissioned by the Army that concludes the United States will face “serious problems” maintaining the readiness of many active-duty combat brigades and would have difficulty mobilizing for a crisis elsewhere in the world unless current overseas deployments shrink.
The report examines the strain of maintaining forces of various sizes deployed overseas. At the high end, described as 14 to 20 brigades on continuing overseas rotations, “the Army would experience serious problems” in active duty unit readiness and have “few, if any” active duty brigades “to turn to in a crisis,” the report said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/politics/14army.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Diana here: Well? Which is it, Beast? ;)
“...stand resolutely behind them.”
It all depends. If the President can be vilified for having too few troops deployed, then the Democrats will call for an increase; if the President can be vilified for having too many troops deployed, then the Democrats will call for a decrease.
Well, of course.
However...it galls me that this creature is NEVER called on anything by the GOP.
I think I need to e-mail a long list of her quotes to anyone that will listen in the GOP and stand up to this liar.
*Crickets Chirping* ;)
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.