[Incorrigible]

Paul is hard to like sometimes but he makes points here using GW's own words.  The only difference is that we are addressing terrorism in this case rather than heavy handedness with people who are not threatening us ala the Clinton administration.

"You read 'Army Times' and they hate this administration.

Anyone know if this is actually the case?

[AmericanVictory]

Bump!

[Cicero]

A good deal depends on whether a particular war is in the national interest. Clinton's war in Yugoslavia was NOT in the national interest. In fact if was clean against the national interest, since we poked Russia in the eye, weakened our old allies the Serbs, and helped gangs of drug runners and Islamic terrorists take over that part of Europe. This was done in the name of NWO nation building.

Bush, OTOH, brought down a regime that supported our enemies, the Islamic terrorists, and is well on the way to removing their base of support. We are nation building in Iraq in support of our own national interest, because it's the best way to weaken Islamic terrorism.

[stylin19a]

Not sure what he means about not raising salaries....

Year 2003 Base Pay All Military members receive a "base pay," based upon their rank and years of military service. The FY 2003 pay raise includes a minimum raise of 4.1 percent for all military personnel, with a higher-percentage (targeted) raise (up to 9.5 percent) for some (mostly mid-level officers and mid-level to senior level-NCOs). The new base pay is effective on 1 January 2003.

FY 2004 Base Pay The Fiscal Year 2004 military base pay raise includes a 4.1 average increase for all military members. As with last year, raises are targeted, based upon paygrade with some members receiving 3.7 percent and others as high as 6.25 percent.

[tbpiper]

Paul is completely full of sh*t. He cites the following:

McWilliams believes that it was the Bush crew's very dislike of the concept of nation-building that deluded them into thinking the Iraq war would end quickly and neatly.

Nowhere in anything the president said was this sentiment indicated, quite the contrary. This, I believe, is just an echo of the liberal talking points on Iraq.

The rest of his 'analysis' is equally fecal:

"In an odd sense, they wanted to be consistent," he said. "They wanted to get rid of this dictator and they had no plans for nation- building.

Ok, Paul, if your so damn smart, where did the idea of the Iraqui governing council come from? Or how about the genesis of the infrastructure repairs? Just because you weren't priviy to it, doesn't mean there wasn't a plan.

[OpusatFR]

I think he may be stretching this (I would say lie, but I won't) by using a blog from the ahem..."Progressive Populist" with the title of the article, "Why does the Bush Administration Hate Our Troops?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm

The article pulls a short paragraph FROM the Army Times to wit: "As Army Times wrote: "Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale – especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease."

But I cannot find in the Army Times itself where it states as this author appears to believe (hmmmm...) that "The Army Times hates this administration."

I believe this fellow has taken literary license a bit far, could be wrong, but then again I don't think so.