News-Record.com

I think you're correct, David Reid, it is time more Americans than just a few carried this load, but I'm not sure how to really do that.

Old Money? It's all going to the upper class (inheritance tax repeal). New Money? Any talk of new taxes brings legit' fear of squander on Bridges to Nowhere and more Med Part "D" plans.

Draft? Ain't gonna happen, brother; too many durn hippies and it's never been a great source of fine fighting troups anyway.

Rogue Nuc' over-sees? Can you spell $10 gas?

$10 gas? Can you spell Major Economic Impact?

A Major Attack on American Soil? Maybe that'll shake us our of malaise, and shift all the above. Seems a high price to pay though, and the real question is this:

Will Americans reward the NeoCons for a steady policy of Kick Ass, or punish them because Cheney cross-my-heart PROMISED to keep American's Safe at Home if we re-elected the NeoCons?

My heart aches for the angst that Mr. Reid and his family must endure while his loved ones are overseas on the Crawford Clowns Middle East Boondoogle.

However, Mr. Reid must remember, unless his loved ones are over the age of 50, then they choose to enlist in the military. Thereby, choosing to go wherever requested whenever called upon. While they may not agree with the "fight" that they are called, they are members of an ALL VOLUNTARY military. Thus, they made the choice, for whatever reasons.

I believe that facts will support that most of those who choose military service do not come from upper class family's. So, it can be deduced that it is for economic reasons that a good percentage of people enter military service.

Shalom

The days following 9/11/2001 our country was united as never before. Crime came to a halt. People who never before spoke to those on a crowded elevator, spoke to each other and mourned the death of so many innocent Americans. The President could have done so much with our allies by graciously acknowledging their offers of assistance and their concern for our country. The President could have wiped the Taliban off the map, capturing Bin Laden and working to secure a lasting peace in the Middle East rather than to take off on a ill advised foray into a sovereign country that posed no threat to U.S. security. As Americans we were willing to give up comforts and take up arms against the ones who attacked us, but NO. The President chose to trump up charges and change the purpose of the Iraq invasion over and over.
What is today's purpose for being in Iraq?

Bottom line: He has decimated an all volunteer force, instead of bolstering our great military. He ignored our allies and he put together a coalition consisting of third string players. What a bad dream.

"A major attack on American soil"

We've already had that. Unless we don't consider thousands of innocent deaths, a direct attack on the Pentagon and the loss of two of the largest buildings in the world a major attack.

"Bottom line: He has decimated an all volunteer force, instead of bolstering our great military."

Doesn't appear to be too decimated according to the figures.
dec·i·mate 3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number b : to cause great destruction or harm to

Appears to be very strong and getting even stronger, better educated and more middle class than ever. As of June 2006 the figures are doing well. Jul 12 2006 from ABOUT:

Active duty recruiting. All services exceeded their recruiting goals in June. The Army recruited 8,756 out of a goal of 8,600 (102 percent). The Navy recruited 3,961 out of a goal of 3,961 (100 percent). The Marine Corps recruited 4,357 out of a goal of 4,129 (105 percent). The Air Force recruited 2,564 out of a goal of 2,548 (101 percent).

Army National Guard: Recruited 5,823 out of a goal of 5,743 (101 percent)
Army Reserves: Recruited 5,640 out of a goal of 4,661 (121 percent)
Navy Reserves: Recruited 970 of of a goal of 1,021 (95 percent)
Marine Corps Reserves: Recruited 1,315 out of a goal of 1,281 (103 percent
Air National Guard: Recruited 880 out of a goal of 742 (119 percent)
Air Force Reserves: Recruited 607 out of a goal of 605 (100 percent)
Reserve forces retention. For June, Army National Guard retention was 122 percent of the cumulative goal of 25,239, and Air National Guard retention was 108 percent of its cumulative goal of 7,121. Both the Army and Air Guard are currently at 96 and 99 percent of their end strength, respectively. Losses in all reserve components for May are well within acceptable limits. Indications are that trend will continue into June.

Decimated, I think not. Has there been a failure to aggressively address how this war should be waged? Yes. This president has allowed his Sec of Def. to totally screw up the works and failed to fire him. It would appear that his, the presidents, listening to the generals on the ground is perhaps a bit late and the cost for failing to do so is not going to be light.

Well I'm not as gung-ho about recruitment figures as MRP - maybe he's right, and the CO's and NCO's (I think those are the right terms for "officer ranks") seem to be rugged folks that make America proud .. and I do know some good kids signing up - rugged folks that will make America proud - and God Bless them.

That said I'm not as sure - just not yet convinced yet - about ALL the crunchers going in, not their sanity when they get out.

Ditto the National Guard and their Equipment. I do work with some National Guardsmen and those non-connected have no idea the sacrific these folks are making for their country. I hear the home-front garrisons are being gutted for equipment, and the expensive stuff like warbirds are having years taken off service life due to the agressive nature of sand blown with 120 degree winds.

Maybe it's all hearsay, but on this we're on the same page: [T]here been a failure to aggressively address how this war should be waged ... president has allowed his Sec of Def. to totally screw up the works ... listening to the generals on the ground is perhaps a bit late and the cost for failing to do so is not going to be light."

I quoted Hannible Lector before: "This is really gonna hurt."

Mr P,

The optimistics picture you paint is in stark contrast to the one I envision. If recruiting is going so well, why has the military raised the maximum age level for the second time in less than a year? Why are they relaxing standards of physical abilities? Why are they turning a blind eye to criminal activity and lowering standards for mental fitness? And why have 40 congressmen from 20 states asked Donald Rumsfeld to investigate the allegations that the military has knowingly allowed white supremacists to join? Perhaps the desperation level is a little higher than you'd like to admit.

Produce,
As Ronald Reagan would say, "There you go again". You glean your numbers from the same folks who gave us the fake enemy body counts during Vietnam, so why should we believe them now? You failed to mention the class IV enlistments GROWING--for the uninitiated, those are basically criminals being accepted into the military. Why are they growing? Because the quality of recruits has to go down to meet or get anywhere near the targets. Old business trick: Lower targets so you will exceed them and look really strong. You know, paint a rosy picture like Rumsfeld and Cheney---last throes, dead enders, slam dunk....As long as you believe the DOD, we are all happy.
------
As to the TRUE cost of the war in monetary terms, one need only do a little perusing of this site:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Look at what we could be doing with the money being wasted in Iraq.

Nit Picker - I see you live up to your name:

I meant ANOTHER Major Attack (just raggin on ya, buddy).

Howie,
It is amazing how some people swallow the hook, the line and the sinker of the current administration. General William Westmoreland exagerated all the enemy kills in Vietnam while the truth was we were not getting any such number. Some have short memories or maybe just not enough gray matter. With Mr. P, I think it is a combination of the two.

Double D:

You've been real civil lately - please don't start peeing in everyone's cornflakes again.

Thanks in advance

JDR,
Only when Mr. Produce starts his "talking down" to folks will I rear back on my haunches! If you notice, he loves to think of himself as the CENTER of the universe.

Once again the Ditto Dummy reads only what he wants to read and then makes his ridiculous assumptions as to what I have stated. Where Ditto did I agree with any thing Rumsfeld has said or done? Show me anywhere on any of these blogs (N&R) where I have ever agreed with Rummy. I think he is totally incompetent, egotistical, arrogant and fails ever to listen to opinions other than his own. Wow, I believe I have just described the Ditto Dummy. It seems that he and Rummy are almost two peas in a pod. Ditto the figures come from not only the DoD but from the site ABOUT which offers facts on many subjects other than the military. As for my grey matter, it seems that I have a bit more than you since I DO read others opinions and CAN discuss with intelligence the subject. It would appear that you fail in that capacity as well as short term and/or perhaps selective memory.

Howie, raising the age limit has happened before, however not while we have had a volunteer army. However it could be that there are some who would re-enlist but would not fall under the age classification. It is age minus number of years equal age for re-enlistment after one has been out more than the required time. Can't recall if that is still 90 days or if it is one year or more. Lower the other standards seems to be hearsay more than any thing else. Criminal element? Enlistees have always been able to get certain convictions erased. I believe I addressed this in another lte not too long ago. White supremacist being allowed to enlist? Only Ditto Dummy would really believe this junk. The same propaganda was used during Viet Nam and it was as untrue then as it is now.
You seem much too intelligent to accept this junk as fact Howie.

Hey Ditto Dummy , Talking down? Facts speak for themselves but then you wouldn't understand anything about that.You wouldn't understand facts if they hit you in the mouth. You only see what you wish to see. Go back to your failed blog and there you can spew your crap all you wish and have a crowd that will agree with you. Oh , I forgot it seems that even the agreement crowd got tired of your arrogant manner.

DementedDeacon --

Pretty typical response. Dismiss out of hand recruitment numbers for the military, and post a link to a web site that has a a running figure in dollars and cents on the "cost of war." I wonder if the two guys who started the site ever considered the cost if the fighting were here, as it was on September 11, 2001. Seriously doubt it - that wouldn't help push the agenda.

Mr P,

Thanks for the compliment/insult. It can't tell which it was. Guess I'm not as smart as we both thought.

Anyway, we raised the maximum age of new recruits for the second time in six months, from 35 to 40 six months ago, then to 42 this week. Your equation has to do with this. Now these are numbers I can understand. We raised the age seven years to drive up enlistment. Are you going to dispute this too? I got it from the Stars and Stripes web site.

As for the white supremacist stuff, maybe I fall in the same category as the 40 congressmen from 20 states who also thought there was cause for concern. Apparently these groups were encouraging their members ot enlist for the free training from the best military in the world. If you choose to believe it, which apparently you don't.

I'm not going to join in on the current spate of fireworks accompanying the Deacon's remarks, on some things I agree with him, on others not, but love him or hate him I'll at least give him points for consistency of thought.

I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not that consistency is based on ration or rabidity.

In regards to the lte, I find myself confused as to the intended meaning of the last sentence:
"It is time more Americans than just a few carried this load, or the troops should be brought home now."

Is it a call for the reinstitution of a military draft or an indictment of society at large for not bearing a bigger burden of the hardships endured by military personel directly involved in the active persecution of the war itself?

As a former military historian and analyst who now does little more than read and approve the details of reports written by others - most of which are on non-military topics - I was against the initial military intervention in Iraq for a variety of reasons. The logical considerations for that opposition are lengthy and pretty much out of the mainstream, but at no point in time did any doubt over the dedication or abilities of our service personel enter into the equation.

I never doubted they could defeat the Iraqi army, and do so in a decisive and thorough manner.

My concern was with the aftermath of that defeat, and although I will not claim a total ability to have foreseen all that has happened since, the basic framework of what I envisioned is being acted out.

I'm not being arrogant here, quite the opposite. If an intellectually distanced and "out of the loop" old analyst such as myself could see it coming, I find it quite bothersome that those actually implementing the operation could have such tunnel vision as to have handled the matter in the way that they have.

I still have friends in the military, and have heard quite a few success stories about the situation in Iraq, but I still feel that the overall outlook for the situation is bleak at best.

As you all know, there are times in life where you can actually enjoy being wrong, and in my case this is certainly one that fits the description.

Poor Mr. Produce.

Here are some things he cannot understand, but hopefully it will shed some light.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0515/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/417271p-352528c.html

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gangs01.html

Guess he thinks others will fall for his "opinion as fact" routine.

Howie G,
EVERY single item you mentioned is correct as seen in the following link. Keep up the good work and old produce will go back to watching
re-runs of "Alice" on the Superstation!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-01-army-age_x.htm

Howie,
Here's another link that validates your post above:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-06-22T030936Z_01_N21345217_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-RECRUITING-1.xml

Howie,
One last link will take you to the "Mother Lode" of truth.
http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/troops/recruit/index.shtml

"I ... have heard quite a few success stories about the situation in Iraq, but I still feel that the overall outlook for the situation is bleak at best."

Apparently most of the unrest is limited to 4 of the provinces, with the remainder being in some relative form of stability all-be-they arguable still tinderable (is that a word?)). Of course one of those provinces being Bagdhad, where apparently 1/4 million marched today chanting Death to America (or similar).

Not good, unless the Lame-Stream Media, you know, digitized the demonstration to make it look bigger than it really was.

One other element is how the TV over there runs 24/7 telling folks ISRAEL INVADED LEBANON with nothing but pictures of Muslim women and children ripped apart by the Israeli army - so they get a clearly one-sided picture.

I think we can agree that these clearly one-sided pictures are not good things ... and as my today's bash, lemme add that I hope there is at least some pause for concern bt those in this blog who have for month been saying "Fox is the most popular news, there for it must be the most accurate news."

Thanks for doing my legwork DD. I was occupied most of the morning so most of my stuff was from memory or a couple of quick searches that I didn't link. Kind of makes you wonder if some of these folks will ever believe what degenerates like you or I say. Like the global warming thing we talked about two weeks ago: how overwhelming does the evidence have to be before some of these guys will say "you know, maybe Al Gore's not making this up for no apparent reason"?

James,

I see what you mean now. But I guess the next 'major' attack will have to be a lot more 'major' in order to wake folks up. The last one only worked for a few weeks before we ran off and jumped on the Iraq wagon.

Yep, nitpicker fits me pretty well, hence the name. Only problem I had was figuring out whether to spell it knit or nit.

"... the next 'major' attack will have to be a lot more 'major', [it] only worked for a few weeks before we ran off and jumped on the Iraq wagon."

What do you mean "WE", paleface?

Here's the old joke:

Tonto and the Lone Ranger are pinned by Savage Indians - the situation looks hopeless. The Lone Ranger turns to his friend and says "What do we do now?"

Tonto says, "What do you mean 'WE', paleface?"

Howie it was intended as a compliment since you seem to be a bit more objective than the Ditto Dummy.
The Congressmen who claim that white supremacist are simular to the ones who made the same claims during the Viet Nam war. They all turned out to be false just as they will be this time. Yes the age limit has been raised and for a good part of the reason I mentioned. Yes, there is reason to raise the limit in an all volunteer army as to the actual reasons , even though the Stars and Stripes did report it no clear reason was given. I do read that paper. The AF Times and the Army times also had an article on the subject as well. .
The Ditto seems to think it is because our forces are just demciated.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0515/dailyUpdate.html
Report is from the Hartford Courant which is decidely left leaning so can't put much into what they report. As for the Trib and the other Chicago paper they have been caught in so much misinformation that they can't be depended on.
As far as soldiers being under stress, oh yes, it happens in every war. I saw it up close during Viet Nam and also during even the Gulf War 1 which was a cake walk compared to Iraq. So to make a blanket statement as these two paper's appearing to be doing is misleading to say the least. I did counseling for military in the aftermath of Gulf War 1. There is another contributor on here occassionaly that currently does counseling at the VA and he see's no drastic increase as stated by these papers.
Gang activity. We had grafitti in Nam as well but no one jumped to conclusions that the military was now dominated by gangs. When a full report comes out then perhaps you will have a leg to stand on but don't hold your breath or try standing on one leg. Either way it could be detrimental to your health.

An Autistic kid gets into the military and mommy screams and some politican wanting to make political hay out of it makes a big deal out of it without doing his homework. Did you know that Autism can be waived after the individual is off any and all medications for one year ? Read the Recruiting rules and regs. They are available on line. If a recruiter allowed an individual who was currently taking meds and had not been off the meds for at least one year he should and will be dismissed from his duties as a recruiter. He should also be relived of his duties in the military as well.
I will continue later.

Howie, thanks for posting what I was thinking before getting it posted! DD, thanks for providing the factual rock-solid evidence to support Howie's posts.

JDR, thanks for the reality posts!

To use good Quaker terminology, "This (these) Friends speak my mind."

Shalom

This one was too good to wait on. Ditto Dummy has once again made a bad assumption and assumed that I nor anyone else would read the article in it's entirity. Did you Ditto? Doubtful or you wouldn't have depended upon it for an argument. Sorry it won't fly.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-01-army-age_x.htm
What Ditto Dummy, you didn't think I would read it? It flies back and slaps you in the face. some may not read the article and take you at you word as far as enlistment of older members. Here's what the article says in it's summation:

Allowing older soldiers makes sense if done properly, says Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Arlington, Va.

"For front-line combat troops, it's a bad idea," Thompson says. "But nobody is proposing putting 42-year-olds next to 18-year-olds on combat patrols. If it is correctly run, it could be a real boon."

The Army, which supplies most of the troops for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is on track to meet its recruiting goal of 80,000 new soldiers this year.

Now tell me what is wrong with the idea. Use the older troops in support positions in the States which frees up those combat fit for their jobs. Makes sense to me as well to most who rationaly think about things.

Hey, Darryl, Read the last load of bull that the Ditto Dummy tried to put over on folks as "hard facts". Looks like his "hard facts" are as soft as his brain.
Oh yea , bad move throwing in the cost of war item since you can't really offer any "real evidence" to back up you normal load of bull.
Perhaps your failed website would suit you better at least there no one bothered to read you links and took them at face value.

"I find it quite bothersome that those actually implementing the operation could have such tunnel vision as to have handled the matter in the way that they have."

btw - I'm not as educated or as dialed-in as others here like Jan H., MRP, and some others, but even without the inside track - it was pretty clear to even a dummy like me - that going into Iraq [period] was just plain stupid.

Once we went in, I started reading up - and my gut feel (that this was not a wise more) was stiffly reinforced. I'm now beginning to feel simply sad and perhaps a bit scared, but definately hollow: Going into Iraq was just plain stupid.

At this point, I've stopped reading books on it - grabbing a guitar to play the blues seems more satisfying.

Darryl, Howie and James D. Rockefeller,
Just the other day, Mr. Produce claimed to speak for 99% who post on this blog. Just glad that was another one of his "unsubstantiated" facts!

The links given above indicate just how bad things are becoming with our all volunteer forces. Recruitment came to an alarming slowdown and all of a sudden the U.S. decided to raise the age and lower the standards. Most thinking folks would call that a 180 degree turnaround from the successes known heretofore.
Unfortunately, like many in the administration, some want to paint a rosy picture of the armed forces situation, as they have family there. Others just toe the party line because they have no dog in the fight and they are 100% up the Bush bunghole.
But the real question remains, "How can a rational person still claim that our military and our country has not taken a huge hit for this ill thought out and incompently fought war?"
The answer is that a rational person can't.
They can, as Mr. Produce has shown, offer opinions based on "cherry picking" articles from military magazines, but that is aobut it. Imagine what kind of stick could we wield if we had not cried wolf to to the world over WMD in Iraq.

JDR,
Your self-deprecating style is so much more appealing than the "know it all" style of MRP. And contrary to your opinion, you are much more "dialed in" on things than our resident know it all. I appreciate your well thought out posts and I appreciate you backing up your thoughts with real, unbiased links.
Thanks again!

Produce,
Just what are you referring to as my "failed webwsite"? Clue me in oh sage, soothsayer and prophet, as I've never had a website or a blog.

Great article:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/index_np.html

and from the Portsmouth Herald:

Today, there is widespread disagreement over the effect of taking soldiers who score below average on the military's aptitude test. One Rand Corp. study in 2005, commissioned by Mr. Rumsfeld's office, found that higher scoring recruits produced better results on the battlefield. "Each additional high-scoring team member increases the overall performance of the team. This is particularly important in the military context, given the number of group-centered tasks," the Rand study found.

Not everyone inside the Army, however, accepts that conclusion. Gen Rochelle said he believes that the Army needs to "move away" from relying on the current aptitude test "as a reliable indicator of the quality of the youth who enlist." Some Army officials argue, for example, that recruits who didn't grow up speaking English tend to score lower on the aptitude test, which is given only in English.

As the recruiting climate has grown more difficult, the Army also has increased the number of recruits who require moral waivers because of misdemeanor offenses. Through April, about 15.5 percent of recruits required some kind of waiver for a misdemeanor offense, drug or alcohol incident or medical problem, compared with 12 percent for 2004 and 15 percent for 2005 when the Army missed its recruiting goal.

If MrP thinks the recruiter will be dismissed for signing up an autistic child, he can think again.

CBS's 60 Minutes did an expose' on military recruiters and found that, like pedophile Catholic Priests, they were just reassigned to another area of the country to recruit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/02/eveningnews/main692497.shtml

Again, facts beat out opinion. Sorry Mr. Produce, but you might as well get in your "Wayback Machine" and go to another thread! LOL.

Here's a link about a lying recruiter exposed, and he gets promoted! I guess Mr. Produce is right, everything is just peachy in the world of recruiting!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/eveningnews/main694345.shtml

Hope all of you check this link out! It says it all, and it backs up what Howie, JDR, and I have been saying.

"moral waivers because of misdemeanor offenses."
Yep and this has been going on forever and is not unsual nor was it unsual in the past. However before the all volunteer army these were not used as often as they are today. If you will note it says misdemeanor's not felony. Many young people of today have misdemeanors on their records for underage drinking, shoplifting, speeding and other traffic violations. This at one time was not a regular issue to be dealt with by the recruiters. Medical waivers have been given for as long as I can remember but it seems that no one made a political issue out of it as they have attempted to do today. You got any better stuff Ditto Dummy? This stuff is old hat and has easy answers for anyone even vaguely familiar with the military and recruiting.
What did the rest of the story say about the supposedly Austic young man? Did it not say that the young man had not been on medication for over a year? If it didn't somebody conviently left that part out. The waiver clause in the Recruiting guidlines are very clear about this. So evidently the Recruiter followed the rules and someone attempted to make a issue of it for political reasons. It won't fly regardless of who does a story on it, especially 60 minutes.
What does this particular story line have to do with the original recruiter story who recruited the Austic individual. Just how does anything back up anything you have said? Just another switch-a roo by the Ditto Dummy when he can't back up or refute the facts. Try again ditto. You pick up on one story and try to turn the converstation to your way. Get back on track and let me know what the story is on the Austic recruit. Bet you won't find anything of substance and will have to once again resort to changing the subject. It may have worked in the past but it won't work anymore ditto dummy. Get another approach. What little credibility you may have had just sunk another notch. Thought you would like to know since you seem to be so interested in poll numbers and standings.

Really Ditto, you never had a blog going? Strange, several people have evidence to the contrary and have shared it with me and a handful of others. The time is coming Ditto! If it were up to me, it would be today. "So look busy" as you like to say.It may get busier than you want.

Wayback machine... *snicker*

H E Y T H E R E M R . P R O D U C E!

Where is the PROOF you talk about???? I am loving this----I can't wait to see proof of a blog I have or had or might have. You sling such insults around with no proof and this is just another one of your little games.

How 'bout hopping in your "Wayback Machine" and going into another century. You are nothing more than a joke. Oh, and I will not claim to speak for 99% of the folks who blog here because I can only speak for me---sorry, but I am not the great sage, soothsayer and prophet you pretend to be.

Come on old boy, show me my blog or tell me where it was or where it is. LOL!!

Sorry I missed all the fun today, just out making a living. Not been able to post much in the last month due to vacation, work, and family.

Hey DD, just a curious question please. For better or worse, of course better for Darryl as you serve as his alter ego :) You are involved daily in this blog, correction, almost hourly. I counted 15 posts in this one thread alone. Here is my question. Do you have a job? Do you have a family? Do you have other obligations in life?

Please, please, don't read this as a put down. You have the absolute right to post till your heart is content as long as the terms of service are followed.

I'm just curious as to how you have so much time to spend on this blog.

"I'm just curious as to how you have so much time to spend on this blog."

Agreed.

Has anyone seen any evidence that this particular poster comments on any other forum in the local blogging scene, under that posting alias, at least?

This witch/warlock hunt reminds me of a similar incident a couple of years ago. Seems some of the bloggers wondered about me. Some thought I was a man, others thought I was unemployed and yet others hated the thought that a woman would dare interject herself into the discussions of men. (There were no other women involved when this LTTE blog started.)

The fact is I work two jobs, one to pay for the other. I am almost 61 years young, have children and grandchildren whom I love more than life. In other words, I am a normal, everyday person.

I blog for entertainment. The only TV shows I watch with any consistency are HGTV and World News Tonight. I search the net for info and read a variety of magazines/periodicals. I use my real name, an email address and share my experiences. It is my belief that this country has been hijacked by the government and we are all being held captive while they do as they damn well please. I come here to commiserate with like captives.

What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand? Absolutely nothing. But it has bearing on the direction these responses take us. DD uses a moniker, as do most of you. We know he is married and has the time, for whatever reason, to stay current and active in this forum. We know his politics. We know he can be less than polite sometimes. Other than this, we know little. But it seems to bother some that his life is not an open book.

Really folks, does it matter? If he wishes to remain anonymous, why should we not respect that? Why make an issue of his identity when it makes no difference?

Yvonne,
Seems that the few who are so curious are the ones who have too much time on their hands, or that disagree with my posts. I'll borrow a page out of Dan's book: The "folks in the Anti-Bill of Rights group" seem to be quite upset that I use a nom de plume. They will argue that there is no right to privacy, but they will quickly RE-act to questions to them.

Dan, What is your real name, your address and who are you really?

Mr. Produce,
Where is your proof that all of your friends have given you, that I have a website or a blog?
Believe me, I cannot wait to see your proof, as it will be news to me and everyone who posts here.

MR. PRODUCE:

You talked about how the recruiters would be disciplined.....like this one was??

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/eveningnews/main694345.shtml

Quit claiming your opinions as facts and people would have a lot more respect.

When the time comes ditto dummy and they decide to expose you for who you are. I will or perhaps another will decide to throw out the links or information. Until then wait. Most folks won't be surprised.
I see you stil can't find any thing on the "evil recruiter" who supposedly recruited an Autistic young man and his momma pitched a fit. Wonder who was behind all that smoke? You got any Ditto or just more of the same change the subject , steer to another misinformation source. I'm waiting on the real deal ditto but I won't be in a hurry because you won't find anything and will have to keep digging up the same old stories. Have fun.

ATTENTION:

Once again, Mr. Produce has slung around accusations as "FACTS" and cannot back it up.

He says that I have or had a website.

Where? Show Me?

Give us a link or just shut the hell up.

Okay, hate to embarrass you again Mr. Produce, but you may want to eat a little crow:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1146882329307730.xml&coll=7

Mr. Produce,
If you can't read, then here is an audio link for you to enjoy about the recruiting of an autistic teenager who didn't even know there was a war going on in Iraq!http://www.cbc.ca/radioshows/AS_IT_HAPPENS/20060509.shtml

http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/06/05/10/051006usarmyaut.htm

Hate to keep heaping FACTS on all your FICTION, but just had not gotten your apology yet so I thought I would give you one more source.

Keep defending those recruiters Mr. Produce. Sounds like that one day training course was all they needed!

Ref: Mr. Produce

Well, our resident know it all has gone underground after being exposed for opinions stated as facts.

Where's the proof of me having my own website or of having my own blog?

ANSWER: There is no proof as is the case with most of Mr. Produce's pontifications. In this case, there cannot be any proof because it does not exist.

But old Mr. Produce goes into "Walter Mitty" mode and pretends he's a secret agent for the United States Government, rooting out spies and infidels. In this case, he's threatened by a blogger! LOL!

ditto dummy , where does it say anything about the young man being on or off meds. If he has been off meds for a year, he can get a waiver. Still says nothing more than before. Try again.

"shut the hell up" "give us the link"
Seems as if the ditto dummy is getting nervous. If I don't have anything then why do you worry and make such disclaimers. Sounds like you got a good case of the willies. I love it!

Mr. Produce,
You are right out of "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty". You offer up all sorts of things and present them as facts. Glad to see you've dropped your "Secret Agent" personna as it was getting, well let me say "old". (LOL)

Where's your proof of my blog or website?

You don't have any or you would put it out here. Your credibility is nil.

See ya around when you present your next unprovable tidbits! LOL

DD, thanks for doing better on the old name calling stuff. Keep it up. I really like much of what you write and enjoy the information you and others provide.

I cannot but imagine the agony with which the letter writer is living. I worry when my kids are on road trips.

I don't understand his last sentence either. I do agree that the troops should be brought home. When, not if, civil war breaks out (I consider the current situation civil war already), our soldiers will be targets for both sides.

Let's hope Bush and Congress have a great vacation. Since the war is going well, the middle east situation is under control, and gas prices have leveled off at 2.99 for a week, they should be able to rest of and be able to come back rested and ready to get to work on getting re-elected.

My thoughts on recruiment, I believe many who were in the military before Iraq were enlisted because it was the best job they could get, some thought it was patriotic, some wanted to learn to kill and be able to kill bad guys, some wanted an education. I think there were probably as many reasons as there were soldiers.

Anyone who enlists now and wants to go to Iraq scares the heck out of me. If you have read anything, looked at the news, thought it out, you know we are not "fighting for American freedom". You are not fighting for your country in Iraq. You are fighting a senseless, winless war waged by the president of the USA and his cronies. Only they know the reason they chose to put you in Iraq.

Carol,
It is hard to ignore the links I've posted above or to actually try to discredit them. To get the number of recruits, they are lowering standards. It is really that simple. When it occurs, we all lose.

The real question we should be asking is "WHY". Bush no longer talks of WMD or liberation, but the focus is "Democracy". I call it the "reason du jour" as it seems to change like the soup of the day at Southern Lights or Liberty Oak restaurants. Do you notice that AFTER our election, the color codes went away. WHY?
WHY are we in Iraq? The commander in chief owes it to his country to tell us the truth.

Another thing I cannot understand, is why some people try to rip up Americans who question our leaders. Anytime one brings up the questions I've raised here, they are branded a "Bush Basher" or a sore loser over the election. Nothing could be further from the truth with me, as I love this country as much as anyone and that is why I am so concerned. For the life of me, I cannot understand why they support this administration.

Thanks for the kind words. Somehow Mr. Produce has gotten upset that I called him on some of his opinions posted as facts. He thinks I have a website or a blog....it would be news to me! He keeps calling me names, but I just keep asking for his "proof" and it seems he can't find any. Oh, well. Hope he finds peace.

Take care!

Yvonne,

I read you loud and clear. I don't know who you are (even though you use your real name and address). I don't even care enough to find out when you've made it available. That's not meant as a slap at you cause you seem alright to me. It's just that our involvement in this blog together is enough without me wanting to personally reach out and touch everyone here. I don't typically search the internet for life-long friends.

As far as Demon Deacon goes, all I can assume I know about him is that he is a democrat and a Wake Forest fan. He really could be a closet republican who is just REALLY sarcastic. I don't know and don't care. It's really just entertainment for me.

I admit that it would be really neat to see what many of these folks look like cause I've got a picture in my head that probably isn't even close to reality. Heck, I thought janherman was a woman with straight brown hair for about a week.

Anyway, I agree. Let's give up on this detective crap where everyone feels they need to expose the identities of everyone else. If they aren't comfortable with that, that is fine.

By the way, my real name is James Smith. Just kidding.

Nitpicker,
I am 100% Black & Gold, WFU Graduate. I am registered Democrat, but unlike many Republicans who post here, I do not pigeonhole myself into the Dem box. One thing I do is read voraciously, and therefore I have absolutely no respect or admiration for the way the Republicans have governed our country. They were much more effective as "back benchers" and "bomb throwers". They have proven to be a disaster at running things. That last sentence may reflect more on the current President and his administration than the congress. We can casually say, well this guy or that guy is an idiot---but I think a thinking person could pretty much sum up George W. Bush as a "simpleton" being manipulated by those he thinks are good at "ciphering"! He's the Jethro Bodine of the Republican Party or maybe the "Fredo Corleone" of the Bush family.

I can just see George H.W. Bush, in his best Jackie "Buford T. Justice" Gleason voice, saying, "I can't believe that boy sprang from my loins"!

Good night!

Nitpicker,
One last thing. Have you noticed that Old Mr. Produce has yet to concede to the links I posted above? He won't post for a while because he was totally discredited. He claims I have a website or blog somewhere and I am laughing my A__s off about that. He even says he has proof which makes me howl with laughter!
I told him to go help OJ find the real killers!