I think Canada's recent arrest of Home Grown Jihad Terrorist proves the President's point that we need to fight them in Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0606/p01s02-woam.html

Just kidding.

I saw nothing here to disprove Hank Powell's points. Just a lame mini-rant. (common in those who suffer from BDS.)

Toss in an illegal immigration rant and I would not have though the letter stoopid.

Great letter! Too bad those looking in the mirror don't see the problem.

JDR,
The senseless war is NOT the problem!! Gay people getting married is the problem! And those darned old "activist judges", you know, like Roy Moore......ooops. I guess Roy's brand of activism is OK, but those lib-RULS are not!

Thank God for the hard core 28% who still think "W" is the second coming of Jesus.
They suffer from BDS, better known as "Bush Derangement Syndrome". LOL!

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed at the urging of REPUBLICANS because the Dems were against it. A coalition of Republicans forged ahead and passed this landmark legislation for the good of our country.
One of the notable Democrats who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act was Tennessee Senator Al Gore, Sr.

jcackbar,
Your version of history is definitely "revisionist".

My question: What is its relevance here?

Demon, please prove me wrong.
The writer credited the Dems with passing major Civli Rights legislation. That just ain't true.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I know somebody will), but weren't some of those same democrats who were against the civil rights bills the ones who later became republicans...like Strom Thurmond?

For those who lack a history background or are just to lazy to look it up or just plain don't want to know here is a bit on both Thrumond and the Civil Rights Act of 64 including the initial lack of support for it by JFK prior to 60 and his neutrality on the subject up to early 63.

On Stom:
He ran against Harry Truman in 48 and thus formed what would be known as the Dixiecrats.

He switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in 1964 and aided Barry Goldwater in his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency against Lyndon Johnson.

Thurmond was instrumental in the "southern strategy" that won the White House for Richard M. Nixon in 1968. Thurmond is the author of The Faith We Have Not Kept (1968).

Strom was a Dixiecrat who opposed the 64 civil rights act as did a number of democrats both in the north and the south. The southern legislators looked at it as just another infringement on states rights while the northern democrats were just against it in principle.He switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in 1964 and aided Barry Goldwater in his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency against Lyndon Johnson.

Part of his decision was based on his issues with Lyndon Johnson as President and the Vietnam War. He didn't like the fact that Johnson was listening to his civilian advisors instead of the generals on the ground.He was the head of the Armed Services committee during that time and I can assure you that if you had a problem with the military or those in command he was the man to contact. He became a ledgend in SC and was loved by both black and white since he was for SC and not for himself. His views mellowed over the years and have been commented on in massive detail by both black and white leaders who admired him for being able to change. The old racist name calling game just doesn't fly with Stom. Go look it up for yourself if my word is not good enough. I can read and I have also been around long enough to know history first hand. Some of you who don't know history perhaps should try reading some of it.

So No DD that is not revisionist history, I was old enough to remember the situation whereas perhaps you were still in diapers or not even born.

On the civil rights act:

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

Also read in earlier paragraphs that John Kennedy was luke warm to the idea prior to 1963. He did not vote for the 1957 act and voted to send it to committee. He needed the legislation to defeat Nixon in 1960 and so he got on the bandwagon. He remained fairly neutral on the subject until 1963 , after the violence in Birmingham. He then made a speech to the American people supporting such an act. (That information came from paragraph called Political Factors for those who do not wish to read through the entire paper.)

Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11.( again according to historical records of congress this was seen by the southern legislators as an expansion of Federal Power especially in those states that did not have a problem with racial issues.) A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill. (As on can see in this section it took the republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act of 64. )

I hope this clears up the subject a bit for those who know nothing and don't want to know and for those who know little but are interested in being educated and refreshes those who may have been a bit in the fog.

Thanks, mrproduce.
It is also interesting to note that none of the southern Republicans voted for passage of the bill, and also that a larger percentage of Northern Democrats favored the bill as compared to their Republican counterparts.

It's also amazing how many of the Southern Democrats ran to the Republican party, strictly over race. Prove that wrong!
And Mr. Produce, you can cut and paste with the best of 'em! Bet you stay between the lines in your coloring books too.

Found a great quote from Barry Goldwater during the debate over civil rights. He voted no on the bill saying "You can't legislate morality". My how times have changed.

Wikipedia:
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states, ostensibly by making racial appeals to southerners. The phrase Southern strategy itself, was invented by Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips. For the years of 1948 to 1984, the southern states, traditionally a stronghold for the Democratic Party became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the Presidential elections 1960, 1968 and 1976. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, which critics have argued was intended as a signal of opposition to federal civil rights legislation for blacks. This strategy was largely a success, and the South is now considered a Republican stronghold.

So you see boys, the Southern Democrat of old is the Republican of today. If the Southern Democrat of old were still a Democrat, I would be a Republican. Mr. Produce, being the self proclaimed expert on EVERYTHING, will probably claim he invented the Southern Strategy. Just go along with him.

there's a famous quip from Johnson. As he signed the bill, he said "we just handed the south over to the Republicans".

Fellas,

Don't forget our own beloved Jesse Helms, democrat turned republican, who opposed civil rights on any level. A shining example of republican twist and manipulate strategy.

Good point Yvonne!
Jesse "The Race Baiter" Helms, who is still held in high regards by old segregationists. Interestingly enough, Strom Thurmond apologized for his race baiting and so did George Wallace, but ole Jess never did, but kept getting elected. If there is a hell, Jesse will definitely be there.

No Deac there is nothing to prove to those who don't wish to learn. I won't waste the time on you. By the way I can copy and past but I also can read and put into my own words most of what was on the site. Try it Deac. Do you know that many words or how to summerize anything except what you hear on Air America? You get worse by the day boy grow up.

Mark not sure that none of the southern Republicans voted for the bill. there had to be a few in order to make it work. It is also interesting that many of the souther state representatives didn't have a problem with civil rights issues but they did have a problem with the Federal Gov. taking control of the issue. That goes for both Dems and Repubs in those states. There is a lot of good info on the subject which came from the Congressional Record. They recorded more in those days than they seem to do today. Wonder why? Guess it's because they don't want anyone to know that they are doing nothing.

Yvonnne, Jessee was a total different creature from Strom Thrumond. Jessee never learned and Strom made his peace and moved forward. Strom was the soldiers congressman and that is for sure a fact. No matter what state or what party, if you needed help , he was there.

Yvonne,
Mr. "Cut and Paste" Produce probably ran the Pathe' news camera, filming Strom during the first great war. Note that he is once again the expert, with nothing more than regurgitated internet research.
States Rights was a huge smokescreen designed to camouflage the racial undercurrent to make it more palatable to oppose it. My relatives in South Carolina swore by Strom up until he died. They didn't care that he was basically a nursing home patient, because he WAS South Carolina. I met him on many occasions and had various opportunities to talk with him. He was a delightful person, but make no mistake about it, he was the consumate politician. He used to travel in a physician's small plane out of Cheraw S.C. to hopscotch the state. Once, I was invited to go along, but I do not like small planes!
Mr. Produce, no doubt has read much about Strom and knows of his undying love of over funding the military--to a fault! That was a time when Dems and Reps could agree on one thing--Defense. Today, defense is no longer the untouchable, due to $600 toilet seats and $1,500 screwdrivers.
I'll now turn it over to fiction's best friend, Mr. Produce---have at old boy.

(Oh just heard the Dixie Chicks on NPR and think I'll buy their latest CD---good fiddling music!)

And what do you regurgitate Deacon. Air America? What do you think the internet is for? Oh I forgot you only go to farleft wingnutzoid sites for your misinformation. You haven't learned that the internet is a useful tool to educate ones self on a subject or refresh ones memory on certain subjects, but that would occur to one without memory now would it. The only fiction I have seen here is your story Deacon or lack of one. No I didn't read about Strom's military funding, I lived it and was part of it. I dang sure am thankful to the man for sticking up for the military.
Now ignorant rant Deacon will continue peeing in the wind to impress each and everyone with his lack of knowledge and his only ability to degrade those who are educated and can offer facts into a discussion. Unfortunately the Deacons last rant left nothing to offer in way of discussion. Got anymore stupid comments Deacon? Go check your crystal ball and see what it says about me today. I can't wait to hear more of your ignorant ranting.

Produce,
You are not worth another breath of mine or any other serious person. Strap into your Lazy Boy and keep dreaming.

Deac, looks like mrproduce just handed you your ass.
Thanks for playing.

mrproduce,

Got my information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

I wasn't saying earlier that Strom was not a good individual. At the time of this vote, though, his position was well known. My reference to him earlier was in response to jcackbar when he commented on how the Democrats were not in favor of this bill. Jesse "I call every black person Fred" Helms might have been a better choice.

"Looks like mrproduce just handed you your ass." It's good to know that conservatives are still arguing on such an intellectual and thought-provoking level. . .You really DO need to get your information from somewhere other than FOX News and the Rhino Times. This kind of empty-headed bullying is one of the reasons for Bush's massive drop in the polls.

Oh, well. I suppose there will always be diehards. . .It just seems that there are fewer and fewer of you willing to join your leader in the bunker. . .I hope the cyanide tastes okay to you when the time comes.

"Doc",
You said it all.

Deac, mrproduce showed you to be little more than a ranting, uninformed, liberal kool-aid drinking fraud.
I hope you and the good Dr. will enjoy joining Teddy and Nancy P. and Hillary in the Dem bunker when they lose again.

jcack:
Why don't you and Mr. P get married and disappear.

Accusing someone of empty-headed bullying, talking about them joining their leader in a bunker, and wishing them a good tasting cyanide tablet is hardly an intellectual and thought provoking argument. Hello Mr. Pot, please meet Ms. Kettle. It is also uncivil, uncalled for and makes one look like a complete and utter jackass.

Well Dr. Hatcher you broke Godwin's law with your sicko bunker comment. You are sounding like Dr. Joseph Mengele.

Bingo swanks. That is the nature of bombthrowers. They try to elevate themselves as being intellectual and thought provoking, above everyone else in general. Then they launch a bomb like the cyanide comment and reveal how devoid they are of being intellectual themselves. Nice hypocrisy.

Or they launch bombs like "Why don't you and MrP get married and disappear" which are juvenile at best.

Another tactic is bait and switch. A good example is the aquatic center LTE posts by Deacon. The subject is an aquatic center in Greensboro, yet Deacon manages to bring in Bush, a stadium in Texas, and even Jesus into the argument. None of which have anything to do with the subject.

I looked up the URL from Doc's email address at Davidson Community College. I found a Dana Hatcher in the English faculty. That you Doc?

http://www.davidson.cc.nc.us/pdfs/DCCC_telephone_directory.pdf

After reading about libs in academia instilling their political views on our college kids, I hope your are just sticking to English Doc.

Don't ya just love them ivory tower liberals and their "intellectual" comments? I feel for the students who have to suffer through this person's "English" class.

Hey "Doc", looks like Dan just handed you your ass.

I'm outta here----it's obvious there are no MENSA members posting here.

MR P can go back to being an "expert" on everything, and his audience will eat it up. Ian Flemming has nothing on Produce, as he has been a covert agent working against espionage from the redwood deck of his Fleetwood double wide.

Dan, "The Working Class Hero" can go on not being able to link the relevance of a stadium built for millionaires and a local natatorium. He's still impressed with reaching a higher water mark than his friends and family, but can't get a grip on the fact that really doesn't matter.

neoCon, well he can go back to doing what he does best---living in a world where everything is black and white. No gray area at all, including between his ears.

"jcackbar"--Explain that name to polite society! LOL!

Adieu Deacon.............................................................................................................................................

I just have one question for the conservatives here. . .And like DemonDeacon, I will say no more. We've carried this far enough. . .But, I have to ask why you aren't in Iraq. . .I mean, our troops are desperately overworked. Recruitment is down. Support for the war is at an all-time low. Our nation needs you.

During the Second World War, men and women of all ages were desperate to enlist. For example, author Dashiell Hammett, a liberal who was later blacklisted, pulled every string he could to get back into the military despite having served in the First World War. His advanced age and poor health did not prevent him from having the courage of his convictions. Although he was not allowed to serve as a combatant, he was allowed to serve as a journalist for the military on the front lines.

Now, we are in the age of the Chickenhawk. The Chickenhawk is the conservative equivalent of the Limousine Liberal. During the Civil Rights Era, there was many a liberal who talked a good game but refused to be on the front lines when the police were beating the protesters. . .Now, the Chickenhawks squawk on about how they support the war and everything else President Bush does, but they refuse to go and fight in the war.

If you are not able-bodied enough to serve in a combat position in Iraq, you could help the soldiers there by going over as a member of the Red Cross or some other service organization. It's all too easy to be all talk and no action.

If you ARE headed over there, God bless you for having the courage of your convictions. . .If you're just a Chickenhawk, then I realize that I've been wasting my time here, anyway.

Good luck to all of you either way.

milliesdad, I spent most of 2004 in Iraq. This wasn't my first war, and I've seen more up close than I care to share.
Then as now, reenlistment of our troops was far above predictions. Our troops who're on the ground and know what's really going on support our President and our actions in the Middle East.
'Nuff said.

As I said before, God bless you for having the courage of your convictions. . .I wish more people did. . .

I found this quote from the Midland Reporter Telegram in Midland, Texas from April of last year:

"Nationally, the Army has recruited 89 percent of its active-duty goal through the end of March and 82 percent of its Reserve recruiting goal, said Douglas Smith, spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, Ky."

. . .And this is from NBC in May of last year:

"Pentagon officials say it's not a crisis, but it is a major concern — a battle here at home to win the hearts and minds of potential new recruits.

After more than three years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the all-volunteer military is facing its toughest test yet.

In April, the Army missed its recruiting goal for the third month in a row, short by nearly 2,800 recruits, or 42 percent off its target."

From military.com in September of last year:

"WASHINGTON - The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.

Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger - perhaps by 50,000 soldiers over its current 1 million - in order to meet its many overseas commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army already is on a path to add 30,000 soldiers, but even that will be hard to achieve if recruiters cannot persuade more to join the service."

However, USA TODAY report in April of this year:

"Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal. The Army was 15% ahead of its re-enlistment goal of 34,668 for the first six months of fiscal year 2006, which ended March 31. More than 39,900 soldiers had re-enlisted, according to figures scheduled to be released today by the Army.

Strong retention has helped the Army offset recruiting that has failed to meet its targets as the war in Iraq has made it harder to attract new soldiers. The Army fell 8% short of its goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, although it is exceeding its goal this year. Army recruiting figures for the first half of the year are to be released today."

So, most of our military strength is coming from those who are already enlisted. Where is the new blood? I constantly meet people in the Greensboro/High Point area who are strong supporters of the President and the war. When I ask them if they intend to enlist, they ALWAYS reply in the negative. . .So, the problem is that we lack enough people like yourself who have the courage of their convictions.

If every able-bodied person who believed that the war is a good idea would actually enlist and go into battle, don't you think that the U.S. military effort in Iraq would go much more smoothly?

Of course, there's a group called Veterans Against The War In Iraq (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php) that might slow things down a bit.

Anyway, God bless you for having the courage of your convictions. . .The next time I hear someone spouting pro-Iraq War sentiments but refusing to go fight the war themselves, I'll tell them about your courage.

Come on, Conservatives! Join up today!

Hate to break your bubble milliesdad, but there are several war veterans who post here, I think. I was drafted and sent to Vietnam. I have 2 nephews who have served there and if I was of age, I'd go myself.

Had Kerry been president, we would still be waiting on the green light from Kofi Annon to 'impose sanctions' against Afghanistan and Iraq while America's liberals blamed 9/11 on...who else, America. Wait. They are doing that anyway.

Milliesdad,

I don't really see things that way. War, for better or worse, is an extension of foreign policy. Just like any policy, a nation's policy is set by government. War is, in short, a political process. Just like taxation, regulation, and all of that.

Being opposed to or in support of any political policy or course gives everyone the right to express their position. However, those opposed to a policy are not exempt from it and those who support it are not shackled to it.

Taxation is an example. Those that oppose taxes must still pay them. Those that support them are not required to pay more, or be the only ones who pay.

I served in the military, but my opinions on how the military should run are given no greater weight than any other voter's.

milliesdad, I'm unsure what your message is.
Your quotes seem to prove that the liberal media has swayed many against our government and they aren't enlisting in large numbers, but you also prove that those in the military are re-enlisting in great numbers. I'll restate my assertion: Those in the military and on the ground have a better grasp on what's really going on and therefore reenlist in support of our government.
Of course, I now expect the left wing wackos on here to bombard me with anecdotal stories of individual soldiers who have refused service in Iraq due to cowardice, disguised as their "beliefs."
Bring it on.

milliesdad, I spent 30 plus years in the military and in government service for my country. I had two tours in Vietnam and another tour in SEA as a civilian in government service. I received spinal injuries in a helicoptor crash when we were shot down attempting to extract wounded. I was wounded twice after that and received commendations for rescue operations of downed pilots and of wounded soldiers. I would serve today if I were physically able and young enough according to military standards but unfortunately they view 60 as too old and 100% disabled as not fit for service. My adopted son served his tour in Iraq and is probably going to do another tour this year. My son-in-law has pulled two tours in the Middle East, one during Gulf War one and one during this conflict. My older daughter is currently serving in the Army reserves as a member of a support group for those in Iraq. What have you done?

Your numbers are also skewed by the MSM and out of date. Please review this link for numbers from the military:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/06recruiting.htm

Active duty recruiting. All services exceeded their recruiting goals in April. The Navy’s recruiting goal was 2,591 and it enlisted 2,591 (100 percent). The Marine Corps’ goal was 1,495 and it recruited 1,499 (100 percent). The Air Force goal was 2,370 and it recruited 2,386 (101 percent). The Army's goal was 5,400 and it recruited 5,684 (105 percent).
Reserve forces recruiting. Only two of the six reserve components met or exceeded their recruiting goals this month.(April 06)
* Army National Guard: Goal: 6,530 Recruited: 5,875 (90 percent)
* Army Reserves: Goal: 2,611 Recruited: 2,164 (83 percent)
* Air National Guard: Goal: 778 Recruited: 719 (92 percent)
* Air Force Reserves: Goal: 544 Recruited: 544 (100 percent)
* Navy Reserves: Goal: 865 Recruited: 648 (75 percent)
* Marine Corps Reserves: Goal: 408 Recruited: 411 (101 percent)

For those who remember me I am back and it is good to see things havent changed

From NPR, the liberal biased station some. Heard an interview with Iraq War Vet who has found coming home to be not so great. He says he went from war hero to unemployed high school grad. The difficulties of obtaining health care and benefits went on and on. He says some are re-enlisting solely because of financial reasons. Sounds reasonable to me.

I know of many who are in service because it was their only alternative to a life of poverty. I have met some who want to go kill "ragheads". I am sure there are many who are soldiers because they believe they are serving their country.

It appears we are failing our returning soldiers. Any comments on that?

I wonder what these soldiers who survive will say when they are free to speak their minds.

Since all of the above is totally off topic, I want to add a new name: We have Rinos so we should have Dinos also. Few politicians stand for what we thought the parties of old stood for. All I see is greed, arrogance, and a desire for personal gain.

didn't they dumb-down the enlistment standards?

I think the low numbers in support of the President and the war attest to the fact that it's the most die-hard hawks who refuse to accept that this presidency and this war are a disaster.

FOX News, surely the most biased network in favor of the President and his policies, reported in May that "a 53 percent majority of Americans disapproves of the president’s job performance," while 38 percent approve of his performance. Most media outlets have his approval rating at around 30 percent. "At the beginning of the year, 80 percent of Republicans approved of the job Bush was doing; now that’s down to 66 percent. It’s a similar story among conservatives: 68 percent approved in early January and 54 percent approve now."

Of course, his numbers have always been low among Democrats. But now, he's losing ground among his own. Nearly half of conservatives now feel that he's doing a poor job.

So, who's joining the fight for his war? There are the ture Patriots, those who have no other employment opportunities, and those who have been granted waivers for criminal offenses.

From salon.com: "According to statistics provided to Salon by the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, the Army said that 17 percent (21,880 new soldiers) of its 2005 recruits were admitted under waivers. Put another way, more soldiers than are in an entire infantry division entered the Army in 2005 without meeting normal standards. This use of waivers represents a 42 percent increase since the pre-Iraq year of 2000. (All annual figures used in this article are based on the government's fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. So fiscal year 2006 began Oct. 1, 2005.)...In fact, even the already high rate of 17 percent underestimates the use of waivers, as the Pentagon combined the Army's figures with the lower ones for reserve forces to dilute the apparent percentage. Equally significant is the Army's currently liberal use of "moral waivers," loosely defined as criminal offenses. Officially, the Pentagon states that most waivers issued on moral grounds are for minor infractions like traffic tickets. Yet documents obtained by Salon show that many of the offenses are more serious and include drunken driving and domestic abuse.

"Last year, 37 percent of the Army's waivers (about 8,000 soldiers) were based on moral grounds. Like waivers as a whole, these waivers are proliferating -- they're 32 percent higher than in the prewar year of 2000. As a result, the odds are going up that the soldiers fighting and taking the casualties in Iraq entered the Army with a criminal record.

"'The more of those people you take, the more problems you are going to have and the less effective they are going to be,' said Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Reagan and a senior fellow at the progressive Center for American Progress. 'This is another way you are lowering your standards to meet your goals.' Retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, who was the Army's chief intelligence officer from 1981 to 1985, also called the increase in waivers 'disturbing.'

"He expressed concern that the lower standards would place a burden on military commanders who have to deal with 'more lawbreakers and soldiers with anti-social behavior in their units.'

"Even without the waivers, the Army has lowered its standards for enlistees. The Army has eased restrictions on recruiting high school dropouts. It also raised the maximum recruitment age from 35 to 39. Moreover, last fall the Army announced that it would be doubling the number of soldiers that it admits who score near the bottom on a military aptitude test.

"One Pentagon official, whom Salon asked to inspect the Army's official waiver figure, said the Army's claim that it has issued waivers to 17 percent of recruits 'is not a correct number.' In fact, the percentage should be higher. The Army has made the number appear lower by combining data from Army Reserve forces, including the Army National Guard -- even though the Guard has its own separate recruiting program and (based on information provided to Salon under the FOIA) used waivers in only 6 percent of all cases in 2005.

"When pressed, the office of public affairs admitted that it had lumped together data from several military services to derive the official Army waiver number."

So, while many branches of the military are meeting their recruitment goals, it seems that they're doing so by lowering the standards to absurds lengths.

I am certainly not suggesting that those of you who have posted here and served your country well are anything but the most sincere Patriots. I'm just pointing out that a good deal of the company that your fellow soldiers are being forced to keep is somewhat less than desirable (except by a government needing fresh troops).

You'd think that all those recruitment ads that are being run on FOX News would attract more patriots like yourselves and fewer criminals. Then, there would be no need to lower the standards.

Hayes!

Was thinking about you the other day and wondering where and how you are. Great to read a post from you, even if it is to only acknowledge some things rarely change (the beat goes on and on). Hope you will jump back into the discussions with your usual well thought out, pratical posts.

A perspective from you is always a welcome change, even when I do not agree with you.

Traffic tickets, DUI's,shoplifting, what is now incorrectly labeled domestic abuse and actually falls under domestic dispute where there is no criminal charges filed have always been waivered. As a former Recuriter I can say that these have always been waivered. Little has changed regardless to the change in wording of some waivers. Any waiver is difficult to obtain unless it is for minor offense such as mentioned above. There are also physical waivers for those not in top shape for example slightly overweight. There are also today waivers for individuals who were diagnosed AD/ADHD etc when youngsters in school.These waivers and conditions for obtaining a waiver are found in DOD directive is, "E1.28. and E1.28.2. These waivers according to those in recruiting, while difficult, are somewhat common these days and thus can account for a lot of the waivers claimed to be due to "lowering standards" when in fact they are not. (note if the recruit candidate has taken Ritilin within the last year they are not eligible, according to Recruiting sources.) Those with mild diabetics and asthma can obtain waivers as well although these are much more difficult depending on how they are being treated. (not all services will waive these conditions)Example candidate was dianosed with asthma at age 10 but is not currently on medication or has not had attack in over one year. Same with candidate diagnosed with juvenile diabetics and has no current problems.

In the budget year that ended last September, 15 percent of recruits required a waiver in order to be accepted for active duty services - or about 11,000 people of some 73,000 recruited.

Most waivers were for medical problems. Some were for misdemeanors such as public drunkenness, resisting arrest or misdemeanor assault and those I mentioned above as well. Again this would dispute those who are saying that the military has had to lower standards because of the lack of recruits. However it is estimated that half the population is not currently eligible for induction due to physical conditioning. Does that tell you something abut lack of PE in schools. Kids sitting
on their butts and playing PlayStation instead of being outside exercising and playing.
Some Tatoos also will get you turned down or may require a waiver.
To debunk the lowering of academic standards this information is included from DOD records:
The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. Servicemembers have high school diplomas or the general equivalency diploma. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. "To carry representativeness to the extreme, we would have to have a less-educated force or we would want a lower-aptitude force." (according to DOD statistics)
To answer the question and accusations that the military is made up of majority poor individuals:

On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class. More recruits are drawn from the middle class and fewer are coming from poorer and wealthier families. Recruits from poorer families are actually underrepresented in the military.( According to DOD statistics)

Sure looks like a lot of reasons for waivers other than those give by Solon.com which by the way is no longer up and running as of today. Must not have been a very reliable source of information.

Oh and milliesdad, you didn't answer my question as to your service status. Does that mean that you only critize what you only know about from reading or do you actually have first hand knowledge. Sorry if this questions disturbs you but I feel it only fair in order to establish credibility of your information. It seems that Solon no longer exists so can should not be claimed as credible information.
You see some of us priors and those who have children serving take exception with your information based on first hand information rather than hearsay and skewed information.

MRP,Jackbar,

Clap,clap.clap,clap.

Looks like what information didn't come from Salon.com came from Air America or Michael Moore.com

Mrproduce, after just reading your email, I typed in "salon.com" and was taken directly to their site. In fact, after having just typed that sentence, I tried again. . .And, sure enough, there it is.

I think the problem you encountered was the spelling of "salon." It's s-A-l-o-n. A "solon" is "a member of a law-making body" or "somebody wise, especially an experienced and wise legislator or politician."

Anyway, to answer your question about my service record, I was not in the service. I had cancer and was ineligible. (Of course, these days, I could probably get a waiver from some solon.)

I get my information from reading and from talking to other people. I do research (such as checking on the spelling of a website's name before trying to look it up).

Recently, I had an experience with a twenty-year-old woman in my church who has joined the military, but who really has no business being there. . .A couple of months ago, this young woman told me that she had joined the military and would soon be leaving for boot camp. . .She asked me to help her write a letter explaining why she had chosen to join up. Her writing skills are pretty atrocious, and it was very heavy going trying to get her to articulate why she was joining up.

I asked her why she was writing the letter. To whom would it be addressed? She replied that she wanted to give the letter to her family and friends, all of whom had been berating her for her decision to join the military. . .Even though I am adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq, she knew that I would help her write the letter because I felt that the decision was hers to make.

As I said, her writing is terrible, so it took a while for us to get the letter written. She is severely dyslexic, extremely nearsighted, and homosexual. Her recruiter assured her that none of these obstacles would prevent her from enlisting. The gist of her letter was that she had no idea what to do with her life, little education, and no real goals. . .So, the military seemed like as good a career path as any.

A couple weeks after we wrote the letter (which, she told me, expressed precisely what she wanted to say), she told me that her recruiter was making crude sexual remarks to her. . ."What should I do?" she asked. The two of us finally decided that if the military was willing to overlook her shortcomings, she could overlook some inappropriate sexual comments. That will be the least of her problems once she gets into combat.

By the way, here's the link for salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/

One last thing. . .I suppose wife beaters are welcome in the military (according to the new "waiver" standards), but this young woman's friends all tell her to keep quiet about her homosexuality. . .Unless she wants a quick trip out the service. (Like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton may have avoided Vietnam like the plague, but at least he gave gays the "Get Out of War Free" card of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Well I don't know - Maybe figures lie and liars figure:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/30/72514/6238

... but I do keep hearing aboru lowered quotas ...

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=17852&archive=true

"Re-enlistment rates the past three years have been at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army." BUT ... Apparently in 2003 targeted lowered from 57,000 to 51,000 - so 106% means 54,000, or 3000 under the mark - this while bumping average bonus from 5k in in 2003 to double that now.

Hi, jcackbar. You wrote that you expect some “left wing wakos on here to bombard” you “with anecdotal stories of individual soldiers who have refused service in Iraq due to cowardice, disguised as their ‘beliefs.’” Well, if I have to be designated a “left wing wacko,” that’s okay. I just wondered why you’re not in Iraq. I noticed that you ended your posting with, “Bring it on.” I know that you said in an earlier posting that you spent most of 2004 in Iraq and that you have seen more wars “up close than you care to share.”

If you’re disabled, you have my condolences. . .And I DO thank you for your brave service, in any case. . .But they really do need experienced soldiers over there. . .

Anyway, here’s the anecdotal evidence that you asked us to “bring on”:

In the April 17, 2006 issue of TIME magazine, retired Lt. General Greg Newbold, a man who, to use your words, knows firsthand “what’s really going on” writes: “Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem ‘Won't Get Fooled Again.’ To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture--who became career members of the military during those rough times--the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again.”

milliesdad, I apologize for responding to you in the first place. From your post I thought you were being sincere, now I see you're just using it as a springboard for your left wing rants.
For every vet who has spoken out against the war you will find thousands who "get it." If I were to list the many testimonials of soldiers who understand what we're doing in the war on terror, the N&R would run out of server space.
Have a good life. Enjoy the freedoms earned by our country's military veterans with their blood.

MrP,neo,Dan,
Too bad you don't read things other than Army Recruiting materials:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7270391/

Or is it that you just make it up as you go? I see that Mr. P is now a former recruiter! Surprise, surprise, surprise!
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_recruit_040105,00.html

Or maybe it's just that you don't WANT to believe the truth!
http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=3899

Or maybe it is because you cannot refute the truth! "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"-----and I'll bet our resident expert doesn't even know who made that statement!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232092/posts

Apologies to all open minded, free thinking folks, but I had to show those suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome" that their fearless leader is a weapon of mass distraction:
flag burning/gay marriages. LOL

Well millesdad you got one part correct and that is the part about Rumsfeld. He has totally failed to listen to the generals on the ground and has cause more screwed up fiasco's than almost anyone since the days of Laird and McNamara who did exactly the same thing.It was not the generals who stood by and did nothing it was the egotistical Rumsfeld. They fired those who disagreed with them , namely Gen. Westmorland, who had they listend to him would have brought the North to the table and the deal would have been done.(Rumsfeld has fired , what 2 generals, can't remember the names but it has been at least two who tried to give him sound tactical advice.) It may have been simular to the Korea 38th deal but at least it would have ended much sooner. However you may not know about this since it is not taught in schools . Rumsfeld is the soldiers worst nightmare and needs to be replaced and Bush is sitting on his butt and not taking control and firing him. General Newbold did not resign because of his opposition to the war, he resigned because the way Rumsfeld was letting the situation get out of control.Why do you think he challenged Rumsfeld? Not because he was against the war but because he was against Rummy's lack of a plan. General Eric Ken Shinseki also butted heads with Rummy when he said that more troops on the ground were needed. Rummy publicly tongue lashed the general and even named a successor almost 2 years prior to the Generals end of term as Chief of Staff. That undermined his authority. Rummy again was wrong. So you got some things half right but failed to tell the whole story which is typical of those who are anti-war and anti-military.
Guess I must have been truely counterculture because I became career in 1964 when I joined the USAF after a short stint in the US Army reserve.

You still fail to answer the question? Guess the last poster was right, you are not sincere and only wish to denigrate those who have served and are now serving. Guess you would have been one of those who I would have broken code of "none left behind" for.

I am just informed DD , something that you fail in being. Yes I did a tour as a USAF Recruiter with the 3504th USAF Recruiting Gp and also served as 1st Sgt of Group Hq during my career. You got a problem with that? I see you use MSNBC as an authority and anyone who has a lick of brains knows that they only tell part of the story. also I did not use Recruiting figures only but figures from the DOD and they are current which the other writers figures are not. Check it out. But then you won't because then you would be informed and have nothing to dispute .
Again your stupid remarks on gay marriage and flag burning which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand is typical of your lack of ability to even carry on type of discourse. AT least millisdad has the civility and brains to do so. Maybe you could learn from that individual since you certainly will not learn from those who speak from first hand knowledge and experience.
You are to be pitied . Go on back to you AirAmeric websites and jump around like the little monkey on the organ grinders leash.

Interesting. . .Mrproduce asked me about myself and my own record, and I told you. . .But when I asked jcackbar a question, I just got insulted.

. . .And, by the way, I was not the one who made the remarks about Donald Rumsfeld. I was quoting a TIME magazine article in which retired Lt. General Greg Newbold not only criticized Rumsfeld, but also the entire rationale for the Iraq War.

You know, we're really not going to change one another's minds. But I have to leave this discussion with a link to a wonderful clip from THE DAILY SHOW. It illustrates beautifully the bias that IS FOX News. The link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8PivH5u96c&search=Daily%20Show%20FOX%20News

If the link doesn't work (and I'm afraid it won't), go to youtube.com. Then, type in Daily Show and FOX News. The clip is listed under "FOX News Cheerleads For Bush."

I hate to quote a cliche, but I've quoted just about everything else here in the last couple of days. . ."Opinions are like assholes. . ." You know the rest. We all have them. Let's just strive for a civil discourse. . .And I'm going to keep praying for that young woman from my church (along with everyone else--American and Iraqi) who's involved in this mess.

Take care everyone. I have to get back to my life now.

Any comments on Al-Zarqawi getting two 500 lb. bombs up his a** last night courtesy of the US military? I already heard the Air America clips proclaiming Bush is still a greater terrorist than Al-Zarqawi. Funny thing, I just don't remember Bush lopping of anyone's head on Internet video like Al-Zarqawi did to Nick Berg.

Never mind whether you agree that we should be in Iraq, the fact is we are there. And there are truly those on the left in America who wish we are defeated in Iraq for the sole purpose of proving Bush wrong in their intense hatred for him.

This is one victory in a long, long war. Not just the war in Iraq, but the war on Islamic extremism and jihad.

How about our neighbors to the north breaking up a major terroist plot last week? These jihadists want to attack socialist Canada?

I have heard some sensible libs agree that Al-Zarqawi's death is a good thing, but I would love to hear the negative spin. Deacon, as the bandleader, you're up first. Tell us how Al-Zarqawi's eternal burning in hell is a bad thing please.

Well I'm not DD, don't consider myself a bleeding heart lib' and am def' not sensible .. but I'll address your post, Dan:

I don't listen to Air America.

Al-Zarqawi got what he deserved.

Al-Zarqawi was a no-body hate-monger until America invaded Iraq, which gave him a real cause.

Here's a great summary - maybe it's even accurate

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5472135

==

Canada authorities used the Internet and Phone lines to break up a major terrorist plot. No one I know has a beef with the wire taps - it's the "illegal" part. The Whitehouse claims they are exempt from laws - all they had to do is ask. It's the arrogance that is so dangerous.

As you state, the fact is we are in Iraq, but the terrorist in Canada - London - Madrid - prove the "claim" of "fight them there and not here" was BS. Note that White House claim - filp-flop # I lost count - didn't happen until AFTER the Chalabi swap for Saddam deal went bad. It was and is spin - eat it if you want - I think doo-doo tastes like crap.

I don't agree Bush is a terrorist, but he is guilty of stupidly going into Iraq. He is guilty of not listening to anyone in the Military. He is guilty of maintainng a very slimmy political team, like Vernon, and will say or do anything to get elected and generally advance the interest of the Republican party.

I look at this slime, and hear all their talk about "Morality" and "Values" - and the taste of doo-doo returns.

I do not believe the Republican party has a "Better America" as its plan. The current Republican party is the party of Big Business - business with enough meaningful cash to help elect Republicans ... Republicans that'll make business more profitable through the removal of some laws and the insertion of others. It's all about the money honey and nothing else.

The Republican party has 60% of America's either fooled or divided. They simplify complex social situations to distort into one issue votes. They use double speak to frame issues - saying they are for getting government out of your lives but then, for example, apply government heavily through the Bankrupcy laws (government bails out bad decisions by big business). Consider also Reagan's bailout of during the Savings and Loan Crisis - (government bails out bad decisions by wealthy investors).

They are very organized and very good at all this. It helps that the Dem's are NOT organized and NOT good at any of this. There's only one team on the field - and that is not a game.

You're right, this is one victory in a long, long war on Islamic extremism - but Iraq is barely connected, and has wasted valuable resources: military, financial, and every other way. It was STUPID. Plain and simple.

Do I want the USA to fail in Iraq? Hell no, but I'm still not clear what that means. At this point it's get the hell out of there and hope the Iraqi's people can really do something - I have fair hope they can and will - but ...

Over the past 5 years, America's "leaders" have ripped a new hole in the ecconomy, proved that we're not the Super Power we claimed (like Buff vs McFly in Back To The Future), and given to a few well connected people great amounts of America's Commonweal.

You want to reward the folks that did this? I'll work against it.

Now before you say ... BUT THE DEM's ... I agree, the Dems are guilty of much above - but the most effective government is that which governs least while doing the most good for the most people.

With Gridlock in Government, at least the first part of that formula for effective governement is met.

Valid points, JDR. It seems that even those who support the war oppose the way it was and is being conducted.

With all we know now, MrP, why do you think we went to war? Do you still think it was a good idea?

I find it barbaric to see the military with a picture of the dead Al-Zaqari shown on tv. Those who say he got what he deserves and is in hell need to think about what they are saying and thinking. We are not the judge, God is. The God I worship loves all of us equally.

Thanks for the link. Now I understand where you get most of your misinformation. Thank you.
ON General Newbold, I took the time to expound on the subject and cleared the misinformation that Time gave. They gave some true information but as usual they left out the whole truth by omitting as Paul Harvey would say, The Rest of the Story.
General Newbold, for what it is worth was absolutely correct in his predictions and in his presenting his objections to HOW the war in Iraq was being handled. There is a difference in HOW the war is being handled and being against it.

For your answer Carol, I actually answered it many months ago in another discussion on the LTE.
I am against HOW this war has been handled. I have made the point many times over that Rumsfeld has screwed up the works from the get-go and needed to be replaced in 04, actually before, but that would have been the perfect time to do such.
I had no objections to going to war with Iraq since I feel that it was a job left undone by Bush Sr. after the Gulf War. We were being begged by the Iraqi's to remove Saddam and stop the slaughter of the people of that country in which he used Chemical and Biological weapons to murder them. We failed at that point and I stated then to several of my old friends who are also ex-military and government agency people that we would be there withing the next 5 years. I don't beleive I missed it much. The only thing now that we can do is to complete the mission, get the Iraqi's trained to where the leaders of that country and our Generals on the ground say they can do the job and then get the heck out of there. I guess I see the war in a different light than some of you since I was career and also have children involved in this war as well as husbands of children. Nothing would please me more than to here the Generals on the ground announce that the Iraqi's can handle the situation. You can bet your life that I pray each and every day that this is going to be heard and soon. I have experience war up close and personal and the death and dying and the other residual affects of it. No one more than me would wish peace but as long as there are those who would seek to destory this country and others who stand as we do for freedom, war unfortunately will be there. The scriptures say that there will be those saying Peace, Peace but there will be no peace and it also says that there will be wars and rumors of wars until the end of time. So far the scriptures have proven correct. Yellowdog made a statement on another post in which he summed up that until we have the Peace from the Prince of Peace , there can be no peace. And that my friends is what we should be most concerned about.

Carol,

I couldn't agree more regarding how disgusting a "celebration" of death is. I thought the same when Saadam's sons were killed and so many celebrated that "victory". It reminded me of how excited some folks became when the Christians were put into an arena with lions. Totally barbaric, not to mention disgusting. Did I mention how disgusting it is to make killing a festive event?

Carol and Yvonne,

I agree that I could have done without the pictures of the maimed bodies of our enemies being displayed on several websites.

There may be some that would have to see it to believe, so maybe that's why they are there.

However, I am not one of those.

I admit that I was surprised that he was found so intact after seeing images of the bombs dropping.

I also find it in bad taste when they show people dying on television (be they September 11th victims, terrorists, soldiers, missionaries, athletes, etc). I just don't like it.

Carol,

I believe that Al-Zaqarwi is in hell based on the actions he took in his life. I am not judging him and I surely don't celebrate anyone's entrance into hell. As far as what he deserved? Well, as far as my interpretation of the Bible goes, we ALL deserve to go to hell. Jesus said that no man is good. It is only by God's grace that we are spared what we deserve.

Nice to see Mr. Produce hopping on the "Peace Train" with Jesus after berating, minimizing, condescending, and being a total ass to anyone who disagrees with him.

Need anymore be said??

Well that upset me, MRP - what the hell did Loretta Napoleoni say that was so bogus?

That al-Zarkowi was unknown to most of us until Powell used his Jordanian name in the UN speech to tie Iraq to 9-11?

That being a Jordanian made him an outsider?

That al-Zarkowi was not well aligned Osama?

That al-Zarkowi might be replaced?

That the insurgency's not over?

You tell us what was so Misinformative - you're in the business, you have the inside scoop.

Now here's some lovely tripe from a RELIABLE source:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198862,00.html

"The failing Air America Radio Network is also rooting for America to lose in Iraq. Here's what Jerry Springer and Randi Rhodes said today."

"JERRY SPRINGER, AIR AMERICA: We never should have gone in from day one. Now — and I understand tens of thousands of people have been killed because we chose to go into Iraq. That is true. We killed a hell of a lot more people just by the decision to go into Iraq than ever died at the hands of Zarqawi."

ISN"T THAT TRUE? IT MAY BE COLATERAL DAMAGE, IT MAY JUST BE A BUNCH OF SAVAGE IRAQI'S, BUT THAT'S A TRUE STATEMENT, AND JEEZE I AM A STUPID BASTARD 'CAUSE I MISSED THE PART ABOUT "rooting for America to lose in Iraq"

RANDI RHODES, AIR AMERICA: Even the White House press secretary says this today at the press briefing. He says if you look at some of the Al Qaeda memos to Zarqawi, where you had direct pleas -- will you please stop beheading people, it's bad PR. Then you have to say to yourself, my god, Al Qaeda is telling Zarqawi to cut the crap with the killing of the Iraqis. And yet, we haven't cut the crap with the killing of the Iraqis.

AGAIN, WHERE'S THE PART ABOUT "rooting for America to lose in Iraq".

James,
Mr. Produce is now riding that train of freedom..."The Peace Train". He's out back beating his swords into plowshares, and I expect we will have an apology forthcoming.

(Hope Springs Eternal)

Thank you so much DD for your comments. I appreciate the fact that you continue to enhance the opinion that I and others have of you. Others will appreciate the fact as well and realize that you will never change.
Continue you very thoughtful remarks and exchanges and continue to prove what everyone already knows.
I am sure it makes you feel so wonderfully important when you can find nothing better to add to the topic. I and others really appreciate you being so predictable since it certain saves time in that one only has to skim your remarks to know in entirety what you have said.
Continue in your ways DD while the rest of us have intelligent conversation.

James if you are speaking of the Times article concerning Gen. Newbold the writer did not say anything wrong they just failed to give the entire story of Gen.Newbolds comments and actions.

Other wise I have no idea of what you are talking about in regard to al-Zarkowi. I do not believe I have made a comment concerning this individual to the extent to which you are questioning.
I believe my comments have centered around recruiting, recruiting policy,Vietnam the Gen.Newbold story and comments concerning my dislike of Rumsfeld. My last comments in answer to Carol's question I do not believe contained any reference to the subject to which you are refering.
Perhaps you have confused my comments with someone elses. Enjoy the trip JDR.

MRP:

I must have misinterpreted "Thanks for the link. Now I understand where you get most of your misinformation." ... You have my appolgies. Since I had posted a link almost directly above I assumed meant this:

"Here's a great summary - maybe it's even accurate

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5472135

James,
Let's just rejoice in the fact Mr. Produce has boarded that "Peace Train" with Jesus! Glory, Glory! Only problem is, he is not a changed man, just the same old bitter know-it-all who has linked up with the "J" man to give himself some credibility.

Glad to see you called him out using his very words. He's probably got a Napolean complex!