who cares what your rank is or what battlefield you fought on.... it doesn't add inches to your dick nor, intelligence to your brain. I was in the Marines for 4 years and this is all the shit I ever heard. America damn near worships "The Troops." The infallible and untouchable troops... they're just people too. No different than any other civilian who votes.
this guy wrote the same book about clinton and will write the same book about the next dem cic. the same clinton whose military destroyed iraq in a few weeks. he is basically a would be christian fascists tied to the forced indoctrinations in the USAF that is all about keeping gays out of the military.
this guy wrote the same book about clinton and will write the same book about the next dem cic. the same clinton whose military destroyed iraq in a few weeks. he is basically a would be christian fascists tied to the forced indoctrinations in the USAF that is all about keeping gays out of the military.
Buzz is on the fringe of the rightwing. He has devolved into a professional finger pointer who makes money by riling up the gullible, saying things they want to hear.
I suspect Hardball books him merely as a curiosity.
every time Soltz is on an interview all he does is act like a disrespectful child who shouts, argues factually baseless emotion and interrupts at every opportunity
and touts his military service like its his pass to bark about anything he wants when mr. motorpool wouldnt know a damn thing
My latest comments were specific replies to comments and should have been indented on their comments. The one below was directed at the post that ends in "f'ing moron" on the following page, I believe.
Going on these talking heads shows is to play a game, especially when pitted against someone from the other side of the philosophical track. Soltz is a better player of this game. Patterson is a no-nonsense career USAF pilot who is not accustomed to having to dignify such overt pandering with a response. Throughout the discussion, he is calling upon Mr. Soltz to reconile his statements as a politico with his principles and common sense as a military officer, albeit argumentatively.
Soltz said he thought Hilary had all the strengths to make a strong commander-in-chief. At :40 Patterson almost bursts out laughing. Why? He lived in and amongst the Clintons for years, no doubt seeing them at their best and worst. He knows who and what she is. It's clear from his experience under the Clintons that she would make an AWFUL CIC. All the clearer in Patterson's mind after having served in the U.S. Air Force under President Ronald Reagan. For that Mr. Patterson, you are a lucky man.
Pentagon Makes It Official: No Link Between Saddam & Al Qaeda
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.
LTC Patterson--Good job with facts but why would you go on a chris matthews show? He's a blithering, biased, pompous idiot. BTW- just bought a couple of copies of your new book --it's great as expected.
It is comical and pathetic and scary that pretty much everyone has lost site of the fact that all of these canidates are hand pick by the Power Elite. They are all the same, just different colors of of the same crap...all of the canidates on both sides are buddies behind the scenes and you are bunch of dumb cattle that deserve what is coming.
LTC Buzz says it all - Soltz is backstabbing the troops. I served in Iraq, and Soltz and his fellow travelers do nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy.
If I believed Hillary would really reduce troops in Iraq WHILE going after the enemies in Afghanistan/Pakistan harder, I MIGHT not be as worried about her as President. But I dont think this'll happen.
and Stoltz was doing the same thing, so it was an impasse. The only difference in the debate was that Patterson wasn't lying. I'm glad you signed your name at the bottom, but it was clear who you were anyway.
zuzucuckoostillnoclue, to discover the mystery that your pitiful,desperate research has failed to do,enlist-tell them W sent you-careful what you say,don't ask don't tell might give you away. "Take some Gen "Betray-us" friends with you. I don't bother with your BS posts, if I want to look at crap I'll just watch a Democrat debate. Thanks again for your contributions to my new set of Taylor Mades, ski and golf packages, membership fees just went up. You're so kind to think of me.
The liberal mind is a complex paradox-a simultaneous existance of intellegence and stupidity, accompanied by arrogance and void of reason-coexisting in an abyss of confusion; a place known--- as the Twilight Zone. Too much time spent there is time wasted.
dear move america forwardites, the most laughable thing History will remember from this era is your little talking point of not "fighting them here." does rupert murdoch pay y'all 50 cents every time you repeat that baseless, asinine line? the only "here" with respect to fighting is the only occasional terrorist threat, which is only intensified because we are fighting there.
You mean like the "occasional threat" on Sept 11 2001 when we were fighting them-where? History will remember yor baseless Clintonesqe attitude, not laughable at all.
clinton was of course guilty of infidelity. the problem with him is he wasn't liberal enough. i am NOT a Democrat; i just vote for them because they are the only
hope the People have--the GOP is paid off by corporations... it's sad, and maddening. gg
Wow, even more interestingly, the total active duty troop level for all branches is actually lower under GWB than it was under any of the Clinton years. End of last Clinton budget year, 2001: 1,385,116. June 2006: 1,381,401.
w w w [dot]infoplease[dot] com/ipa/A0004598 [dot]html
You'd know that if you didn't force other people to do your homework for you. Hon.
Your glassiofaregills afoaming! Blathering again? Don't you ever get it? Clinton is by far the WORST President that ever held office!! Pardoning 16 terrorists from the F.A.L.N.!! Brokering deals with North Korea regarding nuclear secrets and military secrets to China! Going after Bill gates instead of Osama! Taxing the "BLEEP" out of us! But, hey, what great cigars he smoked! Want one of his zoopoopoo??
Less personell in boots-more technology in a non-conventional-global war against a non-conventional enemy. (see my other post-if you dare)Again, accurate analysis requires proper perspective and context hon, try using it. Didn't they teach that at your "high level Younibercity?
And yet another Twilight Zone comment. Keep'em coming it's quite amusing. By the way, happened upon your drive-by hit job concerning the UCMJ and who it applies to-you are wrong again-it only applies to those on Active Status hon, your ignorance is understandable though-I was there and you---were not. Now run along and do your homework,hon, and good luck finding the CORRECT source.
Hon, your problem is that you are arguing with yourself, and losing anyway. YOU are the one who brought up the numbers, yet as you admit, they disprove your own arguments.
As to the UCMJ, maybe you should actually read it before making yourself look so foolish. See excerpt in my next post.
"802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER (a) The following persons are subject to this chapter: . . . . (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay."
10 USC Sec. 802
Really, you look stupid enough without going out of your way to prove it. Hon.
Haaa-haaa-heee-heee-woooo-hooo haaaa(fell out of my chair on that one) You really are so funny! Stupid truly is as stupid does-and you have done plenty hon, the UCMJ is not the AUTHORITY FOR THE APPLICATION of it. What was that word you used-I believe it was--dope. It's ok though-I really don't expect you to know something as elementary as the aplication of the UCMJ-after all I was there and you---were not.
Why yes, in fact I just called you a dope again. And now you're proving it yet again.
The UCMJ is codified in the United States Code. And the "authority for the application of it" is indeed contained in its provisions. Nobody gets to pick and choose whether to apply federal law.
What part of "The following persons are subject to this chapter" (which by the way IS the UCMJ) is not clear enough for even a xerox room guy to understand?
The application of the UCMJ is different for each service and indeed for many different circumstances-that is why each branch has a codified set of rules-I'll let you figure out what they're called. Have to go my zerocks is out of eenk. Have to admit-you really are good at baffling them with BS though.
Each Service has its own source documentation for the application of the UCMJ as well as just about anything else. Your not even close hon, doesn't begin with a # followed by Uxx. Thank God you're not a JAG. Study some more.
"The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was enacted by Congress in 1950 (10 U.S.C.A. § 801 et seq.) to establish a standard set of procedural and substantive criminal laws for all the U.S. military services. The UCMJ applies to all members of the military, including those on active duty, students at military academies, prisoners of war, and, in some cases, retired or reserve personnel."
w w w [dot] answers [dot] com/topic/uniform-code-of-military-justice?cat=biz-fin
twmtmde, saw that you invoked "kool-aid"--ah, kool aid, the official drink (for purposes of clouding legitimate debate)of the right-wing. by the way, when you drive, your right hand merely engages the clutch, while the left hand turns on the light! try to find the light, benighted one. gg
G: I really think this guy might be the stupidest poster I've come across at YouTube. At least the stupidest one who claims to have held a government job. Scary, eh?
Your MO is as clear as a bell hon, cite something that sounds good and baffle them with BS. You can cite irrelevant generalities about the UCMJ-but nothing about the specific conditions under which it would apply and to whom-because you have no clue as to what the source is. To those who are privy to that source it is obvious that your ignorance prevents you from posting a cogent argument. You'll fool some, but not all, certainly not me because I was there and you---were not.
By the way, hon, I just noticed your last little reference to Army active duty troop levels, which is of course WRONG. It was 482,170 at the end of 2000, and 480,801 at the end of 2001.
Now, if those levels had been "cut to the bone" during the Clinton years, why has GWB only increased the number by 16,000 over the last five and a half years? This despite escalating terrorist activity and a two-front war. Oh, let me guess...you're just too stupid to read your own sources.
j---guard, you should consider trading your audacity in for some sagacity. to lambaste hillary for getting money from a corrupt donor when YOU KNOW that the current Republicans are the biggest corporate whores and indicted reprobates since the Harding era. Listen to Ron Paul and loose your rectum of the Limbaugh enema... love, echo
j-guard, if in the more narrow definition of "corruption" you mean the kind of venality characterized by doing something untoward involving a highly-scrutinized payment by someone or some group that is unauthorized, then there is no competition: the GOP is about getting paid, like so many decadent rappers. gg
It's called technology hon, "smart" technology weaponry and armor(very expensive to make and develop), and we are fighting a non-conventional war-takes less personell in "boots"-more in intel-lots more. "My" #'s are the World Almanac's. Accurate ananlysis requires proper context and perspective. You should try using it.
Hon, YOU were the one bringing up personnel numbers - which of disprove the very basis of your "cutting the troops to the bone argument." But thanks again for demonstrating your incompetence.
PS, I accept your concession that George Herbert Walker Bush and Dick Cheney actually planned to cut levels to what YOU call "to the bone." This after terrorist activities and escalating military actions that culminated in an actual war. Whatever you say, dumbo.
Really hon, you've proven your point. Your posts have amply demonstrated that you are stupid, incompetent, and lazy - in other words, part of the Buzzie target audience. And no matter how hard you try to impress strangers over the Internet, your lack of spelling and grammar skills say everything about the amount of responsibility you've ever been given. Yes, I'm sure running the xerox machine counts as "being there" - in Buzzie-world, anyway.
Bush didn't "end" in '92, but in '93, though you xerox room guys probably don't know how fed'l budget years run. Your own #s show the Army troop level for the last Bush 1 budget ('93), was actually at 572.4K. So he cut the troop level by nearly 50K more in 3 years than Clinton did over the next 8 years. Clinton's reduction of 91.6K Army troops over his 8 yrs was less than HALF of the reduction made in the prior 8 years by Reagan/Bush 1 (208.4K).
The effective term generaly ends prior to inauguration, unless your a Democrat-then you have to have time to shred documents, pardon king pins, vandalize the WH, clean up stains, you know-typical Democrat stuff. Trimming the fat as Reagan/Bush did, and cutting muscle from the bone is apples and oranges hon-but I really don't expect someone as "high level" as yourself to understand.
Thanks for once again proving your laziness and incompetence. Notice I talked about "federal budget years"? But yes, it probably was a little too complex for you.
However you choose to slice your fruit salad, your OWN NUMBERS prove what every expert has said...that most of the cuts took place before Clinton ever took office. You're just too lazy to read your own links.
Wow-that FBY oversight made a HUGE difference. Whose experts hon-Dan Rather's,Chris Matthews,Move-on,DNC props like Soltz, yeeeah-riiight. My numbers prove what you and your ilk are incaplable of grasping, post cold war trimming verses to-the-bone slicing during escalating world missions and the height of terrorist activity. It's ok hon-you weren't there. Your ignorance is completly understandable. Oops, 471.6k 2000.
twmtmde, interestingly, you get on Clinton--correctly, i might add--for pardoning kingpins, but you are loath to chide W. Bush for actually slicing and dicing the constitution and executive protocols as if he were the flipping King! i mean, i can't wait till this guy is gone, so that we might behave like a Democracy/Republic again and shed the office of its monarchical vestment. oy, love, gg
Far as I'm concerned, Col. Patterson was facing an unfair fight--2 on 1 with the Shrillary supporter in Soltz and the socilaist lapdog in "moderator" Matthews--WHO BELONGS BACK IN SCUM FREAKCISCO! SOLTZ YOU SIR HATE AMERICA SO JUST SHUT THE YOU KNOW WHAT UP! (BILL) CLINTON CUT MILITARY FUNDING AND HAD MULTI CHANCES TO GET BIN LADEN--BOY DID HE SCREW UP--AND THAT AIN'T THE ONLY SCREWING HE DID!
mr patriot, i laugh when you brainless right-wingers impute liberal radicalism to milquetoast pundits such as Matthews--as a liberal radical, i scream at him for his bush-apologetic forays. the only real lefty in the news is Keith Olbermann--he is the real King... You should go to San Fran and be around enlightened thinkers... oh, for the record, i am from South Carolina and a former football player, and not some nebbish pansy that you would want to kick sand on at the beach. echo
dude, quit reciting hackneyed Fox News lines--it's unbecoming! the only REAL lefty candidates are Kucinich and Gravel--the other ones are quite centrist, although they might APPEAR radical when compared to fascists like Cheney and Tancredo and Shun Hannity. Wake up, corporate lackey! Soros is an honorable man... love, gg
the corporatist plutocratic imperialistic Romans thought Jesus was looney, too, you robotic mental defective... ah, that's too harsh--- i am sure, like our president, you are a fun guy to have a beer with, even if you would kill Arabs just because they're targeted by Israel and the religious right. dig it, gg
Gigi, where were you 9/11? I was at work. On the radio, fights had broken out in several high schools. Apparently some Arab students,without thinking, stood up and cheered! They got beat up! That
evening I watched as the news went to Palestine and
again I saw those people cheering too. Arafat, made
a speech saying how horrified and sorry he was...lies!
These reports and news footage will never be aired
by our news media because of political correctness.
Where was I on 9/11? I was first saddened, and then frightened, for I realized that the infantile powers that be would heed their primitive instinct to lash out at somebody--anybody--so that all the afeared citizens might feel a bit better... remember, most big-minded folks agree with the Afghan campaign but not the knee-jerk, book-cooked, populace-rooked invasion of Iraq. Dig it, j-guard. love, gg
dude, i am not sure about the old Democratic Party dying with Kennedy, but i am quite sure that thousands of true conservatives are bemoaning the moribund and self-destructive nature of the current Republican Party... do yourself a favor, and check and see if there's a SINGLE measure that Bush supported that doesn't in some way help his corporate funders--don't get me wrong, Dems are shills as well, but only 1/3 as venal--- Ralph Nader is YOUR REAL KING!! GG
mr. kaixi333, stolz is shill??? are you serious???? how can someone who speaks out AGAINST the war be a shill? there's no money in being against the war, only being for it---never have so many died so that so few could profit (Winnie Churchill turns in his grave)-- the Democratic apparatus doesn't reward its supplicants the way the GOP's does, unfortunately...
It always amazes me how the liberals can only resort to name calling and can't stick to the facts. Of course they also know the facts don't hold up on their side so I guess this statement is redundant. It seems though that for the liberals to understand you have to talk on their level which means don't use any facts at all and call them names allot.
here's a fact: read the report issued by the peopleforanewamericancentury in 1998, wherein the signers--Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kristol, et al--laid out the necessity of controlling Iraq as part of their oil-centered, geopolitical strategy for the 21st Century... dig it.
Dear Fact-Minded American, Here's a fact: the plans for an Iraq invasion were authored in 1998 by the William KRistol-led (and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle-fed)group known as Project for a New American Century. meanwhile, the Downing Street memo of two years ago showed that the Iraq invasion was a fait accompli--all the other stuff was smoke and mirrors... wake up, friend!
is there any doubt that these votevets guys will be running for congress in 08?..they have a personal political agenda..and are as trustworthy as the dems they represent. Its never suprising when liberal tv shows roll out one of the handfull of dem veterans
dude, i am a liberal and i bemoan the fact that there's only one real liberal newsman--Keith Olbermann. i mean, colmes is liberal, also, but he doesn't set the agenda for his regrettable news hour. the only liberal aspect of the news is that they always blame whitey for problems... gg
Buzz, Bush has drawn the qualification line for army recruits at two felonies and three misdemeanors, that's how desperate he is to get new "boots" on the ground. I'm sure you would qualify. Be a "first shipper" to the Iraq front lines (wherever that might be on any given day), earn $20,000 risking life and limb, and defend our country!
That means Bill Clinton can actually qualify, when he was President he couldn't. By the way, if BJ Clinton and company had not cut 7 or 8 Divisions to reap the "peace dividend" (you do remember the peace dividend don't you-have you any idea how many thousands of "boots" that is?) we would't need any new boots.
I lived my homework hon, served in various branches of the Army under Carter (disaster)Reagan-Bush1-Clinton(2nd disaster)-and Bush2. The mid 90's annual staff meetings consisted of nothing but massive cuts in the defense budget and the abolishment of 7-8 DIVISIONS. We were constantly ordered to do more with less. It was BJ Clinton's declaration to "reap the benefits of the peace dividend" I know because I was there.
"But with the Cold War over, Bush slashed troop levels by 25 percent during a five-year period starting in 1990 and cut the defense budget by tens of billions of dollars. ... Many of Bush's defense cuts did not take effect until the Clinton administration. ...
Perry, who was defense secretary from 1994 to 1997, said two-thirds of the defense cuts during the Clinton administration were orchestrated by President Bush and Defense Secretary Cheney."
twmtmde, man, what an old mccarthyite trick: diss the instrument of information (in this case, The Boston Globe) instead of the actual information. That info is correct, as is most of the info that shows the Busheviks made sure the Congress was misled about the war. Read any unbiased account, by politically neutral journalists, and you will see that the Neo-Cons had to have their war, come hell or higher federal deficits. gg
Un-biased journalists, I'm falling out of my chair again-Please, I can't stand so much laughter. The Boston Globe-might as well be Move On, or Dan Rather and CBS.
Oh, and by the way HON, it was none other than Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney, not Bill Clinton, who first used the term "peace dividend" :
Jan. 31, 1992, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. ... And now we're adding to that another $50 billion ... of so-called peace dividend."
Bush and Cheney may have been the first to use the term and responsible for the figures you cite, but it was none other than BJC who "loathed the military" and proceded to cut 7-8 whole DIVISIONS. The 300 billion figure was a reduction in PROPOSED budget spending, not actual cuts. I saw it all hon, from 1976 to 2003, not bragging-just fact.
Not to mention, HON, that if you really HAD been "living your homework," you'd know that 6 of those 8 division inactivations took place BEFORE Clinton took office. The other two took place months afterwards, as the result of a "bottom up review" implementing Poppy Bush's plan.
"The U.S. Army had 28 Divisions - 18 active and 10 National Guard - in 1991.
...
By the end of FY 1993 the Army consisted of 4 corps, 14 active Army divisions, and 8 National Guard divisions.
...
It is one step in a journey that really began in 1989 to bring the Army down from 18 active divisions to 10, and 10 National Guard divisions to eight, and from 780,000 active-duty soldiers to 495,000. "
The difference between us is you have no choice but to research on-line (bottom up 1993, QDR 1998, whatever)I can rely on memory because I lived it. Here's a few things only a soldier from 4 decades will know- I filled my goat with a donkey di-k ate c-rats 70's, the last snake I worked on had a HUD LRPS 80's,traded my cap in for a monica 90's MRE, sand box tours haji food 2000. Go ahead hon, try and research that. BJ Clinton used a razor.
1993 bottom up-1998 QDR, whatever. The difference between us is you have to research, I lived it, don't need to. Here are some things only an experienced soldier will know. You fill your goat with a donkey di-k, an ECAS snake has a HUD, LRPS burgers need water, your monica has to be shaped, research that numnuts. BJ Clinton used a huge razor.
Yeah, I have no doubt you're confused by any sort of management term.
The fact that you didn't know that almost ALL of those division deactivations took place before Clinton took office tells us all we need to know, hon.
You know dude-the Quadrennial Defense Review and bottom up-(L Aspin not Perry), No matter what numbers you come up with (like Cheney's 300 billion cut-that was the entire budget numnuts) -the bottom-line is, Clinton-Gore cut: over 1 million troops, 8 Army Divisions, 2k fighter wings, 232 bombers, 13 nuc missle subs, 4 flat tops, all support and assets for those cuts,and SDI while increasing the OPTEMPO. But then you knew all that, right hon. Have some more koolaid.
You know HON, I think you belong to the Buzz Patterson school of thought. Putting out bad information is okay if you repeat it enough and are pompous enough. The lower layers of the military bureaucracy are full of ignorant blowhards like you and Buzz. At least you're only ripping off the taxpayers for your retirement pay these days.
Ok,here goes,Reagan intentionally inflated the military to defeat the USSR-Bush1 brought the levels back to normal-Clinton took it below normal IOW-Bush had a Wall Mart work force and a K Mart customer base-Clinton had a K Mart work force-created a Wal Mart customer base-then cut the work force even more. That's so easy a caveman can understand it-but can you? I doubt it.
zuzukachoo-The cavern between your shoulders-a vast logical void-is as evident as the brilliant light of arrogance that surrounds your words. Thank you for letting us see it. It speaks volumes about you and those you support. Enjoy your kooaid,hon.
I tailor my explainations up or down to the level of the audience I communicate with, had to go way down there for you hon. Be sure and pay your taxes on time, I need a new set of golf clubs, thanks so much for your future contributions-It warms my heart to know that you are helping to finance my retirement.
Yep, just as I thought. Low level paper shuffler. Hey, I'm happy to subsidize your retirement...anything that keeps incompetents like you out of the government is money well spent.
Oh I'm still working for Uncle Sam Hon-and retired too-get lots of time off with full pay-it's a beatiful thing. Since Al Gore replaced secretaries with computers and printers (to save on paper-what a genius) we are all low level paper shufflers-and you help pay for it all. Gotta go-tee time.
No problem hon, thanks for proving mine-Clinton did it. Your attitude is very much like J.Fraud Kerry's, Love those Swift Boaters. One final word before I get back to my low-level office, HOOAH.
Why yes, I do believe you are a perfect example of the gullible Slow Boat target audience/Buzz wanabe. Your desperation to impress strangers on the Internet makes it quite apparent you don't get many rewards for intelligence or industry in real life - and your inability to get a single fact straight here only emphasizes it.
World Almanac-National Defense-Personnel,read it and weep. My greatest rewards (outside of family and friends) comes from the satisfaction of destroying the BS that comes from the maniacal left, wherever I find it. HOOAH.
Glad your impressed; and enlightend. World Almanac-Active Army-1990 746k, 1992 610k end Bush, 1995 521k, 1996 493k, 1997 487k, 1998 491k, 1999 479k, and thats only Active Army #s. As I said before-Clinton did it-read it and weep.
To a liberal hate monger,(all liberals spew hatred for anyone and anything conservative) anyone armed with information contradicting their own lies and distortions probably does look like a stupid smarmy jackass. That's because they look through shit covered lenses disguised as informative journalism provided by the DNC via CBS-ABC-NBC-MSNBC-NYT-USA TODAY-TRIBUNE-and about several hundred other major publications.
Absolutely, Dan Rather, veteran CBS "reporter" knowingly reported manufactured documents as fact during the height of the presidential elections-recent poll of national journalists showed 85% are Democrats (I don't believe all of them were honest so that number is very likely around 95%. The only exception to the rule is Fox News-The Washington Times-and 3 or 4 obscure magazine publications.
to watch the libs cut 80% their military and end up asking help after the the "talks" with the
"nice misunderstood" terrorists. ZuZucachoo I see you leading the pack. Lets see you sneeze your way past the Pelosi-Reid-Schumer-Kennedy-Kerry-Durbin-Murtha and 'Leaky' Leahy led anti-war Brady Bunch.
Hillary, what a femi-Nazi. Hopefully everyone will see thru her trash. Send her back, and take her worthless husband with her.
paskettle 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respond to this video... characters remaining
Cancel or Post
or Create a video response
Update automatically
Disable automatic updates *
Hey Buzz, Hillary was in Kosavo too. And she even dodged bullets! :)
crazedNdiffused 10 months ago
Comment removed
crazedNdiffused 10 months ago
Murtha's spirit is alive and well. Unbelievable.
crazedNdiffused 10 months ago
Comment removed
crazedNdiffused 10 months ago
I WAS IN BOSNIA, YOU IDIOT
drawman3354 1 year ago
who cares what your rank is or what battlefield you fought on.... it doesn't add inches to your dick nor, intelligence to your brain. I was in the Marines for 4 years and this is all the shit I ever heard. America damn near worships "The Troops." The infallible and untouchable troops... they're just people too. No different than any other civilian who votes.
WhiteShoesATL 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this guy wrote the same book about clinton and will write the same book about the next dem cic. the same clinton whose military destroyed iraq in a few weeks. he is basically a would be christian fascists tied to the forced indoctrinations in the USAF that is all about keeping gays out of the military.
qwerty395 1 year ago
this guy wrote the same book about clinton and will write the same book about the next dem cic. the same clinton whose military destroyed iraq in a few weeks. he is basically a would be christian fascists tied to the forced indoctrinations in the USAF that is all about keeping gays out of the military.
qwerty395 1 year ago
@qwerty395 same Clinton whose military destroyed Iraq in a few weeks? Can ya say more?
crazedNdiffused 10 months ago
Buzz is on the fringe of the rightwing. He has devolved into a professional finger pointer who makes money by riling up the gullible, saying things they want to hear.
I suspect Hardball books him merely as a curiosity.
sallyjoe465 1 year ago
Stoltz is a complete idiot. Lay off the Koolaid
deidres100 2 years ago
Buzz, please oh please will you run for office. This country really needs your fantastic leadership once again.
pakman0033 2 years ago 2
Jon Soltz was a motor officer who served for four months in KUWAIT during OIF.
PatMarine 2 years ago
idiots libs are always trying to shout someone down when they are loosing a debate
cocobear33 2 years ago
Jon Soltz is a coward
TheRogueState 2 years ago
Buzz makes me want to puke. All he is is a right-wing Clinton Hater who loves to bash Hillary which by the way is so 90s. Go Jon Soltz!!!!!!!
dino0967 2 years ago
What kind of fucking pussy tries to pull rank on a national tv debate? Go Soltz!
thechad708 3 years ago
Pull rank on a civilian? Go fuck yourself.
prrolg 2 years ago
every time Soltz is on an interview all he does is act like a disrespectful child who shouts, argues factually baseless emotion and interrupts at every opportunity
and touts his military service like its his pass to bark about anything he wants when mr. motorpool wouldnt know a damn thing
Floridanon407 3 years ago
At least Buzz knew what he was talking about. Stolz was speaking "the talking points" he was given by the Democratic party. The subject is moot now.
carolinagal153 3 years ago
My latest comments were specific replies to comments and should have been indented on their comments. The one below was directed at the post that ends in "f'ing moron" on the following page, I believe.
mitersawz 3 years ago
Well, Buzz exposed himself as an ideological hack when he went on about "anti-American" and the like.
I can tell who's paying his bills.
timparcival 3 years ago
I imagine you do quite a few things in the Twilight Zone.
54spiritedwill54 3 years ago
Going on these talking heads shows is to play a game, especially when pitted against someone from the other side of the philosophical track. Soltz is a better player of this game. Patterson is a no-nonsense career USAF pilot who is not accustomed to having to dignify such overt pandering with a response. Throughout the discussion, he is calling upon Mr. Soltz to reconile his statements as a politico with his principles and common sense as a military officer, albeit argumentatively.
synclavier123 3 years ago
Soltz said he thought Hilary had all the strengths to make a strong commander-in-chief. At :40 Patterson almost bursts out laughing. Why? He lived in and amongst the Clintons for years, no doubt seeing them at their best and worst. He knows who and what she is. It's clear from his experience under the Clintons that she would make an AWFUL CIC. All the clearer in Patterson's mind after having served in the U.S. Air Force under President Ronald Reagan. For that Mr. Patterson, you are a lucky man.
synclavier123 3 years ago
I read Patterson's book, "Dereliction of Duty" Did you read that book?? If not, you should...
suryavajra 3 years ago
Hillary - "I GET TO BE PRESIDENT! I GET TO BE PRESIDENT! GET TO THE BACK OF THE BUS, HUSSEIN!!!"
Obama - "My teacher and mentor is Reverend Wright, a guy who regularly damns America and uses the N-word."
McCain - "Let's all work together to build a strong economy and win the War on Terror."
The choice is easy - McCain in 2008.
CastorT64 3 years ago
All the Dems have to offer is bitterness, defeatism, and hate.
No thank you.
CastorT64 3 years ago
Jon Sultz you are a dumbass.
I'm from NY and went to COMBAT in IRAQ not playing soldier in Kosovo. Fuck you, you typical ocifer, get shot in the face.
climbdatowerofpower 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pentagon Makes It Official: No Link Between Saddam & Al Qaeda
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.
grazon 3 years ago
LTC Patterson--Good job with facts but why would you go on a chris matthews show? He's a blithering, biased, pompous idiot. BTW- just bought a couple of copies of your new book --it's great as expected.
mossberg68 3 years ago
It is comical and pathetic and scary that pretty much everyone has lost site of the fact that all of these canidates are hand pick by the Power Elite. They are all the same, just different colors of of the same crap...all of the canidates on both sides are buddies behind the scenes and you are bunch of dumb cattle that deserve what is coming.
LordKarmaUSA 3 years ago
lol 2 officers chewing at each other....priceless hahah
PhillyKid07 4 years ago
LTC Buzz says it all - Soltz is backstabbing the troops. I served in Iraq, and Soltz and his fellow travelers do nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy.
CastorT64 4 years ago 4
Where and when ? Unit, AO, anything ?
climbdatowerofpower 3 years ago
climbdatowerofpower - I was in Baghdad in 2005 and 2006. U?
CastorT64 3 years ago
And yeah, Jon Sultz is a piece of shit for;
A: Believing in Hillary Clinton
B: For just being a naive asshole
C: He WAS an officer
D: And I'd love to kick him in his face
climbdatowerofpower 3 years ago
Soltz is a squirrel trying to get a nut. He's a whiner in the John Kerry mold.
CastorT64 4 years ago
If I believed Hillary would really reduce troops in Iraq WHILE going after the enemies in Afghanistan/Pakistan harder, I MIGHT not be as worried about her as President. But I dont think this'll happen.
clhoyt1003 4 years ago
Hilary Clinton main skill is her world class oral skills...oh wait...that is held by Monica.
Hmmm..guess that leaves Hill again out in the cold.
skye820 4 years ago
Chris Matthews is a left leaning pansie.
gonzguard 4 years ago 2
Soltz - How much is Soros paying you to sell out your comrades, punk?
CastorT64 4 years ago 4
ur a horrible person. Seek counseling.
AroonR6 4 years ago
buzz patterson is annoying.
"i was in bosnia."
"I was in BOSNIA."
"I-I was in BOSNIA!!"
fucking moron
fluffynoses 4 years ago
and Stoltz was doing the same thing, so it was an impasse. The only difference in the debate was that Patterson wasn't lying. I'm glad you signed your name at the bottom, but it was clear who you were anyway.
mitersawz 3 years ago
zuzucuckoostillnoclue,zuzucuckoostillcuckoo.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Thanks for proving my point, hon.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
zuzucuckoostillnoclue, to discover the mystery that your pitiful,desperate research has failed to do,enlist-tell them W sent you-careful what you say,don't ask don't tell might give you away. "Take some Gen "Betray-us" friends with you. I don't bother with your BS posts, if I want to look at crap I'll just watch a Democrat debate. Thanks again for your contributions to my new set of Taylor Mades, ski and golf packages, membership fees just went up. You're so kind to think of me.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Hon, you don't need my help to look stupid. You're doing an excellent job all by yourself.
But as they say, good enough for government work.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Permission requested from: zuzukachoo, twmtmde & gigeorgas. Since we seem to be the only ones debating
I would like to send each of you a transcript from
Rush(dated:May 12, 2004) thru youtube privately. I've been thinking how this person(Cliff from transcript)
kinda sounds more like Gigeorgas liberal and surreal.
No worries, no acknowledgement will not send...I am
open to anyone changing my mind...this is my way of reaching you. Besides, you'll get to know EL RUSHBO.
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
Thanks but I have zero interest in anything Limb-bo has to say and could care less who calls into his show.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
The liberal mind is a complex paradox-a simultaneous existance of intellegence and stupidity, accompanied by arrogance and void of reason-coexisting in an abyss of confusion; a place known--- as the Twilight Zone. Too much time spent there is time wasted.
twmtmde 4 years ago 2
dear move america forwardites, the most laughable thing History will remember from this era is your little talking point of not "fighting them here." does rupert murdoch pay y'all 50 cents every time you repeat that baseless, asinine line? the only "here" with respect to fighting is the only occasional terrorist threat, which is only intensified because we are fighting there.
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
You mean like the "occasional threat" on Sept 11 2001 when we were fighting them-where? History will remember yor baseless Clintonesqe attitude, not laughable at all.
twmtmde 4 years ago 2
GiGiorgasm truly you are a paradox, an oxymoron. You
must believe, as Billy Boy does, that oral sex is not
infidelitous. Now I know who has eaten their box
of stupid. Hang yourself...errr I mean...help
yourself to more cereal!
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
clinton was of course guilty of infidelity. the problem with him is he wasn't liberal enough. i am NOT a Democrat; i just vote for them because they are the only
hope the People have--the GOP is paid off by corporations... it's sad, and maddening. gg
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Wow, even more interestingly, the total active duty troop level for all branches is actually lower under GWB than it was under any of the Clinton years. End of last Clinton budget year, 2001: 1,385,116. June 2006: 1,381,401.
w w w [dot]infoplease[dot] com/ipa/A0004598 [dot]html
You'd know that if you didn't force other people to do your homework for you. Hon.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Your glassiofaregills afoaming! Blathering again? Don't you ever get it? Clinton is by far the WORST President that ever held office!! Pardoning 16 terrorists from the F.A.L.N.!! Brokering deals with North Korea regarding nuclear secrets and military secrets to China! Going after Bill gates instead of Osama! Taxing the "BLEEP" out of us! But, hey, what great cigars he smoked! Want one of his zoopoopoo??
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
Sorry for the low level spulling errors.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Hey, I'm sure your skills are sufficient for running the xerox machine.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
zuzu cuckoo-cuckoo-cuckoo
twmtmde 4 years ago
Eloquent as always.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Less personell in boots-more technology in a non-conventional-global war against a non-conventional enemy. (see my other post-if you dare)Again, accurate analysis requires proper perspective and context hon, try using it. Didn't they teach that at your "high level Younibercity?
twmtmde 4 years ago
So in other words, your entire argument based on the number of active duty troops was a crock? At least you admit it.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Only in the Twilight Zone.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Yeah, I imagine you do quite a few things in the Twilight Zone.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
It's ok hon, the concept of perspective and context is foreign to those in the Twilight Zone. have another kool aid.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Big of you to admit it. Hon.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
And yet another Twilight Zone comment. Keep'em coming it's quite amusing. By the way, happened upon your drive-by hit job concerning the UCMJ and who it applies to-you are wrong again-it only applies to those on Active Status hon, your ignorance is understandable though-I was there and you---were not. Now run along and do your homework,hon, and good luck finding the CORRECT source.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Hon, your problem is that you are arguing with yourself, and losing anyway. YOU are the one who brought up the numbers, yet as you admit, they disprove your own arguments.
As to the UCMJ, maybe you should actually read it before making yourself look so foolish. See excerpt in my next post.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
"802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER (a) The following persons are subject to this chapter: . . . . (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay."
10 USC Sec. 802
Really, you look stupid enough without going out of your way to prove it. Hon.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Haaa-haaa-heee-heee-woooo-hooo haaaa(fell out of my chair on that one) You really are so funny! Stupid truly is as stupid does-and you have done plenty hon, the UCMJ is not the AUTHORITY FOR THE APPLICATION of it. What was that word you used-I believe it was--dope. It's ok though-I really don't expect you to know something as elementary as the aplication of the UCMJ-after all I was there and you---were not.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Why yes, in fact I just called you a dope again. And now you're proving it yet again.
The UCMJ is codified in the United States Code. And the "authority for the application of it" is indeed contained in its provisions. Nobody gets to pick and choose whether to apply federal law.
What part of "The following persons are subject to this chapter" (which by the way IS the UCMJ) is not clear enough for even a xerox room guy to understand?
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
The application of the UCMJ is different for each service and indeed for many different circumstances-that is why each branch has a codified set of rules-I'll let you figure out what they're called. Have to go my zerocks is out of eenk. Have to admit-you really are good at baffling them with BS though.
twmtmde 4 years ago
No, it's not.
I don't know how you manage to get your shoelaces tied, but hey ... good enough for government work, I guess.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Each Service has its own source documentation for the application of the UCMJ as well as just about anything else. Your not even close hon, doesn't begin with a # followed by Uxx. Thank God you're not a JAG. Study some more.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Good God, you are too stupid to even look at the US Code, which by the way, applies to ALL service branches.
What a dope.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
"The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was enacted by Congress in 1950 (10 U.S.C.A. § 801 et seq.) to establish a standard set of procedural and substantive criminal laws for all the U.S. military services. The UCMJ applies to all members of the military, including those on active duty, students at military academies, prisoners of war, and, in some cases, retired or reserve personnel."
w w w [dot] answers [dot] com/topic/uniform-code-of-military-justice?cat=biz-fin
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
twmtmde, saw that you invoked "kool-aid"--ah, kool aid, the official drink (for purposes of clouding legitimate debate)of the right-wing. by the way, when you drive, your right hand merely engages the clutch, while the left hand turns on the light! try to find the light, benighted one. gg
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
G: I really think this guy might be the stupidest poster I've come across at YouTube. At least the stupidest one who claims to have held a government job. Scary, eh?
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Your MO is as clear as a bell hon, cite something that sounds good and baffle them with BS. You can cite irrelevant generalities about the UCMJ-but nothing about the specific conditions under which it would apply and to whom-because you have no clue as to what the source is. To those who are privy to that source it is obvious that your ignorance prevents you from posting a cogent argument. You'll fool some, but not all, certainly not me because I was there and you---were not.
twmtmde 4 years ago 2
You know, bragging about "being there" just makes you look even more stupid.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
You are such a work oFart.
twmtmde 4 years ago
I think even Buzz would be embarrassed to claim you.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Grow the Fuck up.
carolinagal153 4 years ago
Always curse when you can't win an argument. Go collect your welfare check.
mitersawz 3 years ago
Correction: over the next four and a half years.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Who cares! Who are you voting for? ZuZu-blessu,
seriously, the Democratic Party of HYPOCRISY re-elect
their own corrupt constituents while Republicans oust theirs! Craig could've saved his career if he'd just
become a Democrat. BILLARY is financed by Norman Hsu,
a wanted criminal! Who're you voting for again?
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
By the way, hon, I just noticed your last little reference to Army active duty troop levels, which is of course WRONG. It was 482,170 at the end of 2000, and 480,801 at the end of 2001.
Now, if those levels had been "cut to the bone" during the Clinton years, why has GWB only increased the number by 16,000 over the last five and a half years? This despite escalating terrorist activity and a two-front war. Oh, let me guess...you're just too stupid to read your own sources.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
You talk sagaciously but I don't understand...ohhhh
I get it! I get it! You're fooling everyone here!
You are truly a great Bush-loving Conservative!!!
Sorry, zuzu-blessu...had you all wrong...compadre!
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
j---guard, you should consider trading your audacity in for some sagacity. to lambaste hillary for getting money from a corrupt donor when YOU KNOW that the current Republicans are the biggest corporate whores and indicted reprobates since the Harding era. Listen to Ron Paul and loose your rectum of the Limbaugh enema... love, echo
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Thanks for the challenge. For every corrupt Republican
you name I can give you 5 Democrats! The Democrats
indiscretions are a limitless supply of hypocrisy I
need to engage you! Bring it on..gigiorgasm.
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
j-guard, if in the more narrow definition of "corruption" you mean the kind of venality characterized by doing something untoward involving a highly-scrutinized payment by someone or some group that is unauthorized, then there is no competition: the GOP is about getting paid, like so many decadent rappers. gg
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
It's called technology hon, "smart" technology weaponry and armor(very expensive to make and develop), and we are fighting a non-conventional war-takes less personell in "boots"-more in intel-lots more. "My" #'s are the World Almanac's. Accurate ananlysis requires proper context and perspective. You should try using it.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Hon, YOU were the one bringing up personnel numbers - which of disprove the very basis of your "cutting the troops to the bone argument." But thanks again for demonstrating your incompetence.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
PS, I accept your concession that George Herbert Walker Bush and Dick Cheney actually planned to cut levels to what YOU call "to the bone." This after terrorist activities and escalating military actions that culminated in an actual war. Whatever you say, dumbo.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Why zuzu- I do believe you sound alot like a "smarmy jackass", but I know it's not your fault-your "high level" edumication made you that way.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Which makes you a perfect Buzzie wannabe.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Really hon, you've proven your point. Your posts have amply demonstrated that you are stupid, incompetent, and lazy - in other words, part of the Buzzie target audience. And no matter how hard you try to impress strangers over the Internet, your lack of spelling and grammar skills say everything about the amount of responsibility you've ever been given. Yes, I'm sure running the xerox machine counts as "being there" - in Buzzie-world, anyway.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
To Hon, cont'd:
Bush didn't "end" in '92, but in '93, though you xerox room guys probably don't know how fed'l budget years run. Your own #s show the Army troop level for the last Bush 1 budget ('93), was actually at 572.4K. So he cut the troop level by nearly 50K more in 3 years than Clinton did over the next 8 years. Clinton's reduction of 91.6K Army troops over his 8 yrs was less than HALF of the reduction made in the prior 8 years by Reagan/Bush 1 (208.4K).
Yeah, you SHOULD weep.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
The effective term generaly ends prior to inauguration, unless your a Democrat-then you have to have time to shred documents, pardon king pins, vandalize the WH, clean up stains, you know-typical Democrat stuff. Trimming the fat as Reagan/Bush did, and cutting muscle from the bone is apples and oranges hon-but I really don't expect someone as "high level" as yourself to understand.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Thanks for once again proving your laziness and incompetence. Notice I talked about "federal budget years"? But yes, it probably was a little too complex for you.
However you choose to slice your fruit salad, your OWN NUMBERS prove what every expert has said...that most of the cuts took place before Clinton ever took office. You're just too lazy to read your own links.
F minus for you, hon.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Wow-that FBY oversight made a HUGE difference. Whose experts hon-Dan Rather's,Chris Matthews,Move-on,DNC props like Soltz, yeeeah-riiight. My numbers prove what you and your ilk are incaplable of grasping, post cold war trimming verses to-the-bone slicing during escalating world missions and the height of terrorist activity. It's ok hon-you weren't there. Your ignorance is completly understandable. Oops, 471.6k 2000.
twmtmde 4 years ago
twmtmde, interestingly, you get on Clinton--correctly, i might add--for pardoning kingpins, but you are loath to chide W. Bush for actually slicing and dicing the constitution and executive protocols as if he were the flipping King! i mean, i can't wait till this guy is gone, so that we might behave like a Democracy/Republic again and shed the office of its monarchical vestment. oy, love, gg
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Far as I'm concerned, Col. Patterson was facing an unfair fight--2 on 1 with the Shrillary supporter in Soltz and the socilaist lapdog in "moderator" Matthews--WHO BELONGS BACK IN SCUM FREAKCISCO! SOLTZ YOU SIR HATE AMERICA SO JUST SHUT THE YOU KNOW WHAT UP! (BILL) CLINTON CUT MILITARY FUNDING AND HAD MULTI CHANCES TO GET BIN LADEN--BOY DID HE SCREW UP--AND THAT AIN'T THE ONLY SCREWING HE DID!
NEPatriot 4 years ago
mr patriot, i laugh when you brainless right-wingers impute liberal radicalism to milquetoast pundits such as Matthews--as a liberal radical, i scream at him for his bush-apologetic forays. the only real lefty in the news is Keith Olbermann--he is the real King... You should go to San Fran and be around enlightened thinkers... oh, for the record, i am from South Carolina and a former football player, and not some nebbish pansy that you would want to kick sand on at the beach. echo
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
You realize that all Democratic Candidates are under
the thumb of Moveon, George Soros and the lunatic
liberal left leotards. Not-a-one has the cajones
like Bush! All will waffle, like Billary & Kerry,
whichever way the wind blows! So...GiGi, which way
do blow...? Who're you voting for again? EHH?
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
j-guard,
dude, quit reciting hackneyed Fox News lines--it's unbecoming! the only REAL lefty candidates are Kucinich and Gravel--the other ones are quite centrist, although they might APPEAR radical when compared to fascists like Cheney and Tancredo and Shun Hannity. Wake up, corporate lackey! Soros is an honorable man... love, gg
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
I love you too! ugghh! Todays liberals are not capitalist they are socialists. The old Democratic
Party died with JFK. The new Democratic party has
embraced his killer, communism. Gravel and Kucinich
(especially Kuci) are about as looney as Howard Dean.
Learn more about all parties thru Rush. I laughed
everytime Al Franken spoke from defunct mental asylum
Air America.
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
the corporatist plutocratic imperialistic Romans thought Jesus was looney, too, you robotic mental defective... ah, that's too harsh--- i am sure, like our president, you are a fun guy to have a beer with, even if you would kill Arabs just because they're targeted by Israel and the religious right. dig it, gg
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Gigi, where were you 9/11? I was at work. On the radio, fights had broken out in several high schools. Apparently some Arab students,without thinking, stood up and cheered! They got beat up! That
evening I watched as the news went to Palestine and
again I saw those people cheering too. Arafat, made
a speech saying how horrified and sorry he was...lies!
These reports and news footage will never be aired
by our news media because of political correctness.
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
Where was I on 9/11? I was first saddened, and then frightened, for I realized that the infantile powers that be would heed their primitive instinct to lash out at somebody--anybody--so that all the afeared citizens might feel a bit better... remember, most big-minded folks agree with the Afghan campaign but not the knee-jerk, book-cooked, populace-rooked invasion of Iraq. Dig it, j-guard. love, gg
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Your answer actually saddens me. I can't help but
picture you showing more terrorist how to fly planes!
Your answer , to me, is suggestively analogous to
comments,regarding our troops, by Murtha, Kerry, Reid
and Now Schumer. Are you taking our freedoms for granted GiGi? Even Zuzukachoo doesn't think this way!
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
dude, i am not sure about the old Democratic Party dying with Kennedy, but i am quite sure that thousands of true conservatives are bemoaning the moribund and self-destructive nature of the current Republican Party... do yourself a favor, and check and see if there's a SINGLE measure that Bush supported that doesn't in some way help his corporate funders--don't get me wrong, Dems are shills as well, but only 1/3 as venal--- Ralph Nader is YOUR REAL KING!! GG
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Jon Stolz is a shill and a talking head for Hillary and the left establishment.
I liked Jon Stolz when he talked about Iraq.
Now he's full of shit. Give him an anema and bury her in a matchbox.
KaiXi333 4 years ago
mr. kaixi333, stolz is shill??? are you serious???? how can someone who speaks out AGAINST the war be a shill? there's no money in being against the war, only being for it---never have so many died so that so few could profit (Winnie Churchill turns in his grave)-- the Democratic apparatus doesn't reward its supplicants the way the GOP's does, unfortunately...
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
It always amazes me how the liberals can only resort to name calling and can't stick to the facts. Of course they also know the facts don't hold up on their side so I guess this statement is redundant. It seems though that for the liberals to understand you have to talk on their level which means don't use any facts at all and call them names allot.
5tevef 4 years ago
here's a fact: read the report issued by the peopleforanewamericancentury in 1998, wherein the signers--Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kristol, et al--laid out the necessity of controlling Iraq as part of their oil-centered, geopolitical strategy for the 21st Century... dig it.
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Facts smacks! Who're you voting for? Come on GiGi!
Let me hear your perspicacious retort. Your cogitations of sagacity. Humor me! You can do it!
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
Dear Fact-Minded American, Here's a fact: the plans for an Iraq invasion were authored in 1998 by the William KRistol-led (and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle-fed)group known as Project for a New American Century. meanwhile, the Downing Street memo of two years ago showed that the Iraq invasion was a fait accompli--all the other stuff was smoke and mirrors... wake up, friend!
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Gigi, my liberal 'love' friend...I will get you quotes
on the following people who said it was ok to go into
Iraq...just pick one or two or three...
John Kerry, Bill and Hillary, Pelosi, Albright, Sandy
Berger,Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Bob Graham Al Gore,
Robert Byrd,Jay Rockefeller & Henry Waxman. Summing
it up...everyone got the same intelligence as our
President! Slicing and dicing? what're cookin up?
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
is there any doubt that these votevets guys will be running for congress in 08?..they have a personal political agenda..and are as trustworthy as the dems they represent. Its never suprising when liberal tv shows roll out one of the handfull of dem veterans
roastbeefdinner 4 years ago
That must be why they endorsed a Republican in the congressional primaries in '06. He now serves on their board, as a matter of fact.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
dude, i am a liberal and i bemoan the fact that there's only one real liberal newsman--Keith Olbermann. i mean, colmes is liberal, also, but he doesn't set the agenda for his regrettable news hour. the only liberal aspect of the news is that they always blame whitey for problems... gg
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Buzz, Bush has drawn the qualification line for army recruits at two felonies and three misdemeanors, that's how desperate he is to get new "boots" on the ground. I'm sure you would qualify. Be a "first shipper" to the Iraq front lines (wherever that might be on any given day), earn $20,000 risking life and limb, and defend our country!
besprechen 4 years ago
You think its all about the money? Whatever happened to
"...ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can
do for your country..."?
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
That means Bill Clinton can actually qualify, when he was President he couldn't. By the way, if BJ Clinton and company had not cut 7 or 8 Divisions to reap the "peace dividend" (you do remember the peace dividend don't you-have you any idea how many thousands of "boots" that is?) we would't need any new boots.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Oh, you mean the "peace dividend" that GHW Bush cashed in? Do your homework, hon. It was Poppy and Uncle Dick's decision to cut those divisions.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
I lived my homework hon, served in various branches of the Army under Carter (disaster)Reagan-Bush1-Clinton(2nd disaster)-and Bush2. The mid 90's annual staff meetings consisted of nothing but massive cuts in the defense budget and the abolishment of 7-8 DIVISIONS. We were constantly ordered to do more with less. It was BJ Clinton's declaration to "reap the benefits of the peace dividend" I know because I was there.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Well HON, maybe you should take it up with the Sec. of Defense you claim to have worked under.
See my next post.
I wouldn't brag about such ignorance if I were you.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
From the Boston Globe, 8/23/2000:
"But with the Cold War over, Bush slashed troop levels by 25 percent during a five-year period starting in 1990 and cut the defense budget by tens of billions of dollars. ... Many of Bush's defense cuts did not take effect until the Clinton administration. ...
Perry, who was defense secretary from 1994 to 1997, said two-thirds of the defense cuts during the Clinton administration were orchestrated by President Bush and Defense Secretary Cheney."
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
The Boston Globe, what a joke-probably-came from one of Dan Rather's most trusted sources. Perry "said". I'm sure he said alot of "stuff".
twmtmde 4 years ago
Yeah, and so did Cheney. I guess they're both lying. What a dope.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
twmtmde, man, what an old mccarthyite trick: diss the instrument of information (in this case, The Boston Globe) instead of the actual information. That info is correct, as is most of the info that shows the Busheviks made sure the Congress was misled about the war. Read any unbiased account, by politically neutral journalists, and you will see that the Neo-Cons had to have their war, come hell or higher federal deficits. gg
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Un-biased journalists, I'm falling out of my chair again-Please, I can't stand so much laughter. The Boston Globe-might as well be Move On, or Dan Rather and CBS.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Oh, and by the way HON, it was none other than Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney, not Bill Clinton, who first used the term "peace dividend" :
Jan. 31, 1992, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. ... And now we're adding to that another $50 billion ... of so-called peace dividend."
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Bush and Cheney may have been the first to use the term and responsible for the figures you cite, but it was none other than BJC who "loathed the military" and proceded to cut 7-8 whole DIVISIONS. The 300 billion figure was a reduction in PROPOSED budget spending, not actual cuts. I saw it all hon, from 1976 to 2003, not bragging-just fact.
twmtmde 4 years ago
You're right hon. Spending all those years at the government trough with so little insight to show for it is nothing to brag about.
Misquoting Clinton is just more evidence of that.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Not to mention, HON, that if you really HAD been "living your homework," you'd know that 6 of those 8 division inactivations took place BEFORE Clinton took office. The other two took place months afterwards, as the result of a "bottom up review" implementing Poppy Bush's plan.
Linked quote follows in next post.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Their was quite a bottom up review that took place in the Clinton oval office, had nothing to do with defence spending though.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Here's your "homework" HON:
"The U.S. Army had 28 Divisions - 18 active and 10 National Guard - in 1991.
...
By the end of FY 1993 the Army consisted of 4 corps, 14 active Army divisions, and 8 National Guard divisions.
...
It is one step in a journey that really began in 1989 to bring the Army down from 18 active divisions to 10, and 10 National Guard divisions to eight, and from 780,000 active-duty soldiers to 495,000. "
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Link for previous (wouldn't let me post before):
w w w [dot] globalsecurity [dot]org [slash] military [slash] agency [slash] army [slash] division [dot] h t m
Now run along, HON, and finish your homework.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
The difference between us is you have no choice but to research on-line (bottom up 1993, QDR 1998, whatever)I can rely on memory because I lived it. Here's a few things only a soldier from 4 decades will know- I filled my goat with a donkey di-k ate c-rats 70's, the last snake I worked on had a HUD LRPS 80's,traded my cap in for a monica 90's MRE, sand box tours haji food 2000. Go ahead hon, try and research that. BJ Clinton used a razor.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Thanks for proving my point hon.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
1993 bottom up-1998 QDR, whatever. The difference between us is you have to research, I lived it, don't need to. Here are some things only an experienced soldier will know. You fill your goat with a donkey di-k, an ECAS snake has a HUD, LRPS burgers need water, your monica has to be shaped, research that numnuts. BJ Clinton used a huge razor.
twmtmde 4 years ago
>>>1993 bottom up-1998 QDR, whatever.<<
Yeah, I have no doubt you're confused by any sort of management term.
The fact that you didn't know that almost ALL of those division deactivations took place before Clinton took office tells us all we need to know, hon.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
You know dude-the Quadrennial Defense Review and bottom up-(L Aspin not Perry), No matter what numbers you come up with (like Cheney's 300 billion cut-that was the entire budget numnuts) -the bottom-line is, Clinton-Gore cut: over 1 million troops, 8 Army Divisions, 2k fighter wings, 232 bombers, 13 nuc missle subs, 4 flat tops, all support and assets for those cuts,and SDI while increasing the OPTEMPO. But then you knew all that, right hon. Have some more koolaid.
twmtmde 4 years ago
You know HON, I think you belong to the Buzz Patterson school of thought. Putting out bad information is okay if you repeat it enough and are pompous enough. The lower layers of the military bureaucracy are full of ignorant blowhards like you and Buzz. At least you're only ripping off the taxpayers for your retirement pay these days.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Ok,here goes,Reagan intentionally inflated the military to defeat the USSR-Bush1 brought the levels back to normal-Clinton took it below normal IOW-Bush had a Wall Mart work force and a K Mart customer base-Clinton had a K Mart work force-created a Wal Mart customer base-then cut the work force even more. That's so easy a caveman can understand it-but can you? I doubt it.
twmtmde 4 years ago
zuzukachoo-The cavern between your shoulders-a vast logical void-is as evident as the brilliant light of arrogance that surrounds your words. Thank you for letting us see it. It speaks volumes about you and those you support. Enjoy your kooaid,hon.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Well, that's about the level of understanding I would expect a low-level guy like you to exhibit.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
I tailor my explainations up or down to the level of the audience I communicate with, had to go way down there for you hon. Be sure and pay your taxes on time, I need a new set of golf clubs, thanks so much for your future contributions-It warms my heart to know that you are helping to finance my retirement.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Yep, just as I thought. Low level paper shuffler. Hey, I'm happy to subsidize your retirement...anything that keeps incompetents like you out of the government is money well spent.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Oh I'm still working for Uncle Sam Hon-and retired too-get lots of time off with full pay-it's a beatiful thing. Since Al Gore replaced secretaries with computers and printers (to save on paper-what a genius) we are all low level paper shufflers-and you help pay for it all. Gotta go-tee time.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Thanks for proving my point.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
No problem hon, thanks for proving mine-Clinton did it. Your attitude is very much like J.Fraud Kerry's, Love those Swift Boaters. One final word before I get back to my low-level office, HOOAH.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Why yes, I do believe you are a perfect example of the gullible Slow Boat target audience/Buzz wanabe. Your desperation to impress strangers on the Internet makes it quite apparent you don't get many rewards for intelligence or industry in real life - and your inability to get a single fact straight here only emphasizes it.
Hooah to you, hon.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
World Almanac-National Defense-Personnel,read it and weep. My greatest rewards (outside of family and friends) comes from the satisfaction of destroying the BS that comes from the maniacal left, wherever I find it. HOOAH.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Desperate need to impress strangers on the Internet - check.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Mission accomplished, check mate.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Yes, I agree. You've amply proved your desperate need to impress strangers on the Internet.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Glad your impressed; and enlightend. World Almanac-Active Army-1990 746k, 1992 610k end Bush, 1995 521k, 1996 493k, 1997 487k, 1998 491k, 1999 479k, and thats only Active Army #s. As I said before-Clinton did it-read it and weep.
twmtmde 4 years ago
Yes, your desperation has been quite noticable to us all. Poor guy. As I said before, do your homework, hon...your ignorance is showing.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
>>like Cheney's 300 billion cut-that was the entire budget numnuts<<
Cheney said he took the budget down by that much over a five year period, nummy nums. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
when you were in the military, were you opposed to showering next to your gay superiors? gg
p.s. thanks for your service
gjgeorgas 4 years ago
Jeez, Patterson comes off as a smarmy jackass. Stupid to boot.
typhonsentra 4 years ago
To a liberal hate monger,(all liberals spew hatred for anyone and anything conservative) anyone armed with information contradicting their own lies and distortions probably does look like a stupid smarmy jackass. That's because they look through shit covered lenses disguised as informative journalism provided by the DNC via CBS-ABC-NBC-MSNBC-NYT-USA TODAY-TRIBUNE-and about several hundred other major publications.
twmtmde 4 years ago
I can't believe how paranoid you people are. You honestly think the media's just a puppet for the DNC?
typhonsentra 4 years ago
Absolutely, Dan Rather, veteran CBS "reporter" knowingly reported manufactured documents as fact during the height of the presidential elections-recent poll of national journalists showed 85% are Democrats (I don't believe all of them were honest so that number is very likely around 95%. The only exception to the rule is Fox News-The Washington Times-and 3 or 4 obscure magazine publications.
twmtmde 4 years ago
buzz, You go...for America!
Texaii 4 years ago
Yes Buzz, for America ... please go.
And don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
Get a life! Is this all you do? All Dem 2008
candidates are a joke! I would really love to see
two Americas one liberal other conservative. Fun
to watch the libs cut 80% their military and end up asking help after the the "talks" with the
"nice misunderstood" terrorists. ZuZucachoo I see you leading the pack. Lets see you sneeze your way past the Pelosi-Reid-Schumer-Kennedy-Kerry-Durbin-Murtha and 'Leaky' Leahy led anti-war Brady Bunch.
jefeisdguard 4 years ago
Oh my gosh, do you actually talk like that in real life? Or just stand on street corners shouting into space?
zuzukachoo 4 years ago
That last was to jefeisdguard...as if it wasn't obvious.
zuzukachoo 4 years ago