Yes. George W. Bush used those very words during his 2000 Republican Convention speech in a lie to the nation claiming that the Clinton Administration had ruined our nation's defenses and reduced military readiness to remarkably low levels.

I hear no mention of those words today even though Bush, Cheney and others who helped them used military readiness as a major issue during their 2000 campaign. What a bunch of jokers!

And where is the media on this question? Are they waiting for a Democrat to bring it up before they print it? Where are the Democrats who lost big in 2000 when the American falsely believed they are soft on national security? Exactly whom is it that is soft on national security now - considering military readiness as a major element of national security? Really! WTF!

Greetings

John McCain now bereft of honor and integrity has only his memory of a time before.

He calls for troops that he knows we don't have, to win a war already lost.

The McCain before, honest and brave, would have thought less of his ambition and more of his brothers in blood dead and dying on the field.

Which is sadder that he should become such after a life of honor or that the press seems unable to notice his flip flop.

Or perhaps he never had his honor and this is the true man revealed in the stark light of national stage

Sadder still....

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

I've never had much respect for fighter jocks. While they have their own troubles up there high in the sky, when they die, it's usually so quick they don't even know what the fuck hit 'em. But when they are back on the ground, they eat in the officer's mess, they slide in between clean cotton sheets, they get plenty of leave, and they get more pussy than Frank Sinatra. Don't cry to me about how tough they got it.

Brave? Sure. So what? You show me any Army or Marine rifle squad in Iraq and I'll show you some people doing a job that no fighter jock would do. Grunts going house to house cordon and search, pull night ambush, convoy shotgun, and more. They got more bravery on a daily basis than any fighter jock.

Fighter jocks get shot down. They get captured and taken away as high value prisoners of war. Grunts get captured, they get the whole treatment, nuts cut off and stuffed in their mouth, gutted like fish, flesh striped off their faces, their tongue cut out, heads sawed off. Any fighter jocks out there wish to trade places with a grunt?

The Swift Boat veterans did us a favor when they trashed John Kerry. Prior to their smear and lies, there was a certain code of honor between combat veterans that you do not smear your brother's combat record for political purposes. John McCain made the faintest of protests when the Swifties went after Kerry. It was obvious he couldn't have cared less.

So now, with the 2008 elections looming and almost a certainty that McCain is going to run, it's no quarter given, no quarter asked.

You can say what ever you want about McCain and it won't bother this old combat vet one bit.

In fact, you are free to use the same charge leveled against McCain that Karl Rove used on him in the primaries: Specifically, McCain's time in the Hanoi Hilton made him as crazy as a shit-house rat! He's buggy, folks! Dangerous! Hell, he might wake up screaming in the White House one night and push the big red button.

There are some damn good combat vets out there that deserve this nation's respect. Paul Hackett, Tami Duckworth, to name two who ran for office and lost. There are hundreds more coming home from Iraq and some of them will run for office and win.

But McCain? Well this screwball has lost his gyro. He's nuts. Just like another corrupt fighter jock of the Republican ilk, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, John McCain is in the pocket of General Dynamics, Honeywell, Halliburton, Martin Marietta and fifty other defense contractors. He's another war profiteer and that's why he wants to send more grunts to get ground up like hamburger. He doesn't give a shit about them. And I don't give a shit about him.

Hey Salon, you should give Ebonius a star for that rant. Good job, E.

That was an A Grade rant, can I have some more please sir.

"Hey, North Korea! Knock it off or else!"

"Oh yeah? You and what army?"

"Hey Iran! You still enriching uranium? Don't make me come over there..."

"You and what army?"

"Hey Chavez... you messing with us? You want a piece of this?"

"Yeah, you and what army? No, seriously, you and what army, exactly?"

Boiled down, the recommendation is to apply one Last Big Push, one massive escalation to flatten the natives. This unfortunately NEVER EVER EVER works. So even if we materialized 300,000 troops from somewhere, they couldn't possibly do any real good.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - this "military readiness" problem is really a good thing because it precludes anymore war mongering.

Thank God we can't attack Iran or North Korea and start the next World War. Thank God that we have reduced ability to set up a right wing dictator in Venezuela like we did in the rest of South and Central America last century - sorry folks but reduced American military strength can only be good for the rest of the world. Maybe instead we can learn to do something called diplomacy...

I'm certain that once troop and equipment readiness reaches the bottom and everyone finally takes notice, the chickenhawks will blame Clinton's downsizing in the 90's as why we lost this war. They would do well to remember that Rumsfeld has fought congress on proposed increases in total troop levels every time they were brought to the table...ergo, Rumsfeld and Bush must agree with Clinton's reduction in force. One problem though, when Clinton was in office, we weren't up to our necks in deployments. One more mistake to add to the long list. It would also be good to review total expenditures on BS projects like the F-22 or Littoral and compare their cost to what is givin to the men in women actually on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Washington places far more value on these pet projects than those of us in uniform. If we're really committed to winning this war on terror, why are we spending most of our $$$ on preparing to go to war against China?

Oh, and as long as I'm typing, will those idiots that keep saying that we had to go into Iraq to save the people from the brutal torture and murder of Saddam's regime shut the hell up! What about Darfur? Why don't we go into there where killing and suffering exists on a much larger scale? Or begin to work the issue of Ethiopia and Somalia's emerging war? I'll tell you why, because those places are not strategically important to the US policy makers....and since they're not strategically important, they don't matter, they don't exist in the eyes of the administration....no matter how much death and misery there is.