Democrats did not propose to invade Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was BUSH.

You have still avoided the question again col. The democrats supported the invasion of Iraq. The democrats said Saddam was a threat and had WMD's. Most before Bush was in office. Stop being a hypocrit and answer the question. Were they liars col?

I don't know where you copied that text from, but Bush was not AWOL. You have already lost that arguement and I see you want to be told again.

CNN is the station I heard the comments about the Guard today.

And you still haven't provided proof. I searched for an hour and could not find anything to back up your claim today. Being that you distort information to bash Bush, and that CNN is one of the most biased "news" agencies, then you claim is pointless.

He and the conservatives in Congress just gave the OIL companies tax cuts of $12 Billion which is almost enough to replace all the Guard equipmemt.

Ah yes. It wouldn't be a true liberal rant without bringing oil companies into this. Col, how much do we spend on welfare? Let's get rid of that and buy more guns for the National Guard.

I would love to have seen all those people who edited your book before it was published.

Col is not a real author. Anybody with Microsoft Word and a fedex kinkos can become an "author" nowadays.

Some Democrats voted for the war predicated on incomplete intel. Most of that intel has been shown to be wrong. If they had ALL the intel when they voted, we might not have gone to war. Anyone that can say, knowing what we know today, that this war was justified is NUTS!

Col, you have to be the biggest hypocrit and democratic apologist I have seen. Were the democrats who said Saddam was a threat and had WMD before Bush was elected lying?

You keep making excuses col. The Congress had intel, there was no fraud, misleading, or lies. Understand that and answer the questions.

The commanding General of the National Guard said yesterday the National Guard does not the equipment needed to perform its basic mission because of the Iraq War. The National Guard has only 34 % of the needed equipment and much of that equipment is in not in good condition. The vast majority of the National Guard Equipment was shipped to Iraq and even when it is returned will be unusable because of the war.

Speaking from first hand experience here. Since your taking this info from 30 second CNN sound bites, I am sure you’re not getting the complete story here. The only way I could think about fitting that only 34% is in good condition, would be upon the equipment's arrival back to the US mob station.

Upon return from Iraq all equipment goes to a mob station, before return to the unit home State. While there, each piece of equipment is goes through a top to bottom technical inspection (or T/I for you military folks). Every defective part or missing component is then placed on order. Only after the TI is completed will all the equipment is shipped back to the State, where the Organizational Maintenance Shops will receive the parts. The only equipment not being return to the State are those have requiring major overhaul or high tech equipment that gets a good once over at depot level periodically anyway. Unlike past deployments before Iraq, the parts requested have been funded and the have been arriving within the State in short order. So technically the Commander is most likely right that returning equipment is rolling off the boats in a mess, but over all the Guard is far from broke.

Of all my units that have returned from deployment, the above has happened and all have reported up and even deployable at their first required "Unit Serviceability Report" (USR) after return. Within my State and three other States I have sub-units in, no major equipment problems has been identified. That is not saying some other States maybe having problems, but I also attend national conferences, briefings, and training exercises. Other then the normal hitches here and there, no major short falls have been identified.

To be honest, funding and new fielding of equipment has stepped up markedly in the last year, while slumping during the original deployments to cover installation's needs in theater. In fact I would have to say that we have received many of the most modern items considered a pipe dream no more then four years ago. The day of the old Duce and a half truck is coming to an end and some of the most high tech commo equipment, that has always been relegated to active services only, are quickly filling our motor pools. It was not uncommon during Kosovo for funding to be cut or worse pulled over three months before fiscal year ended. But funding is at levels that I have not seen since before 1991.

Chaos is right in his post about equipment levels. Gene, the Guard and reserve that you retired from in the 90's is not the same we have now. Back then we were luck to get the hand me downs from active service and it was not uncommon to strip parts from one vehicle to keep other operating. Now it is not uncommon have a fielding team from the manufacturer conducting classes first hand as the equipment rolls off the trucks into the yard and the only parts we are slow to get is because the factory is a little backordered.

There have been reports from The active services, Army and Marines, that claim the equipment used in Iraq will require either Depot rebuild or replacement. The atrticles I read said that the conditions in Iraq add 10 years of service for every 1 year in that sand pile. The Chief of the Guard said the Guard in the U S had only 34% of its equipment with the remander in Iraq. Much of the Gurad equipment is in need of replacement. The National Guard units could not commuicate with the 82nd in the Gulf after Katrina. The 82 nd had to loan the Guard units equipment to communicate. Any military organization that can not communicate is LOST.

My point, Bush is NOT requesting the funding in the budget to rebuild and or replace this equipment. When the Active Units return, they too will be faced with the most major equipment replacement since WWII. We can give tax cuts but have no money for needed military equipment, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Student loans etc. We have got our priorities all screwed up!

Since when does Bush have to personally oversee each and every request for equipment and equipment servicing order issued?

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't funding and equipping of Natl Guard units up to their individual states? And if it rolls up to the federal govt, doesn't it then become the responsibility of congress and its various committees to deal with it?

The Chief of the Guard said the Guard in the U S had only 34% of its equipment with the remander in Iraq. Much of the Gurad equipment is in need of replacement.

I guess those 122 out of 124 authorized vehicles in my back motor pool is a figment of my imagination. If you want I'll go back there and take a picture, then post it.

All of our equipment except tents has returned from Iraq. None of it has been kept in theater. You really believe that some of that 87 Billion is not ear marked to replace and refurbish equipment.

When the National Guard equipment is destroyed in a War, it is a Federal responsibility and the military equipment is something that comes to the president's attention. Without the proper equipment, you do not have an effective military. That is a presidential issue!

Everything is a presidential issue with Gene.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Everything the President does he does poorly. If you look at his past you will see one failure after another. School, Drugs and booze, Military service, Failed Business ventures. He did have a reasonable term as Governor but how he got to be Governor with his track record prior to becomming Governor is a real question. Take Daddy and his contacts away from GWB and you have almost NOTHING!

actually, you have a president that stands by what he says, firmly footed in the belief that what he is doing, is the right thing for the country, no matter what the polls may say, no matter what the liberals may say....no matter what anyone may say.

To me, that takes a lot of guts...Clinton sure as hell didn't have any of that....from what I understand, Carter sure didn't have any of that....Reagan did. And now Bush does.

What he is doing at the present may not be the most favored thing to do. In fact, I know it is no the most favored thing to do. But, he is sticking to his guns, and now his stand and resolve are starting to gain some ground. He refused to call Iraq a losing war....he refused to pull out, retreat, and turn tail and run. He is giving America a backbone again, the backbone that we lost from Clinton as President. Just as Reagan gave America a backbone again, after the fiasco of a Presidencey that was Carter.

What Bush has done is the unthinkable, and because of that, ppl like you, Col., are calling him a total failure. I believe the man has a vision, and no matter how many clouds of doubt you pour on it, the man keeps going forward, pressing towards the goal, not looking back, and not apologizing for what he believes is the right thing to do.

To me, Bush has given America the resolve to finish what has been started. Just because the liberals and the media are declaring Bush as a failure, and the war in Iraq a failure, does not...make it so.

Bush has done a decent job, I believe. Is he the best President we have ever had? No, I don't think so. But he is better than what Clinton was. He is better than what Carter was. He has taken hold of something, and you may not agree with it, but he refuses to let go....that is what a GOOD leader does. He continues the fight, even when the followers have fallen to the wayside.

What he is doing, may not be felt or understood for many years, but I know that what he is doing is visionary....He is the first President to really tackle the Middle East problem head-on. He is the first President to really attempt to make a difference in the world.

You can like him, love him, hate him, or detest him, that is your American right....but I think in time, you will be proven wrong.

A person who creates the problems Bush has created and refuses to alter his policy is not a good thing. Why do you think the vast majority do not support his policies?

What kind of vision does the following:

Put America into debt and pass that on to our chuildren

Attack a country that was not a danger to America and kill 2,100 of our military, injure 35,000 and spend $300 Billion.

Propose a solution to Social Security that would put it further into debt.

Pass a New entitlement plan to Medicare that is already in financial trouble with NO money to pay for the plan.

Cut food stamps and health care for the poor and cut funding for student loans while granting tax cuts to the Oil industry.

Sending our troops into a war without protective equipment and with troop levels below what was needed to secure Iraq.

Pass an education plan and then not provide the funding.

Fail to protect our borders or even request the resources for the needed manpower.

Continue a trade policy that is destroying American jobs.

Shift the tax burden to the middle income workers so the top 5% can become more wealthy

If this is the vision that you believe is good for America, please move to Iraq or Iran. NOTHING that Bush is doing is helping the poor. Very little of his policies are helping most of the middle income Americans. Only some Big Business and the top 5% benefit from what is taking place.

According to col. Bush controls everything in the universe and has the power to change everything at the wave of his hand.

As usual most of your "accusations" are one-sided. Get some help col, you need it.

All the above are the result of the Bush policies and passed into law by his conservatives in Congress. Who would you consider responsible for these results? They were eithet created during the Bush administration (Iraq war, Medicare Drug plan and deficit) or are problems that have gotten worse since Bush became President ( trade deficit, immigration, energy costs, job loss etc).

Col, you don't take the time to look at anybody else except Bush. Take border security for example. Do you blame the Governors, the the politicians of the states? No. Why? Because you are a fanatical Bush hater.

If you think this country is so bad, why don't you move to Iran or in the mountains with the terrorists. Since you both think the same thing, you will get along just fine.

But anyways col. As usual you can't prove you first statement so you revert to the usual "blame Bush for everything" post. Get over yourself.

Border security is a Federal responsibility. I just want the policies of this country to reflect what is best for the majority not what the conservatives want. They are NOT in the majority. Thus, if anyone should move it is the conservatives.

Who invaded Iraq?

Who added China to the WTO which increased the trade deficit by over 50%?

Who cut taxes and increased spending resulting in the deficit?

Who proposed a Social Security solution that would add to the financial problems for that system?

BUSH!!!!!!!

Border security is a Federal responsibility.

Border security is also the responsiblity of the states. Of course, you don't want to hear that because it takes some blame off Bush.

I just want the policies of this country to reflect what is best for the majority not what the conservatives want. They are NOT in the majority. Thus, if anyone should move it is the conservatives.

This is a more conservative country than you think. Remember, Bush was elected twice. Liberals like yourself are not popular in this country. You use the same propaganda terrorists use, so why don't you move yourself. All you do is complain how bad this country is, which is only your opinion, so why don't you leave?

Who invaded Iraq?

The military with the apporval of the U.S. Congress which includes democrats.

No Immigration is Federal. The States have had to become involved because Bush is not protecting our borders.

In no way is the majority conservative especially whe it come to economic policy.

Bush pushed for the Iraq War. The Congress gave the permission for BUSH to take action as a last resort. He is responsible. There was no action by Congress to invade Iraq without Bush telling us that Saddam was a danger. Saddam was not responsible for 9/11!

No Immigration is Federal. The States have had to become involved because Bush is not protecting our borders.

It's amazing how a problem that has been going on for over 20 years is now soley the fault of Bush. Typical fanatic behavior.

In no way is the majority conservative especially whe it come to economic policy.

Col, conservatives have been voted to power. This is not a liberal country, and not everybody agrees with your liberal, socialist ideas of economics.

Bush pushed for the Iraq War. The Congress gave the permission for BUSH to take action as a last resort. He is responsible. There was no action by Congress to invade Iraq without Bush telling us that Saddam was a danger. Saddam was not responsible for 9/11!

Democrats pushed for the war also. Would you like me to post the speeches made by democrats who "pushed" for the war? Congress approved the war, understand that simple fact col.

And once again, Bush never said Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11. Why do you bring something up that is not true?

Col.....you are a very boring little man....

I sign off, because no matter what is shown you, you still hold to your own, hatefilled little beliefs.

Maybe you and President Bush are not all that different?

Bush holds to his beliefs.....you refuse to let go of your accusations.....

At any rate, you have bored me to nearly tears with the same lines over and over again.

Good luck...

I can't help it. Col you are a childish person. You are closed minded. You are not willing to at least prove yourself to anyone except for what you read in a single article on some website. BTW, get you brain straight, the site was USATODAY.COM not CNN TODAY.

You're like my 7 and 2 year old who all they do is repeat the same things over and over even though we tell them not to and why not to, they still keep doing it.

Your articles are nothing but a war game where you use a slingshot with small rocks while everyone else uses Lazer guns. For crying out loud no one comes here to defend your claims cause they know it would be a stupid thing to do. You call yourself a conservative but act like a Liberal but not even those who are Liberals will come to your aid.

You're the kind of people that make me wanna start name calling. But I have control and wont.

EVERYTHING Chalabi told the Bush Admin was a LIE.

Not a single link or attribution in any of your reply... Well until JU gets the Ignore feature going on I will simply have to ignore your articles manually. I will never waste another erg of energy on you or anything you write. Bye Gene.

To support what is taking place in America is to close your eyes to the future. Yesterday the Comptroller General of the United States was on C-SPAN 2. He could have written sections of my book as it relates to the fiscal reality of the Bush tax and spend policies. The picture he painted about the future in America was shocking. In plain english he described how the path we are on coupled with the existing unfunded liabilities will create a financial disaster for our children. Anyone that supports Bush and the conservatives needs to look at what this man has documented.

Yesterday the Comptroller General of the United States was on C-SPAN 2. He could have written sections of my book as it relates to the fiscal reality of the Bush tax and spend policies. The picture he painted about the future in America was shocking. In plain english he described how the path we are on coupled with the existing unfunded liabilities will create a financial disaster for our children. Anyone that supports Bush and the conservatives needs to look at what this man has documented.

Once again col you provide no facts or links to back up your opinions. Everytime someone likes you starts talking about "our children" you know you are full of bs.