 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
In his speech, Edwards said about Al Queda, "You cannot run, you cannot hide. We will destroy you."
How do you Democrats feel about that? I mean that is the kind of thing Bush says all the time, and the Left accuses Bush of warmongering and baiting the terrorists.
|
Bush says **** like "bring it on" to Iraqi and arab insurgents while keeping troop levels too low and deluding himself that there was no serious threat. How many US KIA and WIA since that comment? - saying we will destroy you isn't really the same thing.
Had Bush been more aggressive in Afghanistan, and more aggressive hunting al Qaeda before they got out of Afghanistan, that would be different, but "we" (Bush and his crowd, not the US) had to be prepared for Iraq, because that was the focal point to Bush's middle east "policy" even before Bush was elected. So we did Afghanistan on the cheap, while Rummy had a McNamara-esque fascination for SOF and high-tech toys.
After 9/11, we had a unique opportunity - the whole world knew we were out for blood, and nobody wanted to **** with us or be in our way - least of all Musharraf, who had his own domestic problems plus India to deal with. Bush half-assed Afghanistan, and then went on to his main show in Iraq, which has had no significant effect on al Qaeda.
Bush's rhetoric didn't match either his target (Saddam and Iraq, not Bin Laden, al Zawahiri and al Qaeda), or the results of his actions.
quote:
How come it is ok for a Democrat to say that but it is not ok for a republican to say that?
|
It's perfectly ok for a Republican to say that - as long as he focuses on the terrorists, and doesn't use it as a smoke screen to attack another shithole country and get a major portion of our ground forces stuck there in "security and stabilization" operations, while far less force is applied to actual terrorists.
Remember the admin talking about how the Iraqis had UAV's that could be launched from ships and fly hundreds of miles into the US spraying bioweapons over American cities? I heard that nonsense on the radio the month before the invasion of Iraq and almost spit out a kidney, I was laughing so hard.
quote:
And how will Kerry and Edwards destroy the terrorists since they don't support the means necessary to do it? |
How is corporate pork for Haliburton and operating funds for troops in Iraq related to hunting and killing al Qaeda members?
To a large extent, Kerry and Edwards are stuck managing the ****ups of Bush policy - we can't pull out of Iraq, and most of the *******s who were trappable in Afghanistan have scattered or gone to ground, so they are much harder to locate and destroy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
I mean, this malicious stereotyping is stupid, no question about it, but Democrats such as Edwards need to reassert that Democrats, contrary to the whismical imagination of Republicans, ARE for strong national defense. |
It's not whimsical imagination. We are simply looking at Kerry and Edwards' voting record. You should too. They vote against funding our troops in Iraq. They vote to cut covert ops, and human intelligence gathering. They vote against major military technologies like the B-1 bomber, or the tomahawk cruise missile just to name a few.
Kerry and Edwards must think Americans are idiots. They vote against the means to fight terrorism, and bash Iraq and Bush's efforts to fight terrorism, and then when the election comes around suddenly they want us to believe that they are strong in the war on terror just because they say "We will hunt them down and kill them". Ha!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
As im sure youre aware, sole sourcing is allowed under federal procurement regs when the competitive bidding is not worth it (small procurements, for example), or when speed is required, as in national security emergencies in war time. Going into Iraq they didnt know what would be broken, and so couldnt put out bids in advance, and after it was broken they needed things done quickly. |
Actually, a lot of very standard items were well known as being broken, dysfunctional, or in need of augmentation or replacement. Given that work couldn't start before the war ended (at least in specific areas where the work was to be performed) there was arguably no need to bypass normal notice, solicitation and NOPA procedures, as those could have been bid conditionally right before the invasion.
Basically, a month or two prior (no surprise here, since we all knew about US forces in Kuwait and shipboard hoping to offload in Turkey), you announce solitication for certain consulting services related to infrastructure and needs assessments, and also several standardized items (local power generation and water treatment plants can be prepackaged as one example).
There is probably not one contract in the entire affair that had a legitimate need to go sole source, but "good" contracting officers (who often retire from the government to go work on the dark side  ) know how to write sole source justifications.
quote:
Now it may be that sole sourcing was used more than can be justified. I presume thats under investigation. |
I think the items investigated are limited to predatory pricing, not sole sourcing, as Halliburton, not the procurement agencies, are the ones being investigated.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
When is OMFG KERRIE HIMSEFL
speaking?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2004 22:19
MtG 
what was I thinking?
|