Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alia

Murtha is saying we fell short of recruitment, but I read they were on track.

And what is this about not having enough troops. Don't we have 1.2 MILLION troops, and only 150,000 in Iraq?

Surely if we NEEDED more, we could send some from Germany.

He says it wasn't partisan, but he was partisan yesterday.


5,139 posted on 11/18/2005 7:13:57 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5111 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT

We are now in a new fiscal year for recruitment. We are on track now, but he is right it is because the Army lowered the standards. Of course, if there was more support at home for what the troops were doing, we wouldn't have a recruiting problem.... AND HE KNOWS IT!


5,167 posted on 11/18/2005 7:15:45 PM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5139 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT

What do hurricanes have to do with the war in Iraq?


5,185 posted on 11/18/2005 7:16:33 PM PST by Howlin ("Victory is not an exit strategy." ``Jack Murtha 11/18/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5139 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I don't understand Murtha; at one point he said we needed more troops to get the job done. Then, in the next breath, he talks about our presence that portrays an occupation. What does he think more troops means to the perception of an occupation?


5,274 posted on 11/18/2005 7:20:39 PM PST by cwb (Liberalism is the opiate of the *asses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5139 | View Replies ]

To: All

Murtha is reading the speech he gave yesterday.
The text is on his website.
He makes the US military sound like a rag tag bunch of the lowest of the lows, crying and demoralized .
And all their equipment is crap.


5,301 posted on 11/18/2005 7:22:10 PM PST by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5139 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT
For Dems, it is all about "partisan chestrubbing".

Murtha is saying we fell short of recruitment, but I read they were on track.

Yes, military was on track. When I check the numbers, each time these "numbers" show up, I find the "new recruitment" numbers do not at all include the re-enlisted. Then when I read about "re-enlisted" down.. I see the MSM de-selects the "new recruitment" stats. It's all a shell game; the way THEY play it.

Lastly, the re-enlistment stats are good. Dems obviously know this, and are hoping to see the re-enlists (with their bonuses, dittos, new enlistees) be removed from the jobs they are being paid to do.

Democrats love to hand out money. Especially, in this weird "welfarian" logic of theirs.

En Point, Dems wanna not only blow off Iraq and the mid-east -- they wanna BLOW the Taxpayer's money.

I've seen the UNIONS do this. Workers get signed on for a "term". Then, there's no work. But the Workers still get paid. I learned this from some Union Hacks protesting Republicans/conservatives at various events.

Same trick.

5,398 posted on 11/18/2005 7:28:05 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5139 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson