[johnforbes]

Finally, Grog and Clowntoker can join up.

But seriously, these Left Wing nuts think the military is a social laboratory where they can simply order their ideology to be implemented.

They really don't even know that mission accomplishment, national defense, play a role.

[Grog]

Apparently because Forbes is so gay-cenric in everything, he believes that's the only reason this guy was confirmed by the GOP controlled Senate.

Well played as always, Forbes. :lol:

[johnforbes]

Thank you.

It is good that the Army is looking out for the gaycentricity of Grog and Clown.

[Grog]

You're welcome. I get a kick from helping you paint yourself into closet corners. :lol:

[johnforbes]

Speaking of closets, we all wish Grog had remained in the closet with his homo hijinks.

But it is ridiculous to appoint a Secretary of the Army who had these "credentials" -- no military service, an undergrad degree, worked for a Democrat politician, and is gay.

[Clownkicker]

But somehow it's NOT ridiculous to appoint a Commander-in-Chief who has these "credentials" -- no military service, an undergrad degree, worked for Democrat politicians, and is a serial adulterer?

Honestly, johnny, do you ever think about the idiotic nonsense you post?

[Grog]

Really, Forbes? Tell me about Dick "Chickenhawk" Cheney's credentials that made him qualified to be Secretary of Defense. :lol:

[Intrepid]

A Canadian can't vote here and his opinion aren't worth shit.
Next?

[sillydaddy]

Can Homos march in formation ? :lol:

[Clownkicker]

Apparently johnforbes had no trouble, silly.

'Nuf said...

[johnforbes]

Dick Cheney had no credentials for that job.

He had approximately three heart operations before he even realized smoking and a meat-heavy diet might be hurting him.

Of course, in Grog's Frisco days, his homo hijinks were also meat-heavy.

[Grog]

You always like mentioning deferments for certain folks, but no mention of Cheney's five deferments because he "had other priorities." :lol:

[johnforbes]

You have me confused with somebody else.

I've often criticized Dick Cheney for getting 5 deferments, and Joe Biden for the same thing.

Newt Gingrich's father served 27 yrs in the military, but Newt would have been better as a candidate and historian had he served himself.

Trump would have a better grasp of power projection via foreign policy had he served.

There have been bad presidents who did serve (e.g., Carter) and bad ones who didn't (Obama, etc).

It isn't a sine qua non.

[Grog]

The difference between Biden and Cheney is that Cheney is the chickenhawk's chickenhawk: Cheney was and is eager to send others into harms way, yet he declined the opportunity when it was his turn.

You really don't understand that, do you?

[RealJustme]

Cheney was and is eager to send others into harms way, yet he declined the opportunity when it was his turn.

Since this thread is about our new Secretary of the Army are you saying he won't send others into harms way since he declined to do so?

[Grog]

Not at all. I'm saying he most likely won't be as eager to do it as someone like Cheney who, because he declined his opportunity to serve, sees warmongering as the first and best option.

Putting soldiers in a position to be killed as an extension of policy implementation should always be the absolute last resort.

Unless, of course, you're a chickenhawk conservative whose riskiest service was riding a Segway while patrolling the mall for Victoria's Secret shoplifters. Or, in your case, searching for manscaping addicts trying to swipe hot wax for man hair removal. I'm sure that one not only enraged, but terrified you. :lol:

[johnforbes]

Biden has made a ton of hypocritical statements on that point.

My observation has been that machismo tends to vanish rapidly when a person has the chance to display same ten thousand miles away from home in a real war.

Cheney's bravado, and the "sagacity" of an airhead like Biden, would vanish instantly in that event.

But a sissy such as Grog wouldn't understand that.

[Grog]

Uh-huh. Forbes eagerness to send others into combat is more than ample proof he's never experienced it himself.

That's just a fact.

[johnforbes]

Again, you have me confused with somebody else.

With respect to Iraq, I was always against it unless several conditions obtained -- wide support for an invasion in the world and within the US, a policy to overwhelming force, and clear goals permitting a swift exit.

Those conditions were never present. So, while it is always nice to crush a dictator like Saddam, the game was not worth the candle and now we all know it.

If Bush Junior had been in combat, he would have known all the crucial elements. Let's go back over them.

1) Wide public support for action, and international support too.

2) Overwhelming force at the point of attack.

3) Clear goals -- not hazy, amorphous nonsense such as "fomenting democracy." When you conquer something tangible, you leave and you leave with lightning speed.