CrimsonWhite
*****istrator Emeritus
So he can not testify to what he knows because he is not active any more?
You do realize he they work for us dont you?
Please clarify who works for us.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So he can not testify to what he knows because he is not active any more?
You do realize he they work for us dont you?
Dude they are already planning to talk to others. They wanted to talk toi him also.
No chance of that happening now because the pentagon is now back on the leash with Fallon gone.
The entire government
If you believe that, then you need to retake a civics, govt., or hell a fifth grade government class. The entre govt. does not work for us. Hell, only a small fraction are even elected by us. Even those elected do not work for us, they are elected by us. There is a huge difference. Example: Call your local Senator and demand that he vote a certain way on a certan bill. If your view is different than is, he will tell you, very politely, to go to hell. Elected and employed are not mutually inclusive. Next time, think before you speak.
They serve the government of the US. The government is our servant.
This is how it is supposed to be people. We pay their wages and they protect us.
You can pretend this is fundimentally wrong but you are just triicking yuourself.
I, [name], do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)
You are a dumbass.
The government is not our servant and was never intended to be. How can one servant serve 55 million masters? It cannot. They protect us? Yes. We pay their wages? Yes. Does that make them our servants? No. They must be able to act somewhat independently in order to be effective. They are not there to bend at our every whim.....
I just realized that you are never going to understand. So, nevermind.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The constitution is all about the people folks
Research it DUMBSHIT, Kuwait was straining to hold the invasion force we had there to begin with, don't take my word you moron, LOOK IT UP. I love DCD, the moron couldn't tie his shoes without help.
I, [name], do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)
No one is this government has acted independently since gw became President.
Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's stay there has been extended indefinitely.
"This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term."
The interview was White's first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing.
Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."
In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.
Shinseki is famous for his remarks to the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee before the war in Iraq in which he said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq. Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz publicly disagreed with his estimate.[1]
When the insurgency took hold in post-war Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct.
Dumbshit, moron, retard, Oh, the sound of true logic and discourse.