U.S. Military In Sad Shape

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But this was expected with Bush using up and abusing our military in Iraq.

----------------------------------------------------------
Army Guard units said not combat ready
By LO LITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready, mostly because of equipment shortages that will cost up to $21 billion to correct, the top National Guard general said Tuesday.

Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum spoke to a group defense reporters after Army officials, analysts and members of Congress disclosed that two-thirds of the active Army's brigades are not ready for war.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060801/capt.e45976cd2b174f42a46be95091589915.combat_readi ness_nyol987.jpg?x=380&y=257&sig=nWxo3lEWQ0pVgDBnMxp2Iw--
National Guard Bureau Chief Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum speaks during a Washington news conference, Tuesday, May 23,2006. More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready, mostly because of equipment shortages. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson, FILE)


The budget won't allow the military to complete the personnel training and equipment repairs and replacement that must be done when units return home after deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, they say.

"I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just have a higher fever," Blum said.

One Army official acknowledged Tuesday that while all active Army units serving in the war zone are "100 percent" ready, the situation is not the same for those at home.

"In the continental United States, there are plenty of units that are rated at significantly less than a C-1 rating," said Lt. Col. Carl S. Ey. "Backlogs at the depots, budget issues and the timeliness of receiving funds to conduct training are all critical to the Army's ability keep their force trained, ready and at the highest readiness level possible."

Once a taboo subject for the military, often buried deep in classified documents, readiness levels — generally ranked from C-1 (the best) to C-4 (the worst) are now being used as weapons themselves to force money out of Congress and the administration.

And while Army officials still won't specify how many units are at which levels, they are being more open about the overall declining state of readiness.

A key element of the problem is that Army units returning from the war have either left tanks, trucks or other equipment behind or are bringing them home damaged. Once back, many soldiers either leave the Army or move to other posts, forcing leaders to train others to replace them. As a result, the unit's ratings drop, said Ey, an Army spokesman.

Last week, several House Democrats said publicly that two-thirds of the Army brigades are rated not ready for combat, and Army officials have not disputed that figure. On Tuesday, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., also declined to be specific, but said the Army is "very much worse off" than it was in late 1999 when the military said two of the 10 Army divisions were ranked at the lowest readiness level, C-4. At the time, two divisions equaled six brigades.

The issue gained political momentum when then-candidate
George Bush, during his nominating convention, said the Clinton administration let the U.S. military might erode. Now, as the 2006 elections approach, Democrats are saying the Bush administration is shortchanging the military

The Senate late Tuesday agreed to an amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, to add $7.8 billion for the Army and $5.3 billion for the Marine Corps to the defense spending bill for 2007. The added funding would bring the bill to a total of $467 billion, including $63.1 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Stevens said the new $13.1 billion is for equipment repair and replacement, and to meet the requirements for continued combat operations, primarily in Iraq. The Senate planned to continue debate on the bill Wednesday.

Stevens said earlier that lawmakers were talking with the
Pentagon "to see if they really need that money." Congress members, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., discussed the issue at a breakfast meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the Pentagon late last week.

In addition to the National Guard's needs, the Army has said it needs $17 billion this year to meet its equipment and combat needs. Dodd said Tuesday he wants to see the Army's full request met, and he plans to offer an amendment to do that later this week.

The Army's readiness score is based on four factors: whether a unit has all the equipment needed; whether the equipment is working; whether it has the number and types of personnel needed; and whether they are properly trained.

http://tinyurl.com/pslob

[Rascal]

When I get a new job I'll go into detail about the AF, until then you can just assume that this isn't limited to one segment of the DoD.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But this was expected with Bush using up and abusing our military in Iraq.


It's bad enough that Der Chimpenfuhrer and the "masterminds" of the Iraq invasion/occupation have weakened our military so terribly - to compound matters, they've exposed our weaknesses to all of our enemies to boot.

Way to go, dumbasses. :thumbsdow:

[SteveTensi13]

But this was expected with Bush using up and abusing our military in Iraq.

----------------------------------------------------------
Army Guard units said not combat ready
By LO LITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer



The Senate late Tuesday agreed to an amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, to add $7.8 billion for the Army and $5.3 billion for the Marine Corps to the defense spending bill for 2007. The added funding would bring the bill to a total of $467 billion, including $63.1 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Stevens said the new $13.1 billion is for equipment repair and replacement, and to meet the requirements for continued combat operations, primarily in Iraq. The Senate planned to continue debate on the bill Wednesday.

Stevens said earlier that lawmakers were talking with the
Pentagon "to see if they really need that money." Congress members, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., discussed the issue at a breakfast meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the Pentagon late last week.

http://tinyurl.com/pslob

Looks like, once again, the Republicans have to come in and save the day while the Dems try to score political points. During war time there is always a form of degradation in the military. Why? Hmmm lets see. Could it be because the equipment is being used and being shot at? If Bush were to order American manufacturing to go to a war footing, in other words build tanks instead of cars, imagine the hooting and hollering from the liberals! Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Looks like, once again, the Republicans have to come in and save the day while the Dems try to score political points. During war time there is always a form of degradation in the military. Why? Hmmm lets see. Could it be because the equipment is being used and being shot at? If Bush were to order American manufacturing to go to a war footing, in other words build tanks instead of cars, imagine the hooting and hollering from the liberals! Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Now, that's funny.

[TailgateNut]

Looks like, once again, the Republicans have to come in and save the day while the Dems try to score political points. During war time there is always a form of degradation in the military. Why? Hmmm lets see. Could it be because the equipment is being used and being shot at? If Bush were to order American manufacturing to go to a war footing, in other words build tanks instead of cars, imagine the hooting and hollering from the liberals! Can't have your cake and eat it too.


Some of your posts are simply amazing! If Bush and Co would stop the tax cuts for the wealthy and apply those funds to the military we probably wouldn't be in such a horrible shape. Also if they wouldn't have twisted the truth to get support for this quagmire known to most as the Iraq war, we wouldn't be wearing out our equipment and soldiers!

[SteveTensi13]

Also if they wouldn't have twisted the truth to get support for this quagmire known to most as the Iraq war, we wouldn't be wearing out our equipment and soldiers!

"They" being the democrats also right?

www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"They" being the democrats also right?

www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) I see you forgot to mention that all misinformation from 2001 on to Congress came from the Bush administration.

[SteveTensi13]

I see you forgot to mention that all misinformation from 2001 on to Congress came from the Bush administration.

I feel like I'm trying to convince a 6 year old! I give up. Facts have no place in your world.

[defenseman]

I feel like I'm trying to convince a 6 year old! I give up. Facts have no place in your world.

You are wasting your time......dman

[DBruleU]

You are wasting your time......dman

No one has ever spoken more true words...

[W*GS]

If Bush were to order American manufacturing to go to a war footing, in other words build tanks instead of cars, [...]

Couldn't happen. The WWII model won't work these days. GM can't switch from making Denalis to Abrams, sorry.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I feel like I'm trying to convince a 6 year old! I give up. Facts have no place in your world.
Hilarious!
Says the maniac that thinks killing all people, who aren't right wing nut jobs, is acceptable.

[Rigs11]

No one has ever spoken more true words...
Really? How about "Mission Accomplished"? Oh wait.....ROFL!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Some of your posts are simply amazing! If Bush and Co would stop the tax cuts for the wealthy and apply those funds to the military we probably wouldn't be in such a horrible shape. Also if they wouldn't have twisted the truth to get support for this quagmire known to most as the Iraq war, we wouldn't be wearing out our equipment and soldiers!

Yep.

The nutty parallel universe SteveTensi and his fellow Bush ostriches inhabit is where facts and the truth go to die.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are wasting your time......dman

We're wasting our time if we're waiting for you to actually dispute or disconfirm anything presented in the article at the top of this thread, that's for sure.

But what else is new?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You are wasting your time......dman As usual, you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the topic, right?

No one has ever spoken more true words...

Ah, another dittohead chimes in? I mean that's what Tensi calls himself. Are you part of that crowd too?

[DBruleU]

Really? How about "Mission Accomplished"? Oh wait.....ROFL!

You know, you're right.

You guys have now convinced me. Bush is a lying POS. I have no idea how for so long I could be such a blind sheep. No longer will I watch Fox News. From this day forward, I pledge allegiance (The one w\out 'Under God' in it) to CNN and the socialist movement.

[defenseman]

We're wasting our time if we're waiting for you to actually dispute or disconfirm anything presented in the article at the top of this thread, that's for sure.

But what else is new?

Read Tensi's quote. I just confirmed for him that trying to talk here sometimes is a complete waste of time. The facts in the article? I could care less. Get with the program there "sheerluck" holmes. Don't assume I'm endorsing anything but what the post contained that I quoted.....dman

*You lefties are very entertaining. Enjoying the israeli conflict I'm sure. I can hear the the keys tapping away ROFL! hilarious..dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

From this day forward, I pledge allegiance (The one w\out 'Under God' in it)

Looks like somebody's confusing the pledge of allegiance with the Constitution again...

...to CNN and the socialist movement.

...and confusing liberalism with socialism again.

Maybe someday you'll decide to learn the basics.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Read Tensi's quote. I just confirmed for him that trying to talk here sometimes is a complete waste of time.
That's obvious by the content of your posts which are great for dittohead work but pretty lousy when it comes to actually addressing the topic.

The facts in the article? I could care less. That's both a truth and an obvious lie since you took the time to dittohead your reply which shows you had NO reply for the topic.

*You lefties are very entertaining. Enjoying the israeli conflict I'm sure. I can hear the the keys tapping away ROFL! hilarious..dman
Ah, the standard "you lefties" from another Bush righty..Classic!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The facts in the article? I could care less.

It's abundantly clear that facts never have any influence on your perceptions or your judgments.

You lefties are very entertaining.

Oh, the irony. :rofl:

[DBruleU]

Looks like somebody's confusing the pledge of allegiance with the Constitution again...



...and confusing liberalism with socialism again.

Maybe someday you'll decide to learn the basics.

There's actually a difference? Could have fooled me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There's actually a difference? Could have fooled me.

Which only underscores your ignorance of the sort of fundamentals one usually learns in political science 101.

[errand]

It's bad enough that Der Chimpenfuhrer and the "masterminds" of the Iraq invasion/occupation have weakened our military so terribly - to compound matters, they've exposed our weaknesses to all of our enemies to boot.

Way to go, dumbasses. :thumbsdow:


...you mean like the NY Times has done when it comes to hunting down terrorists and their sources of funding?

[errand]

Some of your posts are simply amazing! If Bush and Co would stop the tax cuts for the wealthy and apply those funds to the military we probably wouldn't be in such a horrible shape. Also if they wouldn't have twisted the truth to get support for this quagmire known to most as the Iraq war, we wouldn't be wearing out our equipment and soldiers!

Really? So what your saying is raise taxes so he can spend more on the military?

I thought you guys were against Haliburton or the defense contractors getting rich off this war?

What i find simply amazing is you guys act like you're concerned about whether or not our troops are well equipped, and yet you post nothing but demoralizing crap all day long in a concerted effort to undermine their morale...and then blast every effort by them to win the war. Go figure.

You want a well-euipped military, as long as it doesn't have to actually fight.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...you mean like the NY Times has done when it comes to hunting down terrorists and their sources of funding?

Another laughable argument from a laughable bush ostrich.

Bush himself divulged (bragged about, actually) these activities long before the NY Times wrote word one about them.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Really? So what your saying is raise taxes so he can spend more on the military?

What we're saying is stop cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans and on the junta's corporate sponsors during wartime.

Slow enough for you?



What i find simply amazing is you guys act like you're concerned about whether or not our troops are well equipped, and yet you post nothing but demoralizing crap all day long in a concerted effort to undermine their morale...and then blast every effort by them to win the war. Go figure.


The reality of the situation the moron you support has gotten America into is demoralizing. It's a disaster.

What's amazing is that lemmings like you seem to think simply ignoring it and attacking the messenger will make the reality of the situation go away.

[errand]

I see you forgot to mention that all misinformation from 2001 on to Congress came from the Bush administration.

.....so how does that explain all those quotes before '01?

Why is it so hard for you clowns to just say everyone Dems and Republicans alike believed he had them?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why is it so hard for you clowns to just say everyone Dems and Republicans alike believed he had them?

:laugh:

Let me guess: This is where you insert the usual lie that the members of Congress were privy to the same Iraq intel as the president?

[errand]

...and confusing liberalism with socialism again.



When the difference between two items are miniscule, I'd say there's a good chance they're one and the same.

[errand]

Another laughable argument from a laughable bush ostrich.

Bush himself divulged (bragged about, actually) these activities long before the NY Times wrote word one about them.


Yeah, but he didn't divulge it to the freaking entire world, now did he clown?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When the difference between two items are miniscule, I'd say there's a good chance they're one and the same.

A perception which only underscores your ignorance of basic concepts familiar to anyone who has taken political science 101.

[errand]

:laugh:

Let me guess: This is where you insert the usual lie that the members of Congress were privy to the same Iraq intel as the president?

So going on your premise that the president would have more info than Congress...would you not at least concede that President Clinton had the same info available to him?

Well?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, but he didn't divulge it to the freaking entire world, now did he clown?

Um, when you're the "president" of the United States, the whole world is watching, nitwit.

Bush openly discussed his programs for tracking terrorists' funds long before the NY Times wrote about it.

This is just another pathetic right-wing talking point you obviously got from Oxycontin Boy.

[errand]

A perception which only underscores your ignorance of basic concepts familiar to anyone who has taken political science 101.

As I said if there is a difference it's hardly noticable......

So your saying there's no way a bunch of socialists could be liberal?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So going on your premise that the president would have more info than Congress...would you not at least concede that President Clinton had the same info available to him?

Well?

Clinton didn't use (or, more accurately, misuse) the intel that was availible to him to lead the country into the current quagmire in Iraq.

That was Dim Son.

Hence, your point is utterly moot.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As I said if there is a difference it's hardly noticable......

And as I said, "only to someone who doesn't understand even the most basic concepts of political science."

I'll bet you couldn't explain the fundamental differences between liberalism and socialism if your life depended on it.

[errand]

Clinton didn't use (or, more accurately, misuse) the intel that was availible to him to lead the country into the current quagmire in Iraq.

That was Dim Son.

Hence, your point is utterly moot.

No instead he misused (your words not mine) the same intel to fire missles at Iraq....either way it was a start of hostilities, now wasn't?

BTW my point was that Clinton had the same info....just because Bush acted on it differently doesn't mean he lied. He just had a different way of dealing with the same intel.

[errand]

And as I said, "only to someone who doesn't understand even the most basic concepts of political science."

I'll bet you couldn't explain the fundamental differences between liberalism and socialism if your life depended on it.


so tell me how you equate conservatism with facism? I mean afterall you are so learned in the world of political science.

Oh, and BTW would care to tell us which you are? Liberal or Socialist?

I mean since we little people can't tell the difference.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No instead he misused (your words not mine) the same intel to fire missles at Iraq....either way it was a start of hostilities, now wasn't?

If you are honestly trying to compare lobbing a few missiles to invading and occupying a country, then you need more help than I thought.

....just because Bush acted on it differently doesn't mean he lied.

ROFL!

Bush didn't simply "act on the intel differently" - he fixed the intel around his policies. He deliberately cherry-picked, manipulated, distorted, and hyped intel in order to sell his illegal and ill-advised invasion of Iraq to the American people. If this isn't "lying" to you, then you are far more morally challenged than I thought.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

so tell me how you equate conservatism with facism?(sic)

I've never done anything of the kind.

I (and others) did, however, point out those characteristics of fascism which have reared their ugly heads under Bush and the neocons.

Oh, and BTW would care to tell us which you are? Liberal or Socialist?

Liberal.

BTW, just to give you a little help with the subject matter here, socialists believe that industry and the means of production should be owned by the state. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that industry and the means of production should be privately owned and that government should provide oversight. Such oversight should be limited to keeping the playing field level (like refs in a football game) and preventing big business from exploiting ordinary citizens, workers, and consumers.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

.....so how does that explain all those quotes before '01? Pretty simple really, weapons inspectors were kicked out in '98 so that was the belief for many.

HOWEVER, inspections resumed in Nov. of 2002.


Why is it so hard for you clowns to just say everyone Dems and Republicans alike believed he had them? Because the truth was known just before Bush invaded Iraq. That's why he didn't wait for inspectors to issue their final report saying there were no WMD.

Why is it you "clowns" continue to defend the liar in charge when the evidence is overwhelming Bush embellished and even fabricated reasons for invading Iraq?

-----------------------------------------------------
Nov. 18, 2002

UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, for the first time in almost four years.

Dec. 7, 2002

Iraq submits a 12,000-page declaration on its chemical, biological and nuclear activities, claiming it has no banned weapons

Feb. 22, 2003

Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1. The UN inspectors have determined that the missiles have an illegal range limit. Iraq can have missiles that reach neighboring countries, but not ones capable of reaching Israel.

Feb. 24, 2003

The U.S., Britain, and Spain submit a proposed resolution to the UN Security Council that states that "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441," and that it is now time to authorize use of military force against the country.

France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort."
Mar. 1, 2003

Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles.

Feb. 24–
Mar. 14, 2003

The U.S. and Britain's intense lobbying efforts among the other UN Security Council members yield only four supporters (in addition to the U.S. and Britain, Spain and Bulgaria); nine votes (and no vetoes from the five permanent members) out of fifteen are required for the resolution's passage. The U.S. decides not to call for a vote on the resolution

Mar. 17, 2003

All diplomatic efforts cease when President Bush delivers an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave the country within 48 hours or else face an attack.
http://tinyurl.com/2dlz6

------------------------------------------------------
Former UN weapons inspector denounces Bush war plans against Iraq
Scott Ritter speaks at Oakland University in Michigan
By Jerry Isaacs
9 December 2002

An ex-US Marine and CIA intelligence officer who served as a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, Ritter is well placed to expose the lies of the Bush administration about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. He has consistently argued that US charges of Iraqi possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are groundless.

Ritter quit the UN inspection team in 1998 and later confirmed Iraqi charges that the US was using the inspectors to spy on Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi leaders. In December 1998, the US ordered the inspectors out of Iraq and within 24 hours began bombing the country, using the information gathered by the inspectors about Hussein’s security to target him for assassination.
----------------------------------------------------------
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said
CONT
http://tinyurl.com/hxzhp

[W*GS]

Liberal.

:bs:

BTW, just to give you a little help with the subject matter here, socialists believe that industry and the means of production should be owned by the state. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that industry and the means of production should be privately owned and that government should provide oversight.

Your fawning over and spin for Chavez belies you as a left-winger.

Such oversight should be limited to keeping the playing field level (like refs in a football game) and preventing big business from exploiting ordinary citizens, workers, and consumers.

"Exploiting" being defined as "making more profit than we ``liberals'' deem appropriate".

[Rigs11]

Really? So what your saying is raise taxes so he can spend more on the military?

I thought you guys were against Haliburton or the defense contractors getting rich off this war?

What i find simply amazing is you guys act like you're concerned about whether or not our troops are well equipped, and yet you post nothing but demoralizing crap all day long in a concerted effort to undermine their morale...and then blast every effort by them to win the war. Go figure.

You want a well-euipped military, as long as it doesn't have to actually fight.
Haliburton gets rich off the rebuilding process for Dumbya's destruction of countries that pose no threat to us. Now our forces are strained and depleted and stuck in a quagmire.Only a jackass starts a stupid war which costs billions of dollars and then gives tax breaks to the rich, thereby putting us all in debt. Come on it's not that hard to comprehend.

[TailgateNut]

Haliburton gets rich off the rebuilding process for Dumbya's destruction of countries that pose no threat to us. Now our forces are strained and depleted and stuck in a quagmire.Only a jackass starts a stupid war which costs billions of dollars and then gives tax breaks to the rich, thereby putting us all in debt. Come on it's not that hard to comprehend.


Everything Errand reads is dificult to comprehend and even more difficult to spin! I stated the fact that the combination of war and tax cuts has contributed to the problems pointed out by the article, and Errand disects my post to enable his spin! What a waste.
Bush spends our money like a drunken sailor on leave!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush spends our money like a drunken sailor on leave!

Where "our" = working and middle-class Americans (and their children and grandchildren) - not the wealthy and big business.