liberal media 101Follow

He considers them a disposable commodity.

Shouldn't at least some of the blame/credit be applied to the administration responsible for the decisions regarding standard theater equipment which included those two variations of vehicles? We had up-armored personnel vehicles back in the early 90s. But the Democrats and President Clinton were more interested in saving money in order to cash in on the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War and never made large scale production much less outfitting of those vehicles a priority.

That's why there were very few of them for the first few years of the Iraq war. The armor on those vehicles got better because it was made a priority. You certainly should know that it takes years to ramp up gear upgrades on that large a scale.



I think it's an unfair and somewhat irrelevant comparison. When was the second vehicle you were in ordered? When was the decision made to build it? When was the decision to make the design changes made and funded? You know damn well that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that at all. It's unlikely he was even in Congress when those decisions were made.

But that's not really what you did in the paragraph above, is it? Sure looks to me like you're "appreciative" of the Obama administration for sending you to fight in safer vehicles, while failing utterly to share even a tiny bit of that appreciation for the administration which actually planned, funded, built, and made deployable the vehicle you were riding in. Meanwhile, you clearly placed blame on the Bush administration for the previous unsafe vehicle you were riding in, whilst also failing to share any of that blame with the administration which failed to properly fund, order, and make deployable safer vehicles in the first place.

You sure you want to claim to be an equal blame/credit giver? Cause that's not what it looks like to me.



Do you honestly believe that what you were doing was "equally blaming" Bush?

I responded to you because I saw yet another example of someone unfairly heaping blame on Bush for something bad, while failing to grant him any credit for something good. Do you see how it's *you* who were being unfair and not me?



That's reasonable. And had you said that originally, I would have agreed with you. But that's not what you said originally, was it?

Not that I expect differently from you, but you're reading what you want to again and not what was said.

Because I can tell when someone's just trying to get a rise out of someone else.

No way, gbaji says I'll be offended by that.

Considering it was my post you got wrong, my saying you're wrong about my post actually does make it so.

No, you're wrong, gbaji understood what you really meant. How else are you going to know your own opinions on matters if somebody that doesn't at all know you doesn't tell you first?



Edited, Jun 1st 2011 9:07pm by bsphil

Hindsight's 20/20. When the entire civilized world believes the same thing, you can hardly fault a legislature for acting on it.

You forgot Poland!

There are only a handful of places inside the US that could be considered civilized. Coincidentally, none of them are south of the Mason-Dixon line.