Republicans are against increasing the size of the army and special forces?!?

Who knew?

Here are the couple of demands that you guys seem to miss:

Demand from the administration a victory strategy for Iraq that includes hard success metrics which trigger American troop drawdowns so our forces can safely re-deploy from theater

An increase in the size of the active component army by eight units of action (brigades) and doubling the size of our Special Forces units in order to help relieve our over-extended army. (NOTE: This is not an increase in the number of troops currently deployed in Iraq).

Now if you can’t see how these are litmus tests that few republicans will ever pass…well, like I said, we can add up the candidates they support in a year.

OK. Just to recap: VoteVets.org supports military veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns who run for public office.

Peed’ is betting that twice as many veterans will run as Democrats than will run as Republicans.

That’s a bet I’d be willing to lose.

Well, the group is pro-military demanding improved equipment, full funding for DoVA, improved access to health care for troops including mental health, pay raises for the men and women on the ground, and all-round better treatment of the troops.

So yes, they are a left-wing organization.

Of course, using that definition, no military man with any self-respect could vote for someone who wasn’t a left-winger.

Like I said, we’ll wait a year and see what their percentage of democratic v republican candidates are….I’m a patient man!

NEW YORK – Iraq veterans today blasted the Administration for its recent rhetoric on the war in Iraq. Republican Senior Advisor to VoteVets.org, Sam Schultz, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the following statement:

“I am a proud Republican, who ran for my party’s nomination for Congress in Indiana, because I believe in traditional values.

Even Republicans can be “far-left” now Peed’? We’re even sneakier than I thought.

It counts. But only if this is what “far-left” means these days:

IAVA PAC is in the process of reviewing all qualified candidates for endorsement. To gain the endorsement, candidates must have qualified for campaign ribbons for the wars in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, go through a personal review process, and sign a document stating they agree with the policy objectives for which the PAC stands, which are:

• Demand from the administration a victory strategy for Iraq that includes hard success metrics, which trigger American troop drawdowns so our forces can safely re-deploy from theater.
• Mandatory full funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
• Thorough investigation of the failure to provide adequate armor for our soldiers, and that those responsible held accountable.
• An increase in the size of the active component army by eight units of action (brigades) and doubling the size of our Special Forces units in order to help relieve our over-extended army. (NOTE: This is not an increase in the number of troops currently deployed in Iraq).
• Guaranteeing the exhaustion of diplomacy options by the President prior to approval for military conflict.
• TRICARE (health care) for all members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. As of July 2004, 20% of National Guardsmen lacked healthcare. Currently, Guardsmen and Reservists can buy into TRICARE if they are unemployed or are not covered by their employer. IAVA PAC supports extending TRICARE coverage to all Guardsmen and Reservists.
• Lowering the retirement of age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55.
• An immediate 5% immediate pay increase for our Armed Forces.

IAVA PAC will not consider party affiliation in the endorsement process.

You tell me, Peed’. Is this what a “far-left” outfit looks like?

Does this count Quaker?

http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=54

Or should we wait a year and count how many democrats they endorse?

Working for? Paid or unpaid? What capacity? And “left-wing” is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. (This is a pretty long stretch from your original claim, Peed’.) If he is named on the PAC’s website with a job title in the PAC, you win. If the PAC just quotes him, that doesn’t count. And it’s got to be a PAC that tilts to Dems by at least 2 to 1. No calling it “left-wing” just because the PAC backs the Dem presidential candidate.

$100. Alzheimer’s Foundation of America.

Well, no, I wouldn’t say that. More like car mechanics.

Stakes? You want to pick a charity?

Is it? How does flow facilitate the functioning of the brain? Since I “never took any science classes” I’m sort of unclear on what happens when blood flows to the brain.

Batiste: How’s this? Batiste runs for any office at any level as a Democratic candidate, you win. If he becomes a campaign staff member–paid or unpaid–for a Dem candidate running for governor, House of Representatives, Senate, or President, you win. State leg, city council, water districts, dogcatcher, etc. don’t count.

If it happens any time before midnight EDT, May 4, 2008, you win. If the deadline passes and he has not done any of the above, I win.

Stakes?

Flow is flow….C02 is one of the regulatory mechanisms of cerebral blood flow, whether that flow is increased due to hypotension or increased C02 shouldn’t matter, with my previous caveats relating to cerebral perfusion pressures maintained….

It all has to do with the Monro-Kellie hypothesis having to do with pressure/vol relationships in an enclosed space…..

And specifically speaking about an flow increase attributable to a higher concentration of CO2?

Weaseling already? It’s only been two days since you made the challenge.

So if Gen. Batiste so much as says something nice about a Dem candidate, you win?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

PS There is no generic measurement for “brain function”, but generally speaking more blood flow=more oxygen and energy=better….as long as you maintain cerebral perfusion pressures within the normal range…..