VP Cheney is scolding the Democrats for failure to “support the troops” simply because they’re disinclined to give President Bush an indefinite amount of money for an indefinite amount of time…in other words, because they won’t let Bush do whatever he wants. And if there’s one thing we’ve learned about this president, he HATES it when someone stops him from doing whatever he wants.
The thing is, when I think of supporting the troops, I’m thinking of supporting their right not to be mired in an ill-defined mission that treats their lives as easily disposable commodities. I support their right to keep sucking oxygen. I support their right to an honest government that should admit they were sent over there on a political pretext, to search for weaponry that wasn’t there, and is now operating on fumes in the middle of an ongoing civil war that’s going to be waged whether we’re there or not.
As opposed to Cheney, for whom “suporting the troops” is code for “giving Bush carte blanche.”
I think I’ll take my definition over Cheney’s, thanks.
PAD
• 
I was one of the troops over there the first time around.
I like PADs version of supporting us best.
I DON’T BLIEVE THE MINDLESS BLOGS, EVERYONE SHUT UP.
From that bastion of pinko-liberalism The Army Times:
What if their values and beliefs are largely quite different than yours?
Funny, a few months ago, I suggested in this blog that Bush try listening to the opinions of people with actual combat experience when planning the “surge” as a nice change of pace and somebody (I think his name was “spiderrob8” or something like that) took me to task and told me that their opinions were unimportant.
Gee.
Joe Thomas wrote “I DON’T BLIEVE THE MINDLESS BLOGS, EVERYONE SHUT UP.” I personaly would like to thank Joe. Previous to today, I thought that my first few postings made me the biggest idiot a** on the blog (which thank you to PAD and everyone for not banning me forever and showing me the error of my ways). Thanks Joe. You now have the crown.
James
Supporting the troops to me is saying “yeah we understand you have a sucky job to do and thank you for doing a thankless job, but we want to get you home in one piece despite the best efforst of our Prezydent to push you into revolving-door deployees so he can move into Iran.”
six days, sixe weeks, six months…try six years bucko.
jeezlouis.
“Previous to today, I thought that my first few postings made me the biggest idiot a** on the blog (which thank you to PAD and everyone for not banning me forever and showing me the error of my ways). Thanks Joe. You now have the crown.”
Just as, no matter how skilled at something someone may be, it’s a little frustrating to know there’s always someone out there more skilled, it’s also the case that–no matter how big a jerk someone believes they are–they can draw comfort from the knowledge that there’s an even bigger jerk out there. So I guess it all balances out.
PAD
My criteria for “Supporting the Troops”:
1)Proper and relevant training for the anticipated mission. Don’t send mountain warfare specialists to fight urban combat.
2)Properly equip EVERY SINGLE SOLDIER AND UNIT. Don’t “fight the war you get with the army you have”. Make sure that army has the tools to do the job. Even if it means tax increases, Congressional pay cuts, and Halliburton not cleaning up on the clean up.
3)Clearly define the mission. Try actually telling the truth about the wherefores and the whys.
4)DO NOT stand under a banner on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring Mission Accomplished when the mission remains unaccomplished.
5)DO NOT throw soldiers into a quagmire (sorry SSG H, it is what it is) in the name of political posturing.
6)Spend no less than 10 dollars on the care of injured soldiers for every dollar it took to get them injured.
7)Don’t deny the obvious.
Just my 2 canadian centd worth.
Remember, May 1, Mission Accomplished Day.
Posted by: Shadowquest at March 15, 2007 10:12 AM
Previous to today, I thought that my first few postings made me the biggest idiot a** on the blog…
James, you weren’t the “biggest idiot a** on the blog” even before Joe Thomas chimed in. Trust me. Not even the top five. How can I say this with such confidence? You cooled down rapidly and really listened to what others had to say. In the year-or-so that I’ve been posting here, I’ve run into at least five people I could name off the top of my head who wouldn’t reconsider their words to save their own lives.
Sorry, the crown was never yours.
The X-Ray Award, one of the few awards where it’s an honor to not be nominated…
-Rex Hondo-
All of the arguments regarding President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and the administrations actions on this website are the same old thing that people watching PBS get every night. Most of the people posting comments regarding these matters on this web-log and thousands of others, don’t seem to believe in fighting for ANY reason at all. I have heard that there is a Culture War going on in this country. It’s nice to know that the “enemy” doesn’t have the knowledge, or the guts to fight back in any real manner. Many people are not happy with the current State of the Union, but for very different reasons. I am one of them. My definition of the following: “Supporting Our Troops”–Giving our fighting men the means to win whatever conflict they happen to be engaged in at the moment. They are there because they believe in this country, and our way of life. They would lay down their lives, for you, if neccessary. None of those posting here would do the same for them, or me, or most people that they’ve ever met.
I am looking forward to honest debate on this matter, if it is at all possible.
In the words of Fox Mulder,
“Bring it on.”
Ever forward,
Robert Preston
My, Robert, how WONDERFUL it must be to live inside a head that knows the heart of everyone on the internet. Speaking only for myself, since I, unlike some people, wouldn’t presume to identify the attitudes of my fellow posters, I know there are specific times when combat is in fact necessary. However, at no time did I ever consider Iraq one of those times.
Rereading your post, you seem to be living with some some ill-considered misconceptions. First, I don’t recall anyone around here, nor more than one individual I know personally, who isn’t supportive of they who serve in the military. Disagreeing with the politicians in Washington is entirely different than not supporting the troops. And if you believe as much as you claim that they who are fighting should have everything they need to win, why are you not furious that we have soldiers over there with insufficient body armor, which they had to pay for themselves, driving around in vehicles with no more protective ability than most of what is currently driving down the Jersey Turnpike, and being ordered to go in with no consideration for what they’ll do once the initial task is accomplished or even cultural advisors to school them on the very different culture they’ll encounter? Where is your anger then?
Finally, these people are my friends, and you should know that I think most of them would have no problem whatsoever laying themselves down under the right circumstances. I take great offense to the statement that because some here differ with your seemingly out-of-date and limited worldview that we don’t believe in this country. And let me ask, if you saw someone on the side of the road that needed help, how quickly would YOU stop? There’s more to being an American than kicking everyone’s ášš.
Ironic that you close your overly insulting post with “Ever forward,” using arguements that look back to the beginning of the previous century.
Dear PAD,
Assume, for the moment, Bush and Cheney are not doing this for personal profit or power. They are doing this because they really do believe there is a threat. If that is true, then this is not about letting Bush do whatever he wants. It is about allowing the president to actually defend the country.
As I look at the world, there most definitely is a threat. And it did not start with Bush and Cheney entering office — or even Clinton. You can go back to at least the Carter years and track the threat of the militant factions of Islam.
Was it necessary to invade Iraq to stop this threat? That is very much a matter of debate. While I think it was an appropriate way, it is by no means the only or even necessarily the best way. But with the invasion already done, there is a bigger issue that must be decided: Which is worse, staying there until this is done or pulling out?
A very strong case can be made that pulling out now would be worse than if we had never invaded in the first place. Even Hillary Clinton has conceded in a recent interview that some American troops would need to stay. Pulling out without some clear victory would only embolden the terrorists. This is not a matter of preserving Bush’s pride. This is a matter of making it clear that attacking America is not worth the effort.
The reality is the troops are in the middle of a war. You didn’t agree with the war in the first place. I get that. But there is a much bigger issue here than just pulling troops out to protect their lives. The bigger issue is ending this war in a way that protects American lives here at home. The soldiers signed up knowing they might be asked to give up their lives for the sake of their country. I don’t take that lightly and mourn the loss of every life (on either side). But to pull them out now without finishing this the right way is to only put their lives at risk in the future either with another terrorist attack or with their having to go back to war all over again with an emboldened enemy.
I don’t expect you to agree with the war. But redefining “supporting the troops” to simply make Bush and Cheney look like it is solely about their power and pride accomplishes nothing. The reality is they DO believe they are doing what is best for the country. If there is a better way to accomplish the protection of America, let’s hear it. Even if it is a belief pulling out now is better, that is fine (even if I disagree). But assigning motives to Bush and Cheney does nothing to deal with the situation.
Iowa Jim
I will continue to criticize any President who puts the troops in “harm’s way”.
Comments like this are bewildering. The issue is not whether the President puts troops in “harms way.” The issue is whether it is necessary and whether it will ultimately serve to protect the country.
Every President has the responsibility and duty to put troops in harms way when necessary to protect the welfare of the country. That is a whole different debate.
Iowa Jim
This is a matter of making it clear that attacking America is not worth the effort.
Before someone says it, let me clarify that I am NOT implying Iraq attacked us on 9/11. As others have argued better than I, there is a broader war on terror. Iraq was just one front of that war. They did not attack us on 9/11, but there is no question they were supporting terrorists, ignoring UN resolutions, and shooting at our planes which were enforcing a no-fly zone to protect groups like the Kurds.
Iowa Jim
This might have been covered already, but just in case . . . Anyone else find it interestingly timed that a flick like “300” came out while Congress is debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge? As though it might be a bit of public opinion manipulation? Possibly naught but paranoia, but just a thought . . .
Dear Mr. Scullion,
Three things.
First: I wouldn’t presume anything about the people who post to this site that they haven’t allowed with their written words. I could cut and paste several examples of this for you, but since you are obviously familar with this site, then you know of whom I speak.
Second: If funding for our military were not tied to various idiotic pork barrel spending from both the Republicans and the Democrats, the United States military would not have nearly the funding problems that it does today. However, the soldiers seem to be doing their job very well without bìŧçhìņg too much. Perhaps they are more familiar with the what was required at Bastogne and other places than you seem to be. Look that one up on Wikipedia or some other source if you are not a student of history. Most of the complaining comes from people like you. In my experience reading and talking to people from all different political and philisophical background, most of the those that I have encountered that hold your beliefs, and those of your friends who use this page (up to and including Mr. David, whose writing I have been interested for some time) are for the most part not able to support any form of military action against anyone of any country for any reason. They CLAIM they do, but their actions and words show different. They do not seem the kind of people to whom I would trust the future of this Nation, let alone my family or my back going through a door in a crisis. Not to say that there are not exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Third(and finally): As far as presumptions go, I was raised to not call someone by their first name until they gave me permission to do so. That was considered presumtuous.
All the best,
Robert Preston
p.s.- No insult was intended from this or previous postings. If I ever insult you personally, you’ll KNOW it.
First–excuse my presumption. I call everyone around here by their first name with the possible exception of the Bills, and that’s just because it’d be too confusing otherwise.
Regarding the spending on pork–I’m just about right there with you. Another problem I see with the way money is spent in Washington is the snail’s pace at which, when it becomes clear there’s a problem, it generally takes to get anything approved because too many are too close to their own causes not to see the bigger picture.
Just curious, not looking to start a huge arguement, but have you spoken to either soldiers that have been in Iraq or their families? Do you, in fact, have a history of military service?
Now, coming from the family I do, I am well familiar with the second world war. For example, my uncle was on the Bunker Hill at Pearl Harbor and eventually lost his legs because of it. I also gave serious consideration to becoming a history teacher while in college. Don’t assume that simply because I interpret things differently than you, I don’t know the facts. I find it slightly venturing into apples/oranges territory to compare the Battle of Bastogne to the Iraq situation. And how could you possibly know my views? Had my face not broken a windshield and my lungs been punctured, I would be in the military right now. Just to clarify, I feel that while going into Iraq the way we did was a tactical mistake, we now have the responsibility to leave it better than we found it. Put more simply, we broke it, we bought it.
Finally, I never felt personally insulted. My skin’s a little thicker than that, and I have the scars to prove it. You did, though, insult they who I consider my friends, and for that I won’t sit by and let that go unchallenged.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM
First: I wouldn’t presume anything about the people who post to this site that they haven’t allowed with their written words.
You can tell me that a circle is a square, but despite any amount of hot air you expel in my direction the circle will remain a circle. You have presumed to judge people far beyond what their words allow. Rather than judging us as individuals, you are allowing your perceptions to be clouded by your own emotions and are arguing with constructs of us that exist only in your own mind.
After September 11, 2001, I was furious. In fact, I thought we should mow down Afghanistan to show the world that such attacks would not be tolerated. That the price to pay was so high that no one should dare to even contemplate such attacks again.
Remarkably, George W. Bush and his administration proved to have cooler heads than mine. It may have had to do with the fact that they had the responsibility and authority I lacked.
I was 31 at the time. I don’t know if I was eligible for military service at that time, but I hadn’t given it much thought. I had just moved in with my girlfriend. I’d made a commitment to her and at the time it didn’t look like a war that needed volumes of bodies thrown at it.
But make no mistake, one of the reasons I opposed, and continue to oppose, the Iraq Mistake, is that it depleted and continues to deplete resources that could be used to fight the actual war on terror.
Again, it is depleting resources.
That could be used.
To.
FIGHT.
The war on terror.
Just in case it wasn’t already clear enough for you.
However, the soldiers seem to be doing their job very well without bìŧçhìņg too much.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the military. Soldiers are trained to follow orders, even at the cost of their own lives, not to bìŧçh. I would hazard that we don’t know what most soldiers are feeling. They’re trained to do their jobs, however the feel.
God bless ’em.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM
In my experience reading and talking to people from all different political and philisophical background, most of the those that I have encountered that hold your beliefs, and those of your friends who use this page (up to and including Mr. David, whose writing I have been interested for some time) are for the most part not able to support any form of military action against anyone of any country for any reason. They CLAIM they do, but their actions and words show different. They do not seem the kind of people to whom I would trust the future of this Nation, let alone my family or my back going through a door in a crisis. Not to say that there are not exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Anecdotal evidence like this is meaningless. I don’t know the people with whom you claim to have spoken. I do know that you have misjudged the crowd here. Based on what little I know of you, you are a very superficial person.
But of course, Internet posts are but a shadow cast by the person writing them. The person behind them is likely far more complex and nuanced than words on a computer screen. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not the two-dimensional thinker that your post makes you appear to be.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM
Third(and finally): As far as presumptions go, I was raised to not call someone by their first name until they gave me permission to do so. That was considered presumtuous.
Ah, I see. You insult people’s patriotism and that’s cool, but we’re supposed to call you “mister?” No, sorry. You want respect, you show it. That’s what my parents taught me.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM
p.s.- No insult was intended from this or previous postings. If I ever insult you personally, you’ll KNOW it.
Yes, and we will shrug it off and go on with our day.
Hey, if you’d be interested in debating the war on its merits without resorting to ad hominem attacks, let me know. Debate and disagreement are far healthier than you seem to believe. I mean, what’s the alternative? Islamic theocracies are great at squelching dissent and getting everyone to toe the party line. Personally, I prefer democracy, and democracy necessitates debate and disagreement.
It’s the American Way.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
They are doing this because they really do believe there is a threat. If that is true, then this is not about letting Bush do whatever he wants. It is about allowing the president to actually defend the country.
Your conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. Just because one believes something to be true doesn’t make it so. What if I truly, sincerely believed that the safety of my family depended on attacking you? Given that I have no evidence whatsoever to support that belief, attacking you would be more about my inability to assess reality than it would be about defending my family.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
As I look at the world, there most definitely is a threat. And it did not start with Bush and Cheney entering office — or even Clinton. You can go back to at least the Carter years and track the threat of the militant factions of Islam.
Yes. Therefore we must attack Egypt, right?
Oh, wait, not every nation in the Middle East is a direct threat to us.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
A very strong case can be made that pulling out now would be worse than if we had never invaded in the first place. Even Hillary Clinton has conceded in a recent interview that some American troops would need to stay. Pulling out without some clear victory would only embolden the terrorists. This is not a matter of preserving Bush’s pride. This is a matter of making it clear that attacking America is not worth the effort.
Right. Because if you attack America, we’ll attack a nation that wasn’t involved in that attack and divert resources against our actual enemies.
I don’t see much deterrent value in that strategy.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
But redefining “supporting the troops” to simply make Bush and Cheney look like it is solely about their power and pride accomplishes nothing. The reality is they DO believe they are doing what is best for the country.
And you know this… how? I don’t think any of us can read their minds. We can only judge their actions. Whether they are sincere or not, they have proven to be incompetent leaders. Every assumption they made about Iraq has proven to be wrong. Therefore, I don’t care what they BELIEVE. They have bungled this war and cannot be trusted to run it.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
If there is a better way to accomplish the protection of America, let’s hear it.
Investing in more human intelligence, learning the culture of the Middle East, letting intelligence dictate what the administration believes rather than the other way around would be a good start. An even better start would be unleashing a full-court diplomatic effort to create a political solution for Iraq. That’s what’s needed, after all. Our goal wasn’t to simply mow down one government and leave. It was to mow down one government and grow another in its place. That’s not solely a military task, it’s also a poltical one.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
Even if it is a belief pulling out now is better, that is fine (even if I disagree). But assigning motives to Bush and Cheney does nothing to deal with the situation.
Yes, it does. People’s motives have to be taken into account before deciding how much trust we can invest in them.
Iowa Jim, I believe your strongest argument is that pulling out of Iraq will make things worse, not better. I suspect that pulling out of Iraq will have direct negative consequences for the U.S., but I am certain it will make things far worse for the Middle East. We went stomping into Iraq without being asked. We have a responsibility to the people in Iraq and the surrounding area to clean up the mess we made.
Your weakest argument is the idea that Iraq was ever a front on the war on terror. There is no evidence to support this and plenty of evidence that suggests the contrary. Osama bin Laden often referred to Saddam Hussein as an enemy after all.
Vietnam should have taught us a lesson about the folly of foreign adventurism, but apparently we have short memories. The lesson we should have learned is this: we should fight the wars we NEED to fight, not the ones we WISH we need to fight.
Jim–don’t feel like you’re being ganged up on, first off. Just a question, though. How is “But redefining “supporting the troops” to simply make Bush and Cheney look like it is solely about their power and pride” any different from redefining just about everything that the administration doesn’t like as “helping the terrorists?” That’s why I don’t like catchphrases.
Iowa Jim, let me echo Sean’s sentiments: no intent to gang up on the conservative minority here.
In fact, I regret the sarcasm I used when I addressed you. It wasn’t necessary and I’m sorry.
I generally disagree with you, but I nevertheless believe you to be an intelligent person of goodwill.
Bill, I was considering posting that you addressed Iowa Jim rather harshly considering he made a respectful and thoughful post (unlike Mr. Preston). But then I realized that there is no need to say anything, because you are sensitive enough to notice this yourself, and to make the necessary apologies.
Dude, 300 was messed up. They tell you in the opening the puny and mishaped infants are killed. So when the 300 were cheering their fight to preserve their freedom, they apparently meant their freedom to throw babies off of cliffs. Not many people realize our national pastime of baseball was based on the ancient Greek sport of “babiesball.”
It was a Sparticus remake with fights like the Matrix and Lord of the Rings special effects — but without the dramatic pay-off.
I heard at one of the film premiers reporters tag-teamed asking if the Xerxes invasion was meant to represent the US invasion, and if the defense department had subsidized the movie.
“As far as presumptions go, I was raised to not call someone by their first name until they gave me permission to do so. That was considered presumtuous.”
In the words of the esteemed Sgt. Hulka, “Lighten up, Francis.”
Jim, as has been stated above, the “threat” from Iraq has more to do with Dubya’s inability to tell the difference between internal and external reality than with any actual threat per se. Dubya’s advisors intercepted communiques to Saddam’s royal palace, failed to take into account the simple fact that Saddam killed anyone who dared tell him what he didn’t want to hear, and concluded that the nutbar actually was a danger to more than just his own country. Thus, our forces were sent into a place they didn’t need to be, to overthrow a madman who didn’t need overthrowing, and took the lid off a can of explosive worms (to Mixmaster a metaphor). Now we’re kind of stuck there, because the situation was destabilized by Dubya’s attack.
Bill M, attacking Egypt actually would make some sense. After all, the 9/11 terrorists had all been school in the Wahhabi belief system – which is most strongly grounded in the slums of Cairo. Saudi Arabia would be another valid target – 17 of the 19 people involved in the hijackings came from there. (It’s also a nation ruled over by a tyrannical dictator – but I digress.)
Iraq? Well, they threatened to kill GHWBush – after he had left office, mind you, but the threat was made. And trying to kill Dubya’s daddy is of much greater import than actually killing almost 3000 people Dubya doesn’t know, some of whom weren’t even Americans – right?
Micha, you are correct: I could have phrased the same points to Iowa Jim in a much less confrontational manner. I should have accorded him the respect that he showed to others in disagreeing politely.
Again, Iowa Jim, I am sorry. I stand by my arguments, but not the sarcasm with which I phrased them.
PAD,
“When I think of supporting the troops, I’m thinking of supporting their right not to be mired in an ill-defined mission”
President Bush has said repeatedly that the mission is to have the Iraqi government be stable and be capable of defending themselves.
“that treats their lives as easily disposable commodities”
I doubt anyone except the fringe elements see our soldiers’ lives as “easily disposable commodities”. But every soldier knows when he signs up that the possibility of losing it on the battlefield is a very real one. That is not to take it lightly. My twin brother could still theoretically go although he is older so the chances are a bit more remote than some. One of my friends from my hometown went. And the son of a local township supervisor was killed over there.
“I support their right to keep sucking oxygen”
As do most rational people.
“I support their right to an honest government”
Nice. But will this help us win and achieve our objectives?
“that should admit they were sent over there on political pretext”
They should admit to something that is purely your opinion? Unless someone can prove wht the political pretext was, I thing we should focus on winning.
“to search for weaponry that wasn’t there”
B. Clinton, Kerry, H. Clinton and many others felt the WMD were there. Bush waited five months from receiving authorization to use force against Iraq and actually using it. Plenty of time to have the weapons relocated to Syria, as was widely reported then. Not so much now.
“and is now operating on fumes in the middle of an ongoing civil war that’s going to be waged whether we’re there or not”
If we are ‘operating on fumes’- which i don’t agree with – then we should actualy send more troops to ease the burden of those already there, don’t you think? Having John Murtha not threatening to withold funds for the war unless Pelosi gets a bigger plane would help, as well.
In the end, the troops’ morale is of the utmost importance.
“As opposed to Cheney, for whom “supporting the troops” is code for “giving Bush carte blanche”.
I disagree. I find it impossible to know that this is what Cheney is thinking. And i find it highly probable that if more Democrats – and cowardly Republicans – actually had the balls to criticize bush when they thought he was wrong but stand united for victory, this war would have been won by now.
Dear Mr. Scullion and Mr. Myers,
Please, gentlemen, call me Robert. Since I am unfamiliar with communicating this way, I’ll respond to your comments in order of importance.
Mr. Myers: Democracy is NOT the “American Way”. At no time does the word democracy ever appear in either the Declaration of Independence or The Constitution. Our founding fathers were very wary of Democracy as it used by the political Left today. That word should be carefully considered when applying it to the United States. There is a reason why Al Gore is not in office. Thank God. If you need a further example, consider this. Fifty percent of the people you meet are below average.
After 9-11-01(the Attack) I was furious also. I still am. However, I thought that after Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, or even Saudi Arabia would have been a viable target as well as Iraq. The President chose Iraq for reasons strategic, as well as political. I support the reaction, but not the prosecution for the war. Time will tell.
As to judging people by their words. Let them write more words, and I will read them as they are written. All I have to go by is what’s there on record. From what I can determine, I have a pretty good idea of where most on this site stand on certain issues. If a question is asked, I will not disparage the honesty of the answer. As I stated before, I’m new to this.
Soldiers would not be soldiers if they didn’t follow orders, but do not pretend that they are mindless automatons. That’s rude and disrecpectful. These men believe in the United States of America. More to the point, their job is to kill people and break things. Most of them really do enjoy kicking the crap out of THE BAD GUY S. You know, the ones who are shooting at them? The ones who want to drive buses of innocent people into more innocent people and murder them? You know, those people.
Anecdotal evidence is all that most on the Internet have to go on. As for respect, earn it. Theodore Roosevelt chose his Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee because the man knocked him on his ášš in a boxing ring. I doubt that Ruth Ginsberg would ever have the guts. I defy you to cite an example of me insulting anyone’s patriotism. I don’t do that.
As for debating, I am very open to that. However, while I enjoy playing Devil’s Advocate, I was once thrown off of a high school debate team because my idea of a rebuttal is “F!@#$%^&*K YOU!!! Be warned. My email address is rttss@hotmail.com.
Mr. Scullion: Yes I do come from a military background. Although I never served myself, I wish that I had. And we seem to be closer in opinion on the Washington B.S. than most people these days.
As for your uncle at Pearl Harbor, my best to him. I have two that were in the Navy in the Pacific. One, Lynn, is a codger, lifetime Democrat, and one of the toughest men I have ever met. If you want, I’ll tell you about the U.S.S. Finback. His sub fished a downed pilot out of the water once.
My only reason for mentioning Bastogne, is the fact that I firmly believe that most of the complaining about our lack of funding comes from the major media sources, who, it seems, will say anything to make any war effort nowadays look bad. Imagine if WWII had been reported to the American public using today’s modern media techniques? Would we have won?
To both gentlemen: Please forgive my spelling, and grammar. I’m a lousy typist. If I seem two-dimensional, it is only because the page appears that way. All questions will be answered honestly. And my name is my own. I’m in the book.
Good talking to you,
Robert Preston
p.s.-If I didn’t address all of the differences noted by you gentlemen above, don’t worry. I’m sure there will be more.
David Van Domelen,
“Of course, anyone wanting to bring the troops home wants the terrorists to win”
If we are seen as being “driven out” of Iraq, how exactly do you feel that will be viewed by terrorist factions? By the Mideast? By those in Iraq who have risked so much, from training with American soldiers to policing the streets to those who are helping us build schools?
It has been over three decades and the country still has a Vietnam Syndrome. ur departure there hurt us in the eyes of the world and helped lead to the deaths of over three million people. If we were to simply boly, how could we be trusted again by those we seek out as allies? And what will an ever-more-aggressive Russia, powerful China, North Korea and Iran think?
Scott Bland,
“It’s too bad the Dems are repeatedly spineless when it comes to standing up to Bush. what’s the biggest thing we’ve done so far? They passed a non-binding resolution saying they disagreed with sending more troops to Iraq. Bush promptly gave them the middle finger and ignored them.”
As well he should have. hat vote was so cynical, it’s no wonder people hate politicians. To have that kind of vote with no bite is simply a way to appeal to the MoveOn crowd by saying they were “against it” without actually cutting off funding. If they are truly against the surge, why appoint a new man who will be leading it? because on the chance the surge succeeds, they can then say they put “pressure” on the President.
Oh, and violence is down 80% since the troop surge – mention of which I have not seen in any of the mainstream media.
Michael D,
“I’m always amazed that for some folks Criticism of the President (and/or his policies) = Criticism of the Troops (and/or Hatred of America). I just don’t get it and I don’t think I ever will.”
Reasoned dissent is fine. Conservatives like George Will have made intelligent cases against the Iraq War. But when you have Rosie o’Donnell spouting “We invaded and occupied them” – well, who is doing the invading and occupying then? Our soldiers. when you have her cohort Behar say “They are thieves and murderers” in regards to the Administration…well, unless Bush was driving a Ford Bronco in 1994 or something does that not imply that the troops are “murderers” or, at the very least, “instruments of murder”. It is impossible to say things like that and then say you support the troops.
William Gatevackes,
“I think this whole “not supporting the troops” statement the Republicans keep making is scurrilous at best.”
No. If you listened to some of the people at the anti-war rally a few weeks ago, many of whom blamed the U.S. for a variety of the world’s ills, dramatically inflated the number of civilian casualties and blamed our involvement in Vietnam for causing the 3 million deaths I mentioned earlier, it is clear many were amti-military. those are just a mild sample. Also, when neither David Letterman nor O’Donnell can reply “yes” to a being asked whether or not they want the U.S. to win, then that is a clear message of non-commitment at best and non-support.
“The Democrats just want them out of harm’s way and reunited with their families.”
Well, they would never be in harm’s way if we never sent them anywhere. If we are to survive as a nation, that is not an option. The world is an increasingly dangerous place these days. I would rather deal with these threats before they grow. would we not be better off if we had dealt with North Korea more sternly in 1994 or Iran even five years ago?
sneezythesqid,
“Bush has approval ratings in the ’30s”
Still higher than the 25% Truman left office with in large part due to Korea. History has treated him more favorably than his contemporaries. It is my opinion the same thing will happen with Bush.
“the Dems swept Congress”
Well, they won both houses. But neither by an overwhelming margin.
“why the hëll are they still acting like scared rabbits”
good question.
‘afraid of what the President or Fox News will say about them”
Again with Fox News. The coverage of the war by the mainstream press has ben extremely negative. even Bill O’Reilly says Iraq is “a mess”. But we have 60 Minutes finding 10 soldiers, ALL OF WHOM DIDN’T SUPPORT THE SURGE while claiming they couldn’t find any who did. well, they must not have looked very hard. Sean Hannity has. Oliver North has. Why couldn’t 60 Minutes?
Richard Engel on NBC routinely injects his anti-war opinions into his “objective” reports and Meredith Viera of “Today” actually took part in anti-war march.
If the mainstram press dedicated even 20% of their coverage to positive developments they would appear a lot more credible.
“They need to syop with the empty gestures and actually DO SOMETHING”
On this point, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
“And not be afraid to punch back when the Right Wing Spin Machine starts tossing mud.”
Guess they’re counting on the Left Wing Spin Machine including, Katie, Brian, Rosie, Diane, Air America’s loudmouths,Clinton’s buddy Kaplan and all the rest to do their work for them.
Denny,
“I never understood how “supporting our troops” means that we must send them to a foreign country for a pointless and baseless war so they can die in vain”
By saying the war is pointless and baseless you are saying that their actions are pointless and baseless. That’s hardly the definition of support. Saying that they are dying in vain is ironic, since if we do not finish the job more people will see those who did die as doing so in vain.
If you do not support the war, that alone does not make you anti-American. But it sure means you aren’t supporting them in any meaningful way.
Brian Douglas,
“You have to remember, this is Cheney…So, what he’s actually saying is that by not supporting Bush, the Democrats are in fact supporting the troops.”
It means no such thing. Yet again, the personal and sometimes irrational distrust and even hatred of Bush and Cheney is emphasized and substituted for a rational solution. Is it at all possible to hate the men but respect the objective.
Bill Myers,
“They bungled this war and cannot be trusted to run it.”
Then the Democrats should say so and talk serious with the American people about their solutions and what they are and what they hope to achieve rather than engaging in the cynical political games they are right now.
Robert–two things, really quick, because then I have to get back to work.
First, my uncle–when I talked about Uncle Oscar, I should’ve written my LATE Uncle Oscar. Sorry for the the omission and the misunderstanding, but thank you for the well-wishing. My best to your two.
Second–haven’t really noticed any problem with your typing or grammar. Trust me, as a writer, it always rankles me when people don’t communicate clearly, I WOULD have noticed.
Anyone else find it interestingly timed that a flick like “300” came out while Congress is debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge? As though it might be a bit of public opinion manipulation? Possibly naught but paranoia, but just a thought . . .
Well, it was written several years before the war and it’s pretty close to the comic…and it’s based on events that happened a few thousand years ago…and the producers would have had to be psychic to have predicted that we’d be debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge when they stared filming it…so I’m going to come down squarely on the “paranoia” theory.
300 was, I might add, a ripping good movie and the best I’ve seen this year. It might be quickly dethroaned by Grindhouse though.
Hey, I just realized that my link to the Army Times™ article — that periodical whose readership is active Army — on the šhìŧŧÿ way George Bush’s defense department is treating wounded soldiers is broken:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSmedholdmoney070222/
I’m mortified that link was broken. I bet all those wounded soldiers are healed by now and ready to join in on the surge.
Jerome: Point still stands. Doesn’t matter what the terrorists actually think, anyone making a case for leaving will be tarred with the “pro-terrorist” brush. Personally, I doubt the terrorists will be more or less happy regardless of what we do. They may change their details, but they still want to kill people and spread terror, any excuse will do, and no field-army can stop that sort of thing.
“By saying the war is pointless and baseless you are saying that their actions are pointless and baseless.”
No. It isn’t. And to say that if a person doesn’t support the war, they aren’t supporting the troops in any meaningful way is empty rhetoric. And your “who is doing the invading and the occupying” is likewise. Who would you like to do this country’s invading and occupying? The Girl Scouts? The New York Giants, perhaps? And not two hours ago, I watched one of the pro-war protestors in DC being interviewed, and she was also of the opinion that anti-war means anti-troop. And yet, most of the anti-war types that I know have family in the military. Yeah, they’re likely to look down on the troops.
Bill Muligan wrote:
“300 was, I might add, a ripping good movie and the best I’ve seen this year. It might be quickly dethroaned by Grindhouse though.”
The Moor Next Door, who is a young Arab-American blogger who holds moderate conservative political views, wrote a review of 300.
http://wahdah.blogspot.com/2007/03/fantastic-waste.html
Bill Myers wrote:
“Micha, you are correct: I could have phrased the same points to Iowa Jim in a much less confrontational manner. I should have accorded him the respect that he showed to others in disagreeing politely.”
My intention was not to criticize you but rather to praise you.
About Bastogne. WWII have become a yardstick against which all wars are measured. There is a desire to return to the certainty of that war. But most wars are not like that. The war against Islamic Radicalism is certainly not like that. It is more like the war against communism.
I was going to post a long reply to all the issues, but I started boring myself, so I gave it up.
Bill,
Your conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. Just because one believes something to be true doesn’t make it so.
That was not my point. My point is that PAD basically said Cheney and Bush want a blank check for a war that was started under false pretenses. If the last part is not true (they did not start it under false pretenses), then they are not asking for a blank check but are doing what any commander would do, doing what is needed to actually win.
I understand you (and others here) do not see Iraq as an essential part of the war on terror. I disagree, but it is late and I need to get some sleep. I respect your disagreement on this. It doesn’t change the fact that what’s done is done, and we have to work with the present situation.
Yes, it does. People’s motives have to be taken into account before deciding how much trust we can invest in them.
I get that, but it misses the point. If you demonize the opposition (as “my side” did with Clinton), you don’t deal with the real issues. Bush’s actions have been highly consistent with a belief this actually is a war on terror. I can respect those who say it has been handled poorly (I agree even on a few of the examples some have given). But it is hard to respect those who assume Bush is in any way deliberately lying and using this for his own political gain. If that was true, he wouldn’t have such horrible approval ratings. To be political for a moment, Clinton would never have “stayed the course” with his poll numbers in the 30’s. Whatever faults Bush may have, he is not in this for public opinion, nor (as far as I can tell) is he profiting from this (the past oil connections issues some raise are extremely weak and circumstantial).
Do motives matter? Yes. But they are extremely hard to judge. When someone’s actions are consistent with his stated beliefs, even in the face of ridicule and opposition, that tends to demonstrate some internal consistency (at least in most cases). And when we are at war (and we are), it is not really helpful to assign motives for political reasons when doing so actually emboldens the enemy.
Do I think PAD is patriotic and loves this country? Yes. But the fact that he is sincere doesn’t make it a good idea to not support our troops in the way that really matters right now — allowing them to actually win this war.
I close with a link. The people in Iraq recently agreed in a poll that things are better now than under Sadaam — even with all of the bombings, etc.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece
We DO have a real chance to win this war in Iraq if we stick with it. It is not certain, and it depends on the Iraqi’s, but putting our troops in harms way IS making a difference.
Iowa Jim
David, It matters what they think if it encourages them to “hold on” until we will eventually retreat. Some Arab scolars have even pointed to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam to embolden them. They have taken it as a lesson that if they inflict enough pain and give the perception that the war is lost by causing enough casualties, America will no longer have the stomach for the fight.
Frighteningly, they may be right.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Please, gentlemen, call me Robert.
I would have done that anyway.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
As for respect, earn it.
I’m not overly concerned about your opinion of me.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
My email address is rttss@hotmail.com.
Uhm, thanks, but no thanks. You don’t strike me as someone I want to get to know.
Iowa Jim, your last post deserves a thoughtful response and I’m not in a position to give it one at the moment. So let me instead merely say “thank you” for taking the high road when I didn’t. You’re a class act.
The Moor Next Door, who is a young Arab-American blogger who holds moderate conservative political views, wrote a review of 300.
“>http://wahdah.blogspot.com/2007/03/fantastic-waste.html
Obviously I disagree with his view of the film, for what that’s worth. A few points:
Apparently, Spartans wore no breast plates and rushed into battle in no more than underwear, capes so large that they seem as if they would have obscured the ability to fight, and helmets.
Geeze, even back then they knew the power of artistic license. The Greeks often portrayed their warriors as fighting in a phalanx buck naked. So 300 is actually a bit more realistic in that regard. The dámņ thing isn’t supposed to be a documentary.
Xerxes, the famed king of the Persian Empire
And all around bášŧárd, even by ancient standards.
is a Brazilian drag queen, or something like it.
I don’t quite get the “Xerxes is gay” meme. He’s 7 feet tall and has piercings, is that code for gay now?. The real Xerxes is portrayed on coins as having a big wooly beard. He’d be about as scary looking as C Everett Koop.
The point that the traitor Ephialtes is portrayed as a grotesque hunchback is also consistent with epic tales and/or Ðìçk Tracy comics, where a character’s evil is reflected in his physical appearance. I’m guessing this guy gets all fatootsed by Richard III as well).
He’s correct that the Spartans were hardly a society most of us would want to be a part of but if the ancient accounts of Xerxes Persia are correct they were the lesser of two evils.
One famous story of Xerxes is that of Pythius the Lydian, a man of great wealth who offers his fortune to the king. Xerxes refuses his aid and instead gives him an even greater fortune. When Pythius asks that the oldest of his 5 sons be allowed to leave the army to take care of him in his old age Xerxes, enraged by this request from a mere vassal, releases the other 4 sons instead and has the oldest and most favored one torn in half so that the army can march between the halves of his severed body.
The Greek states were far far from perfect but I think most of us would prefer life there to one under such a despot.
300 may offer a simplistic idealized view of West vs East but I don’t know that it’s one that is all that bad for Easterners. The idea that the Greeks won in large part because they were free men fighting for their land against slaves to a tyrant is better than the alternative explanation that the Persians quite frankly sucked at war, getting their áššëš repeatedly kicked by the Greeks and, later, Alexander the Great, despite always having superior numbers.
“They would lay down their lives, for you, if neccessary. None of those posting here would do the same for them, or me, or most people that they’ve ever met.”
Wow. I’ve been playing catch up on a days worth of reading and that has to be the single most asininely stupid thing I’ve read all night. You don’t know a single one of us at all, but you come in and make an insulting blanket statement such as that based only on the fact that we disagree with you on the war. So, your POV on the Iraq War debate is basically that the people that agree with you are kind, noble and good while the people who disagree with you are cowardly, bad and would run away and let someone die just to save themselves. Gee, that’s good sign that debate with you will be meaningful and of substance.
And your spelling problem has an easy fix. Open a hotmail “new message” window and type your posts into that. Then you can spell check it, cut it and paste it into the blog. If you have Word on your computer, do the same. that’ll also get some grammar goofs.
Robert, I wssn’t going to respond to your paralogisms point-by-point. But after reading Jerry Chandler’s last post I realize that there are some outrageous statements you’ve made that shouldn’t go unchallenged. So I shall plug my nose and here goes…
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Please, gentlemen, call me Robert.
As I said in my prior post, I would’ve done that anyway. No one stands on formality here.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Democracy is NOT the “American Way”.
That’s false. According to the Microsoft Encarta dictionary, one definition of the word “democracy” is “the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people.”
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” Article I, Section 3 states, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years.” With respect to the election of the president, Article II, Section 1 states, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” These provisions established a framework for a national government whereby leaders would either be elected directly by the people, or by state legislatures who themselves were popularly elected. That meets the definition of “democracy.”
(Oh, and to allay any possible confusion: Article I, Section 3 was later supserseded by Amendment XVII, which states, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years.”)
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Our founding fathers were very wary of Democracy as it used by the political Left today. That word should be carefully considered when applying it to the United States.
I haven’t the foggiest idea how you believe the “political Left” defines democracy, and given your inability to avoid drawing unwarranted inferences from others’ words, I don’t care. When I use the word “democracy,” I’m using it as it is defined by respectable dictionaries. Let’s stick with the actual meanings of words, shall we, and leave the mind-reading to the Amazing Karnak?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Fifty percent of the people you meet are below average.
And yet the U.S. Constitution provides that each and every person has a right to vote.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
The President chose Iraq for reasons strategic, as well as political.
Really? Al Qaeda was an enemy of Iraq until we took out Saddam, and created a power vacuum that let them and other forces get in. Iraq was less dangerous to the U.S. prior to the invasion. How was that a “strategic” move?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
As to judging people by their words. Let them write more words, and I will read them as they are written.
Except you’re not doing that. I have yet to read a single post in this blog wherein anyone has stated that they oppose all wars in all forms and reject the right of the United States to defend itself. That is something you are inferring solely based on… what? The absence of anyone articulating when and how the U.S. should go to war? But that’s not what we’ve been discussing. We’ve been discussing one particular war, and opposition to one war is not the same as opposition to all war.
You need to brush up on your reasoning skills.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Soldiers would not be soldiers if they didn’t follow orders, but do not pretend that they are mindless automatons. That’s rude and disrecpectful.
It’s also nothing I said, so please don’t puff out your chest and offer your false indignation. It’s laughably self-aggrandizing. I merely pointed out that the military doesn’t exactly encourage a vigorous debate, and with good reason. For a military to function effectively, people must adhere to the chain of command. Moreover, the formal rules of the military quite naturally create an informal culture of cohesion based on a shared sense of purpose. Soldiers may have misgivings about their mission that they choose not to express publicly because they know that doing so would be bad for unit morale.
In other words, these soldiers are doing what they are told, which is their job. That doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have misgivings — merely that they understand that dwelling on such misgivings, if they have them, is counterproductive.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
As for respect, earn it.
You have an overinflated sense of self if you belief I’m going to jump through any hoops to “earn” your respect. It’s not the prize you apparently believe it to be. My parents raised me to treat people I don’t know with respect, and only withdraw it if they give me reason to do so. And with your behavior here, you have given me reason to do so.
Put more simply: I don’t give a rat’s ášš about earning your respect because with your behavior, you’ve lost mine.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
I defy you to cite an example of me insulting anyone’s patriotism. I don’t do that.
As Jerry Chandler pointed out, you did just that when you wrote, “[U.S. military servicemen and women] would lay down their lives, for you, if neccessary. None of those posting here would do the same for them, or me, or most people that they’ve ever met.”
After Jerry called you on the carpet about that, I realized just how appalling your statement truly is. See, Jerry opposes the Iraq war… and he’s a cop. Every dámņ day he puts his life on the line merely by putting on his uniform and doing his job. How dare you make an assumption about him… or any of us… merely because you are too weak to accept that people of goodwill can disagree?
When can we expect your apology?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
As for debating, I am very open to that. However, while I enjoy playing Devil’s Advocate, I was once thrown off of a high school debate team because my idea of a rebuttal is “F!@#$%^&*K YOU!!! Be warned.
That’s like saying, “This newborn, declawed kitten sometimes like to swat people. Be warned.” You overestimate the intimidation factor present in your insults. Tell me “fûçk you” and I’ll merely shrug, tell you to “grow up” and probably stop wasting my time with you.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
My email address is rttss@hotmail.com.
No, see, I meant debate with you HERE, in this blog. I’m not interested in striking up a personal correspondence with you. As I said, you don’t strike me as someone I want to get to know.
In fact, if you continue to offer insults and paralogisms, I doubt I’ll want to continue to debate with you in any forum. I’d rather devote my time to discussing things with those who value rational discourse, like Iowa Jim. I passionately disagree with him, but I have great respect for his choice to debate this war on its merits and discuss things politely.
He threatened to veto implementation of 9-11 recommendations over provisions to allow unions in the TSA. As with the disparity between the president’s avowed devotion to the well-being of soldiers and scraping the resources for that care from the bottom of his shoe after walking Barney, it seems clear the war on terror is an issue dependent on politics. If the war on terror isn’t sacrosanct to him, what standing does he have to challenge anyone else’s devotion?
It’s not the prize you apparently believe it to be.
Bill, I’m now officially adding that line to my repertoir of snappy comebacks to stupid statements. It’s way better than my usual ones (“Oh yeah?”, “No YOU suck!”, and “Hey, that’s MR. Úšhølë to you, fella!”)
Jerome: Throwing men and materiel into Iraq and failing to stop the insurgency emboldens the enemy too.
Robert Preston meet Mike. Mike meet Bobby, you make a lovely couple.
Mr. Preston, sorry, I not American, I am Canadian. We have troops in Afghanistan, a country which had close ties with Al-Quaida. They know why they are there. I question the mission, but I support the troops.
Contrary to “History by Hollywood”, the USA did not win either World War single handed. How Bastogne is even vaguely relevant to the current debate is a mystery to me. If you can elighten me, please do.
Although most of the contributors here are “liberals”, accusations of cowardice are ill founded and insulting. I don’t know why you think I should earn your respect, when you have thrown mine out the window.
Bill Myers, you were a tad harsh on Iowa Jim. Ten lashes witha wet noodle, and two viewings of “Battlefield Earth”. There will be a quiz.
{Apologies for the weirdness that crept into my markup}
Posted by Jerome Maida
That’s this week. Before that there were other lies – i mean, “missions”, like “So we won’t have to fight them here” and “To overthrow a government that aids al Quaeda” and “Because Saddam is developing Weapons of Mass Destruction” (and, before that, till it was proven a lie “Because Saddam has WMD”).
Of course there is a clearly-defined mission, one that was well-known to the rest of Bush Minor’s gang from the day he took office determined to find some pretext for deposing Saddam “Because he made my Daddy look weak!”
Well, the people running the war would seem to be “fringe elements”, then, as they send soldiers who have been certified unfit for combat by Army doctors back into combat. And it’s not just the unfit soldiers they’re treating as fungibles, but everyone around them, because someone who can’t do his job (for whatever reason) in combat is at least as dangerous to be around as an IED.
Since, as PAD observes near the beginning of his post, our current “objective” (see my earlier remarks about “objectives”) is pretty much unobtainable, why do we keep shoving more young men and women into the meat grinder? A French general remarked, after the charge of the Light Brigade, “It was magnificent! But it wasn’t war.”
But even Cardigan wasn’t stupid or crazy enough to throw away more troops that way.
It’s been said that a good working definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time, By that definition, the Shrub’s sanity is definitely questionable, ‘cos all that happens every time they send more troops to Iraq is that more body bags come home.
Well, lessee. Context? Current pretext: “We can’t quit now when we’re just about to win.
However, over the course of this debacle:
“Saddam has WMD.” Nope.
“Saddam is preventing the inspectors from looking for his WMD.” Nope.
“Saddam is developing WMD.” Nope,
“Saddam is negotiating to buy uranium to make WMD with from Niger.” Nope. (And that one was such a whopper that he blamed it on the British Government, who never said any such thing, and proved it.)
“Saddam is working with al Qaeda.” Nope.
“We can’t quit now, we’d look weak.” (Like my Daddy.) Nope.
Bull. The kind of weaponry that Bush the Lesser was claiming Iraq had requires too much infrastructure to be tracelessly moved to Syria – which is a supporter of Iran, which is Iraq’s greatest regional opponent – in five months or even a year. And the inspectors – before they were removed (by our side) in a snit – had not seen any sign of that kind of infrastructure, much less WMD (well, aside from the tubing for “atomic centrifuges” that any competent observer – including the isnpectors, who said as much – knew couldn’t be, and the other sections of tubing that were going to be a huge gun – except that our own military said the idea was ridiculous).
Considering we don’t really have any more troops to send – unless we send the same guys back again (in violation of their terms or enlistment, at least until they were unilaterally changed by the Army, and that includes those not fit to fight), and considering that the military is losing skilled troops at unprecendented rates as they refuse to ship over, and considering that the only way that the military is even coming close to its recruiting goals is by accepting recruits it would normally refuse (the Army, particularly, is issuing an unprecedented number of waivers of the requirement that recruits have essentially no criminal record) – where do we get the troops to send?
And may i enquire if you are aware of the principle of “good money after bad”?
Neither Murtha nor Pelosi asked for that airplane:
One would wonder why the practice deemed to be necessary from a security standpoint would be mischaracterized in the press. I know that it’s not coming from the president, because he impressed upon me the amount of security I need to have.”
Because the C-20 (a bizjet-class plane that seats 12) generally would need to stop and refuel to make it all the way to the Bay Area, Pelosi requested a plane that could make it to California without having to stop along the way… (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2858225&page=1 – the same article mentions that the class of jet requested for Pelosi by the officials in charge of security for the House is the same class that the First Lady would get automatically.)
and:
The White House on Thursday came to the defense of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, describing as “silly” reports about her use of a large Air Force transport plane to travel back and forth from her West Coast district.
“This is a silly story and I think it’s been unfair to the speaker,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said at a morning briefing with reporters. “We think it’s important that the speaker of the House enjoy the same kind of security that we arranged for Speaker Hastert in the wake of September 11th. And like I said, I think that there’s been a lot of over-hyped reporting on this,” Snow said.
{snip}
A plane with security for the House speaker is nothing new. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide a military plane to House Speaker Dennis Hastert to and from his district in Illinois. Hastert flew in a C-20, a small commuter-sized jet. House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood, who is responsible for the speaker’s security, advised Pelosi in December that the Air Force had made an airplane available to her predecessor.
But because her congressional district is in California, Pelosi and her aides said she needs a larger plane that can fly coast to coast without refueling. The C-32 she requested is about the size of a Boeing 757-200 and has seating for 42 on it. (FoxNEWS (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250848,00.html)
Hardly an unreasonable request – travelling non-stop is a reasonable security precaution. The previous Leader’s home district is only 700 miles from DC, which the smaller plane can make without refueling. California is a bit further away. And, as long as you were quoting irrelevancies, attacking liberals in general, instead of actually, like, you know, responding to what PAD actually said, why didn’t you include this other smear against Pelosi (from the same Fox piece):
{Note the way in which the FOX Izvestia writer attempts to make Pelosi look bad by mentioning her own hybrid SUV, implying that she should have driven that, ignoring the inconvenient little detail that his own topic sentence on that graph specifically said that the government-supplied vehicle was a security requirement.}
And i find it highly probable that if more Democrats – and cowardly Republicans – actually had the balls to criticize bush when they thought he was wrong but stand united for victory, this war would have been won by now.
Okay, it is difficult to tell what Cheney is thinking. Or if he actually thinks. However, his actions and statements cause me to believe that two possiblities exist:
(A) He actually thinks that we’re winning this war and/or that by throwing a few (hundred) thousand more young men and women at it, we can win it. In which case he should be removed from thge Vice-Presidency for reasons of insanity,
or,
(B) He doesn’t really give a dámņ, at this point, whether we win or lose, just so long as it happens after January, 2009, and no matter how many troops it costs.
And, again, we hear the same spurious “logic” that cost us so many troops in Viet Nam. We cannot “win” this war any more than we could have “won” that one – which i attended, albeit in a rear area, non-combat role – in any form that we would consider “winning”. In Viet Nam, we would have had to invade the North and wipe them out, which was not going to fly on our own home front, nor were the Soviets going to just lie down while we invaded their ally/client.
And i know what the Chinese will say – are inevitably going to say sooner or later – “Hey, Sam – you owe me umpty-trillion dollars. Pay up or i’m foreclosing.”
In Iraq, we don’t have the troops or the resources available, for one thing, and the only way to “win” there, it looks more and more like, is to pull out all the “good”Iraqis on our side and then employ Weapons of Mass Destruction to reduce the place to radioactive glass. Anything less leaves us there “until the Iraqis can defend themselves”, which, based on the conduct of their own “security forces” looks like about the same time that Charon leaves his boat frozen in and opens a ski lift.
They passed a non-binding resolution saying they disagreed with sending more troops to Iraq. Bush promptly gave them the middle finger and ignored them.”
As well he should have. hat vote was so cynical, it’s no wonder people hate politicians.
And, of coure, nothing that the Current Ruling Junta in Washington DC has ever done – from lieing us into this war to “Mission Accomplished” and beyond wasn’t cynical and self-serving
Got a valid source for that? And how many troops have actually “surged” so far? I suspect that any reduction in violence is mostly because our troops are petty much hanging loose and not going looking for trouble so much as they used to. And is that “reduction in violence” across the board (including Iraqi on Iraqi) or just what our own forces are encountering? And does it take into account litle things like that IWMD (improvised weapon of amss destruction) Chlorine bomb the other day?
Huh?
Huh?
Bull. Shìŧ. At most it says that the soldiers are insruments – weapons if you will – of thieves and murderers – and what was that thing the NRA likes to say?
Oh, yeah – “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”
Troops obeying what they believe to be legal orders don’t steal territory and resources nor (if they truly believe their orders legal) do they murder.
But the people who ordered them to do so – they are guilty of such. That principle was established by our very own kangaroo court at the Nuremberg Tribunals, where the leaders of Germany were held accountable for what was done in their name by troops who were not charged with the crimes.
I support the troops.
I had to sweat out a year while the father of my grand daughter was in harm’s way for Bush’s ego, wondering if he would live to see his child. I want our troops out of there now, instead of after the election when someone sane can consider our chances of actually accomplishing anything other than making the US even less well-regarded than it already is in the world. (“I’d like to introduce you to the Chance brothers – Slim and None, but I think Slim’s
left town.”)
As to the 3 million deaths in Viet Nam, (A) that’s a lot higher number than i remember hearing, and (B)if we hadn’t unilaterally set aside the results of a plebiscite that we sponsored when it came out the “wrong way”, set up a puppet government that was not supported by its own citizens, and then prosecuted and escalated a war to attempt to overthrow what was, arguably, the legal government of the entire country, i suspect that a hëll of a lot fewer pepole (and certainly a lot fewer American troops) would have died in a doomed attempt to prove to the Soviets that we had larger genitalia then they did(and its inevitable aftermath).
Well, who asked them that, and was it phrased in a “Do you want to win or do you want the troops withdrawn?” have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife manner?
Myself, i’d have to answer that, since i am firmly convinced that “winning” is not a viable outcome at this point, whether i want to “win” or not is irrelevant.
This is equivalent to the old joke about the kid saying “The whole fight started when Jimmy hit me back first!”
I doubt it. I think Bush (and Reagan) will wind up on the “ash heap of history” (along with the guy who coined that pohrase, another two-bit demagogue).
Except that they weren’t expected to take both Houses, and they were expected to do a hëll of a lot worse than they did in Representatives. {snip}
Perhaps because it doesn’t lie like Hannity or Ollie the Weasel?
If they could find that much to report and it were proportional to the rest of the news, yeah. If, as Fox does, they went out of their way to find “good news” (which, often as not turned out to not be so good after all), they’d be lieing just like Fox does.
Anyone who actually believes that the news media are more than mildly leftward-biased hasn’t actually been lietening to anyone other than Boortz,
Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk.
But saying that by fighting a futile, irrelevant and useless war, in a place that we have no business fighting a war, is upholding America’s honour is?
Soldiers expect that they may die in vain. They don’t want to, but they do it anyway, if ordered, because they are soldiers.
And supporting sending more of them to die in a lost cause does support
them?
At this point, i find it necessary to ask if you have any military time yourself, or have ever served in a combat situation?
That is, “Vas you dere, Tscharlie?” Or is all this spouting off about what troops do and don’t believe and what “supporting the troops” is something you’re chanelling from the Bush/Fox propagande machine?
Except whan the objective is just as twisted and evil as the men.
The Democrats have said so – repeatedly (though only since last November have that had any chance to do anything more than say what they think – and their “cynical political games” are less cynical and a lot less pernicious than the way in which BUsh, Cheyney & Co. walked us into this war. Anyway, they figure they’ve got a better than even chance of being in the driver’s seat come January ’09, and, if they can’t do anything about the mess now, with Bush sharpening his veto pen and an insufficient majortiy to over-ride, they might as well keep reminding people who is repsonsible for the whole debacle.
Posted by Bill Mulligan
The Greeks often portrayed their warriors as fighting in a phalanx buck naked. So 300 is actually a bit more realistic in that regard. The dámņ thing isn’t supposed to be a documentary.
The Celts apparently did often fight naked – allegeldy to show their foes that their manhood didn’t wither in fear. (Of course, presumably both sides were doing it – at least until the Romans came along.)
Jerome Maida –
Plenty of time to have the weapons relocated to Syria, as was widely reported then.
Seeing as how Colin Powell was the sacrificial lamb to the UN on how Iraq had WMD, seeing as how Bush & Co sold the war on Iraq over WMD, and then seeing as how we didn’t invade Syria to find said WMD…
I’d say the whole “the WMD went to Syria” is pretty bunk.
Not to mention, Syria is a puppet of Iran in many ways, and we all know how well Iraq and Iran got along.
Robert Preston –
don’t seem to believe in fighting for ANY reason at all.
Which is an opinion that is in no way based in reality.
Many people here have said they supported overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan, including myself.
But then, the fact that we have left Afghanistan in a mess, and the Taliban is still hanging around, means we didn’t finish the job. And that’s just one of many reasons why we shouldn’t have ever gone to Iraq.
There is a reason why Al Gore is not in office. Thank God.
Yes, it’s called the SCotUS deciding an election, something that should never have been allowed.
But if you have to thank god for that, I’m inclined to believe you need to reexamine your faith and how you apply it to life.
If you need a further example, consider this. Fifty percent of the people you meet are below average.
The 51% of people who voted for Bush are idiots. This is basically what you’re saying about people who voted for Gore. C’mon, show some balls, man! Show us how you really feel!
Bill Myers—
A suggestion, if I may. When you are rebutting separate people, use separate posts. My brain has trouble keeping track.
Brian Wood has written a well thought out post on the subject:
http://brianwood.livejournal.com/445358.html