April 10, 2007
Military Families Angry Over Congressional Inaction
McQ, a Vietnam vet himself, does a great job of highlighting the growing disgust of America's military veterans towards an arrogant and feckless Congress that has lost touch with the men and women who guarantee their freedoms:
I'm not so sure that the Dems are that concerned with it, but if statements from the VFW and American Legion are any indication, they shouldn't waste much time worrying about currying those votes. That is if they continue to push the present bill calling for withdrawal timelines.
George Lisicki, the senior vice commander-in-chief of the VFW:
“The funding package contained artificial troop withdrawal deadlines that would ultimately break the morale of our troops in the field and directly jeopardize their safety,” said Lisicki, who ascends to national commander in August and was here today to host a meeting of future leaders from the VFW’s 54 departments.
“This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue. It’s about American men and women tasked with fighting a war, and who are now being told their effort and sacrifice doesn’t matter because a date on the calendar will send them home whether they’ve finished the job or not,” he said.
Is anyone listening in Congress? I doubt it. The President hammered the same points home today in Fairfax:
It's now been 64 days since I have requested that Congress pass emergency funding for these troops. We don't have all of them there. About half more are going to head in. We're making some progress. And 64 days ago, I said to the United States Congress, these troops need funding. And instead of proving [sic] that vital funding, the Democrat leadership in Congress has spent the past 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops, just as we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad. In both the House and the Senate, majorities have passed bills that substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground. They set arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq, and they spend billions of dollars on pork barrel projects and spending that are completely unrelated to this war.
Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying this money. In the coming days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to cover the shortfall caused by Congress's failure to fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
This $1.6 billion in transfers come on top of another $1.7 billion in transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last month. In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from military personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems so we can continue to fund programs to protect our soldiers and Marines from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles to our troops on the front lines. These actions are only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, recently testified that if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. The Army will also be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and Reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness, and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army will be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops depend on is repaired. They will have to consider delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of those the force -- of those forces to deploy overseas. And the Army may also have to delay the formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy.
So what does that mean? These things happen: Some of our forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended, because other units are not ready to take their places. In a letter to Congress, the Army Chief of Staff, Pete Shoemaker, recently warned, "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."
The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.
The United States Senate has come back from its spring recess today. The House will return next week. When it comes to funding our troops, we have no time to waste. It's time for them to get the job done. So I'm inviting congressional leaders from both parties -- both political parties -- to meet with me at the White House next week. At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill: a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground.
I'm hopeful we'll see some results soon from the Congress. I know we have our differences over the best course in Iraq. These differences should not prevent us from getting our troops the funding they need without withdrawal and without giving our commanders flexibility.
The Democrat leaders in -- Democratic leaders in Congress are bent on using a bill that funds our troops to make a political statement about the war. They need to do it quickly and get it to my desk so I can veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without further delay.
Keep these things in mind when you hear your Congressman saying "Oh, 'they' can just 'shift funds around'". The money has to come from somewhere, and we will not forget how our "representatives" have chosen to "support" us.
For years Democrats in Congress demanded that Donald Rumsfeld be fired.
Well, he is gone, and we have a new Secretary of Defense.
They screamed that they couldn't possibly support the war because there weren't enough boots on the ground.
Well, we're putting more boots on the ground.
Then they screamed that wasn't enough -- we needed a new strategy.
But we have put a new strategy in place - the same one that was so successful in Tal Afar.
But now that the military obstacles are out of the way, they say that was never the issue. We need a political solution.
Prime Minister Maliki is implementing a political solution: for the first time, he is allowing us into the Shiite areas, into Sadr city. He has made a firm commitment to go after Shia and Sunni alike if they break the law so that there will be equal justice for all Iraqis.
They said the Iraqis needed to step up to the plate.
The Democrats said we should follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. What was the one thing the ISG said we should NOT DO?
Set arbitrary withdrawal dates. Don't believe me?
Ask Jim Baker:
The report does not set timetables or deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the supplemental spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates. A premature American departure from Iraq, we unanimously concluded, would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions in Iraq and possibly other countries.
Suddenly we don't hear so much about the Iraq Study Group any more. Isn't that odd? Could it be because the surge implements many of the ISG recommendations?
The president announced a " new way forward" on Jan. 10 that supports much of the approach called for by the Iraq Study Group. He has since said that he is moving to embrace our recommendations. The president's plan increases the number of American advisers embedded in Iraqi army units, with the goal that the Iraqi government will assume control of security in all provinces by November. It outlines benchmarks and indicates that the Iraqi government must act to attain them. He has approved ministerial-level meetings of all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran; the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council; and other countries.
America's veterans - and her military families - have a right to be angry with a Congress that has relentlessly pummeled this President for not taking their "advice" and then, when he listens to them, does everything in their power to sabotage the war effort and render meaningless the sacrifies of thousands of honorable men and women.
This Marine wife of 28 years does not question the patriotism of the antiwar contingent in Congress.
She questions the fundamental seriousness of people who are constantly shifting the goalposts. And she wants an end to the game playing. There are lives at stake.
Some of them very precious to her.
Update: if you want to do something about this, one constructive idea is to support candidates on both sides of the political aisle who oppose surrender. Go here to find out how you can help.
See also, Good News from Iraq
Posted by Cassandra at April 10, 2007 02:41 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Thanks Cassandra. Excellent post and a great summary of where the dumocrats have wound up. By design.
Posted by: madconductor at April 10, 2007 05:13 PM
That's what makes the situation so godawful bad...
They are playing a game...with lives.
Posted by: Carrie at April 10, 2007 05:14 PM
No, you don't understand Carrie.
They support the troops.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 10, 2007 05:36 PM
They just don't seem to have a good grasp of practical consequences. Just political maneuvering. Fishes in a glass jar.
Posted by: Kevin L at April 10, 2007 06:09 PM
"This Marine wife of 28 years does not question the patriotism of the antiwar contingent in Congress."
This Marine's wife questions their patriotism -- as well as the validity of their assertations that they're a viable part of the human race.
Posted by: Sly2017 at April 10, 2007 07:07 PM
Good evening y'all,
I just left my Mom and Dad's house. I check on them every evening and hang around and talk a while. I'm the only Kid, that's my job. I love them.
Now, Daddy and I just argued about the Iraq war. He starting spouting off all these left-wing points. They're 78+, good folks and trusting too. They believe everything Katie tells them.
This bothers me. -Wondering
Posted by: larry at April 10, 2007 08:45 PM
My folks are pretty much the same way. It comes from a fundamental unwillingness to even consider that a) their current information sources are flawed, and b) that there are other information sources available to them now that could provide them with more thorough and more accurate information.
These people grew up with Walter Cronkite. They still believe the mainstream media sources are largely incapable of providing them with erroneous information.
Posted by: Sloan at April 10, 2007 08:59 PM
Yeah I guess you're right. Dangit. Geezum, my Dad subscribed to the WSJ for thirty years, too. Hmm.
Posted by: larry at April 10, 2007 09:10 PM
I won't even begin to tell you of the dysfunction in my family. Suffice it to say that I have one sister who is a liberal. Two brothers who can see this for what it is and support the war, and another sister who is supportive as long as it isn't HER child/husband, etc.
Posted by: Cricket at April 10, 2007 09:26 PM
Yeah Larry, old habits die hard.
Good thing the internet allows access to scrutinize and question Katie, the WSJ and every other major news source for their accurate and objective reporting.
We now can fact-check the fact-checkers, something our parents could never do.
My, how the times they are a changin.
Posted by: syn at April 10, 2007 09:41 PM
I'm just discouraged now. I remember looking at Uncle Walter. I'm a rock-ribbed, God-fearing Conservative Republican. I told Dad, "Dad, put the War over on the side. Look at Bush domestically. What's the diff from him and Bill Clinton?'. Dad knows the US Budget, and he kinda came around there. But if They attack Bush I'll still grab my shovel and charge.
Posted by: larry at April 10, 2007 09:44 PM
Hey~ you got a shout-out from Michelle Malkin!
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at April 10, 2007 11:17 PM
This proud Marine mom is so full of despair over the behavior of Congress that she is utterly sick at heart, unable to eat and losing sleep every night. For Gods' sake, is there nothing we can do to stop this madness?
Posted by: Irish Rose at April 10, 2007 11:24 PM
Call yer congress critters. A grassroots movement does work.
Posted by: Cricket at April 10, 2007 11:27 PM
Great post! I so agree. Yeah, we'll remember these unserious politicans, cowtowing to MoveOn and all that junk. At a time of war we have to have a united front or the enemy wins. The left simply doesn't get it.
Posted by: Karen at April 10, 2007 11:53 PM
This misplaced trust that so many have in the "mainstream" media is a big problem.
As time goes on, I believe that the Internet will turn that around, but it's hard waiting for it...especially because lives are at stake.
Posted by: camojack at April 11, 2007 12:48 AM
Thank you for this post, boy I needed it tonight! I'm staying with my (Chicago Democrat) folks while my husband is deployed and my Dad and I 'got into it' a bit over the news soundbite about the possible troop extentions to 15 months. Thank you for this breath of sanity!
Posted by: Kyrie at April 11, 2007 01:53 AM
Those of us who support the mission and the troops have political power. We must use it.
I'm a retired USAF Vietnam veteran who went to Washington last month to stand on the Wall with the Gathering of Eagles. GoE was a rousing success. National Park Service who had helicopters overhead, said we had 30,000 vets facing 5,000 to 10,000 anti-war protesters. The ANSWER people where, quite frankly, intimidated and rightly so. The Eagles took the initiative in the politics of the streets.
We should subtlely lure media coverage and approach Congress head on.
The media was much more hostile to the Vietnam war than they are to Iraq, yet group of POW wives got on TV (against the wishes of the administration) to complain about the treatment of their husbands. Unknowingly, they provided the POWs with leverage that affected the Paris Peace Talks and greatly improved their husbands' circumstances. How did they get the press to pay attention? They were smart, articulate, irate anti-war news. Also, as ZZTop would say, "She got legs!" Veil the subject as anti-war and give them eye candy.
The message to send members of Congress must be simple so they can understand it. "Vote to defund or slow bleed our forces in the field and we will contribute to and campaign ceaselessly for your next opponent. We will also be at every public appearance you make to asking, 'Why did you betray our troops?'" Use both email and snail mail. Call their local offices and their office on Capitol Hill. They all know how to count.
Let everyone know, as did Howard Beale in Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Posted by: arch at April 11, 2007 06:31 AM
"The funding package contained artificial troop withdrawal deadlines that would ultimately break the morale of our troops in the field and directly jeopardize their safety,” said Lisicki, who ascends to national commander in August and was here today to host a meeting of future leaders from the VFW’s 54 departments."
Is George C Scott still alive? Can't they dress him up and have him go slap these guys if they're feeling so down?
Posted by: mara at April 11, 2007 07:44 AM
For all those opposing the setting of a deadline: Exactly how long do you anticipate keeping US troops in Iraq? It doesn't seem to be settling down into peace as quickly or easily as might be hoped.
Posted by: Suricou Raven at April 11, 2007 07:45 AM
Ok, Raven, how about this: we leave the troops in Iraq for as along as we've had troops in Korea, Germany, Okinawa (Japan), and Bosnia. How's that work for you?
Posted by: daveg at April 11, 2007 07:58 AM
No matter what, you don't set deadlines and announce them publicly in legislation in wartime. That is tantamount to surrender and is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Treaties and the negotiation of withdrawal from war has NEVER been something we have done by committee and it has been decided by events on the battlefield, not by some morons in Congress who scream for the President to listen to blue ribbon commissions AND THEN PROCEED TO IGNORE WHAT THEIR OWN COMMISSION SAYS.
You are profoundly dishonest if you seek to evade what Congress has done. No one - not the ISG, not the military experts, not terrorism experts, thinks mandatory withdrawal deadlines are a good idea. This is political expediency pure and simple .
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 07:58 AM
And personally, I agree with Dave. As long as it takes to make us secure and accomplish our objectives. We've been in Bosnia longer than Vietnam but you don't hear the media screaming about that one, do you?
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 08:00 AM
for Suricou Raven: for as long as it takes.
Posted by: tommad at April 11, 2007 08:01 AM
If congress presents the President with a bill and he vetoe's the bill, won't that mean the president is playing political games with our soldiers lives?
Posted by: Paul at April 11, 2007 08:03 AM
No it won't. The soldiers volunteered to fight. That is their job.
The president is their commander in chief. Congress will not vote to rescind authorization. AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO CUT OFF FUNDING SO THEY LOADED THEIR BILL WITH PORK TO CHEAT THEIR WAY INTO UNDERCUTTING THE WAR. DESPICABLE.
And you know it, Paul. You know it. This isn't the 'will of the people' -- if it were it would have passed on its own merits.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 08:16 AM
Notice how Paul conveniently also doesn't address any of my points about how the Democrats first said one thing and now another. Or how they are now ignoring the recommendations of James Baker and the ISG, which they DEMANDED the administartion adopt a few months ago.
Which only proves they'll do anything to get elected - even endanger our troops.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 08:19 AM
I would love to see where Congressional approval ratings stand and how far they have fallen since the November elections. The media is so fast to post the President's scores but hardly ever mentions the miscreants who have hijacked our republic for their own ambitions, gain and sense of moral superiority.
Posted by: KauaiBoy at April 11, 2007 09:25 AM
I am a Democrat. My Congressman Dennis Moore is a Democrat. When I asked him the hard question, "How is it you could put a date certain on the war in Iraq, and not know you were giving hope and comfort to terrorists?" In his Listening tour of the area ... His response was ... "Next Question". (details and photos are on my blog).
You really can't question his patriotism, he has none.
The only reaction I got from the question was his Flunky following me and my wife to the parking lot and hurling "F" bombs at us.
Posted by: jim b at April 11, 2007 09:28 AM
I'm glad that Congress is shaking things up. It's time for Bush and his administration to start coming up with new strategies and objectives for Iraq. The old ones are not working and haven't worked from the get-go. At this point, a stable Iraq isn't even going to bring stability to the region because of how poorly everything has been handled. Because he can't think of a new direction, Congress only has one option which is to withdraw. Personally I think it is Bush who is being stubborn and holding up the money.
Posted by: GinBlossom at April 11, 2007 09:48 AM
Thank you for having the courage to pose that question, Jim.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 09:50 AM
Congress isn't 'shaking things up' - they're holding things up.
Get with the program - we HAVE come up with new strategies for Iraq. You need to be better informed and stop spouting DNC talking points. A few months ago the Democrats were touting James Baker's recommendations. Now he says Bush has IMPLEMENTED HIS RECOMMENDATIONS. WHERE IS CONGRESS? TRYING THEIR DAMNEST TO STOP THE VERY THINGS THEY DEMANDED.
There are lots of options in Iraq. Doing what we have NEVER done in history - telling the enemy we have given up while keeping our troops in the line of fire as sitting ducks and depriving our commanders in the field of the power to make vital decisions as to the number and disposition of troops - is arrant foolishness. You don't run wars by committee or announce your intentions to the enemy.
Congress did NOT have the votes to withdraw. They BOUGHT votes with pork and you and every other Democrat cannot deny this.
Shameful. Just shameful.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 09:56 AM
Just like when the Dems "supported" us in 79 when the Ayatollah's boys took over the US Embassy. Yeah, right.
Posted by: Glenn M. Cassel,AMH1(AW), USN, RET at April 11, 2007 09:59 AM
Actually I'm getting ready to post on that very subject :p
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 10:00 AM
Why can't we fight this war the way we fought WWII? Fight until the other sides loses it's will to fight. We have superior firepower, just inferior will power.
We miss you Geroge Patton!
Posted by: Waltc at April 11, 2007 10:09 AM
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 04/11/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at April 11, 2007 10:43 AM
I went to the gathering of eagles also. It was my first demonstration. Do you think it could be done again like a march on the congress in support of funding the troops?
Posted by: bman at April 11, 2007 10:51 AM
I'm a military spouse and I'm very disheartened about the mess that CONGRESS not this PRESIDENT has made of the war. What CONGRESS wants to do is fight Iraq like Vietnam. If it wasn't for people like you Cassandra, I'd be even more discouraged than I am now.
There is something deeper going on than any of us want to admit (or think about). The American people have given up on fighting evil. They'd rather "demilitarize" the US and use all that juicy money for attractive pork like Universal Health Care, Social Security, Medicare, Public Education, and Amnesty for Illegals.
When will Republicans (and I'm not including the RINO's) regain the backbone they lost in 2006? When will Democrats put America's military before their own self-interests? God, have we learned nothing from the retreat and defeat policies of Korea and Vietnam?
Here are some burning questions I'd like to see answered by both stupid Americans and their treasonous Congressional/Senate reps: why is it that fellow Americans seek to constantly discriminate against military spouses such as myself when I seek employment? Why is it that Universal Health Care is such an ideal when already the military and its families have Tricare that offers substandard care at best? Why is it that our military is constantly underfunded (decrease in troop numbers after Gulf War I) when we should have been building all along? When will our military develop a backbone and not only demand support but also funding for its real-time needs instead of treating the military like some McDonald's new start-up franchise?!
Yes, I'm frustrated and I tell you that not only has Congress let me and mine down but the lilly-livered, candy-assed American people have as well. They're both just beggin' to get smacked by emerging super powers like Iran and China. If people don't think these two snakes in the grass are watching and laughing themselves silly then they're dead wrong.
Posted by: emjem24 at April 11, 2007 11:05 AM
The only way this is going to be taken seriously is if the pain is felt at home. 9/11 is a memory and, based on my everyday experiences with commuter, co-workersetc, they do not see the need to take this war as anything other than a political game. They just don't see it as something to be concerned about. The people that are concerned and taking it seriously are military members, families of military members and friends of military members. The Marines were right, "The Marines are at war, America is at the Mall."
Posted by: Richard Cook at April 11, 2007 11:26 AM
Brilliant editorial, Cassandra. I'm a grateful senior civilian and proud to be your countrywoman.
Posted by: BK Masterson at April 11, 2007 11:30 AM
Someone asked about Congress' approval rating. It's up to 40% after the first 100 days of the new Congress. It hovered around 25% in the weeks leading up the last election.
Posted by: GinBlossom at April 11, 2007 12:05 PM
All of these actions are consistent if you can get past the assumption that the Democrats want an acceptable result in Iraq that would be an overall plus for the United States.
They do not.
Posted by: Sam at April 11, 2007 12:10 PM
Yeah. And three weeks ago approval for the Democrat-controlled Congress was at 28%. Go figure.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 12:21 PM
Hmmmm, I wonder what caused it to jump 12% in this showdown between Congress and the President?
Posted by: GinBlossom at April 11, 2007 12:39 PM
The American people never really supported the military, aren't paying attention to the war or what General Petraeus or General Pace have said about the very real consequences of what Congress is doing, and don't give a shit that this will kill more of our troops so long as they can continue watching American Idol in peace.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 12:45 PM
Not only should we be rallying to support our troops for our own self-interest (i.e. nat'l security), but we owe it to the fallen soldiers to keep their sacrifices from being in vain.
Posted by: Mike at April 11, 2007 12:48 PM
I am both a Veteran and an employee of a major Defense contractor. A significant portion of our programs are funded by the DoD. My center specializes in developing new products for the military that keep our warfighters safer and more capable. Because of the political game-playing, we are facing drastic layoffs within the US. If you stop and look at just how many industries are involved directly and indirectly with the military, there are literally millions of US workers who are impacted by these political shenanigans.
Not only do these games threaten to abandon the US troops overseas without the ability to withdraw, but they threaten a major sector of the US economy as well. Don't get me wrong here, I'm a proud supporter of the Global War on Terror (yes, it is still just that, despite the Congressional decision to stop using that name) and I fear for the safety of my brothers and sisters in arms who are in harm's way. But the people in this country (and especially in its leadership) need to realize that their actions (and inactions) have consequences far beyond their myopic Inside-The-Beltway careers.
Posted by: Warren at April 11, 2007 12:57 PM
One of the lovely insults lefties like to throw around is..."You wouldn't support this war if you had a family member in harm's way"
I say to you...you wouldn't support this soulless, political game being played by the Democrats if you had a family member in harm's way.
Or one who is going to be in harm's way.
We have people in a combat zone who need this bill to be passed without the pork and without artificial timetables that just tell the terrorists the date they can start taking over again and that also tells the Iraqi people that we're going to abandon them.
The motivation behind passing the bill in the House and the Senate is disgusting.
Posted by: Carrie at April 11, 2007 01:07 PM
Ahem. Like that wonderful new bill Senator Biden just sponsored to give us more Humvees?
Yep. If you've ever driven around a Marine gun park and seen the outdated equipment our guys have to work with you'd know Warren isn't kidding. They are ALREADY "shifting funds around" trying to make ends meet, even in peacetime. But heck... let the peasants eat cake. Congress has spoken.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 01:08 PM
This Marine Dad questions both their patriotism and their character. Those who play games with my son's life and ability to defend theirs have decided that their political power is more dear than our country's safety and the progress of liberty. So on both counts - patriotism and character - the current congressional leadership isn't worthy of carrying my son's seabags.
There are probably over a million military families who have been directly impacted by this war in one way or another, and whom this Congress is betraying. We cannot be silent. Be vocal. Be angry. Band together and defend our sons, daughters, wives, and husbands in uniform.
Posted by: ProudMarineDad at April 11, 2007 01:17 PM
Maybe when they come home they can help us take our country back from these congressional morons..
Posted by: Viper1 at April 11, 2007 02:19 PM
Tal Afar is one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq these days. It looks foolish for you to cite it as an example of success. Tal Afar is, in fact, the very soul of the failure of the mission in Iraq.
Posted by: The Liberal Avenger at April 11, 2007 03:12 PM
From Baghdad, this Marine says "Thank You", for saying things I am not able to.
Posted by: Fred Jameson at April 11, 2007 03:25 PM
No, Tal Afar is a perfect example of what happens when al Qaeda in Iraq becomes desperate. If you bothered to read any of the analysis by terrorism experts, you'd learn something. But why would you do that when you've already made up your mind?
What has been going on in that region is that AQII has begun targeting the very people they once hoped to win over because they are going over to our side, in an increasingly desperate attempt to reignite sectarian violence. But the interesting thing is that it isn't working.
They AQII always plant more truck bombs, and if your only metric is 'how many dead bodies piled up?' then it's going to look bad. But that kind of violence is extremely hard to prevent. What you need to ask is this: is the sectarian violence worsening? Are Iraqis fighting Iraqis, or are they turning against the insurgency? When you begin to look at the metrics that measure these things, you get an entirely different picture.
But again, this requires two things: patience, and an open mind, notably two things someone with a moniker like "Liberal Avenger" isn't terribly likely to display in abundance.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 03:26 PM
Right back atya Fred :) We owe you more than we can ever hope to repay. God bless you.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 03:27 PM
Suricou Raven. I am in Baghdad; my three sons-in-law are here or headed here. We are committed to staying until this job is done, as long as it takes...because it's right, and to attempt to ensure that their sons (and my grandsons) don't have to deal with the aftermath. Working with the Iraqis, and among them, gives a perspective that you will never see in the media. Think about the last week's events as reported; I can tell you that they are almost without exception incorrect, flawed, and slanted. Not because of what I read somewhere else, but because of my personal experience.
Posted by: Fred Jameson at April 11, 2007 03:33 PM
The Democrats keep making me think of Grouch Marx in 'Horse Feathers' singing "Whatever it is, I'm against it!" Unfortunately, they are not even trying to be funny.
Posted by: Andy at April 11, 2007 03:36 PM
Keep on keeping on. You have this Marine wife and Marine mom's gratitude for serving.
My son will be deploying next Spring.
I think about the antics in Congress and I am truly ashamed of them and the arses that voted them in.
I think about families just like yours and I wonder how these antics make them feel.
I know how it makes me feel and my loved ones are home right now.
Thank you for what you do and for what your sons in law do too.
I do not want my future grandchildren to have to fight this war either. I do not want us to lose this war.
Two things hopelessly lost on the Arses...
Posted by: Carrie at April 11, 2007 03:41 PM
My son is a Blackhawk crew chief for the 101st Airborne. He went to Iraq and will be going to Afganistan in December. I think that the Dems are participating in pre-meditated murder of our military if they do not provide proper funding, if they communicate a withdrawal date and if they actively undermine our President and our foreign policy. I am a former Dem who is ashamed to have ever thought that Dems could adequately run our country. Throw all the bums out in 2008!
Posted by: Army Mom at April 11, 2007 05:01 PM
Thank you to all the military members, vets, and family members that have posted here. The more I watch, listen, and read lately, the more discouraged I get with where our country is heading. The attention span of most seems to be no more than a two year old with ADD!! Most people seem ro know more about Britany and Anna Nicole than they do about what's going on in Iraq and elsewhere in the GWOT. And that is sad beyond belief, because they're so blind that they can't even recognize that our military is taking the fight to the terrorists' home turf and doing everything they can possibly do to keep them there and not here so that everyone can be more conerned with the latest showbiz buzz than war. I seem to remember that at the start of this thing in 2001, our president said this would be a battle that lasted a long, long time because you don't change hearts and minds overnight. Heck, we already abandoned the Iraqis once after GWI so who can blame then for being a little slow to jump on the US bandwagon now, especially with congress talking about withdrawl timetables!!!! I also think Iraq is just the second stepping stone in the middle east and that we're going to have to face down Syria and Iran in the not to distant future, but I fear that many here don't have the stomach or the attention span for it. I worry that it will take another attack at home before they wake up, and even then, I don't think it will last. So many that didn't live through WWII don't know history. They don't recognize that there is evil in the world...or just won't admit it. And seem to think they can just "have dialogue" with the dicators and thugs that run some of these countries. Heck, it seems "Queen Pelosi" would rather meet with Assad in Syria than with Pres. Bush to get this troop funding issue resolved. And on the Iraq Study group...I heard Pelosi say today that the reason she was in Syria was to open a dialogue with Assad "as recommended in the Iraq Study Group report!!!!!!!" Are you kidding me??? She uses that report when it's convenient, and then totally ignores that part about not setting timetables. That's some kind of leadership we have there!! I'm so proud she is 3rd in line to the presidency!!!!
Anwyay, sorry for the long post, but I do want to say thank you again. I've been really discouraged lately and reading some of the posts here has helped to lift my spirits a bit to know that others seem to get it as well. And to any of our military folks that read this...THANK YOU!! It takes a special kind of person volunteer to make the sacrifices that you do for us and I hope with all my heart that our "leaders" will wake up and put the good of our nation above their next campaign.
Posted by: Jason at April 11, 2007 06:19 PM
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/04/re-marine-wife-speaks-military-families.html
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at April 11, 2007 06:37 PM
Oh, gee, Liberal Avenger trolled his way over here from Patterico's place. How nice.... (ugh)
Posted by: Sly2017 at April 11, 2007 06:58 PM
The only thing that is blocking the funding is the Presidents desire to have everything his way. He wants the money with no restrictions.. like giving a salesman a salary with no responsibility to perform.
He is the one that started this war based on lies and bull____ and he is the one that thinks he is a great leader and that Congress should just roll over and play dead and give him everything he wants.. like he has been so successful. Congress is a co equal branch of government and has a role to play in spite of Bush wish to do away with the Constitution.
You bloggers ought to be directing your anger toward the liar that send these men and women into a fight for WMDs that were never there...then for connections to terrorism that are shown not to exist while Bush holds hands with the Saudis and now some assinine plan to turn Iraq into a democracy.
What do you say to a mother or wife,.husband or child who has lost a loved one fighting to destroy WMDs that the UN and IAEC never found but nevertheless Bush invaded?
All 16 US intelligence agencies say the war in Iraq is making terrorism worse and no one seriously believes that the Sheites and Sunis will end 14 centuries of violence to establish a democracy.
Our army is stretched to the breaking point, we are in massive debt, our southern boarder is wide open, the world hates us but you still believe this Liar in Chief that dresses up like Roger Ramjet and plays the role of tough guy cowboy when he hasnt a clue.
He ought to be impeached and let me be the first to break the news to you. The war is lost and all these brave men and woman have died for no other reason than Bush arrogance and for a policy that mainly benefits Iran. What if Iraq decides to join with Iran against the US? Just being a democracy doesnt guarantee it will be favorable to us.
But if you still think Bush is anything other than a clever liar and master of deception and bull_--- then send your sons and daughters to die for his lies and while your at it since you think this war is so great why dont you accept a war tax instead of sticking the bill for your ignorance on future generations who will condemn you anyway.
Vietnam Era Vet who has seen all this before. and wonder how long before this post is taken down by those that cant handle the truth and would be perfectly happy if Bush declared himself dictator! And I DEFY ANYONE ON THIS BLOG to tell me that if Clinton had done exactly the same thing as Bushboy. you would still think the same!
Posted by: Charlie at April 11, 2007 07:22 PM
You people need to wake up from your brainwashing. This was not only an unnecessary war, this is not even a war. The war was supposedly over in Iraq when Bush stated, "Mission Accomplished". This is an occupation. I hear you say we need finish the job. What job? There is noway we will kill or subdue all the "terrorists". Terrorism is the poor man's way of fighting and will never end in my lifetime or in anyone's lifetime. If this administration had one iota on how to lead, on how to use the basic tools of diplomacy, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. Their idea of diplomacy is my way or the highway. That's not diplomacy people. War is hell, I know that, but an unnecessary war is even worse. At what point will you say enough is enough. We've followed and supported this loser in the White House for far too long? Wake up!
Posted by: TrampleLad at April 11, 2007 07:26 PM
We are waking up. We're realizing that in order to win overseas, we're going to have to clean up the Fifth Column here at home. Rope, Fifth Columnist, lamppost, some assembly required. Which means about 75% of the current "loyal opposition" is going to be dangling.
Posted by: SDN at April 11, 2007 07:36 PM
Win what overseas? World domination?
Posted by: TrampleLad at April 11, 2007 07:43 PM
Charlie, I hate to say this but you are making a fool of yourself. I don't censor people, even those who insist on making fools of themselves, unless they are abusive.
By all means, have at it :p
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 07:50 PM
Making it possible for the Iraqis to implement their democratic government, TL. Don't be dense.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 07:51 PM
Proud Marine Dad special for you... I question the patriotism of an administration that would deliberately out a CIA agent for revenge because her husband busted Bush on one of his Bullshit lies leading up to this war and I question the patriotism of people who say they love the troops and are so greatful to them yet never bother to insure they have been used only as a last resort when all other means were exhausted..which they were not!
I question how much you can love them when you accept the reasons for their fighting and dying with less thought or skepticism than you buy a used car. Talk is Cheap! If you support the troops or believe in Jesus you absolutely cannot do anything other than condemn Bush and Cheney and call for their resignations or impeachment.
Posted by: Charlie at April 11, 2007 07:52 PM
Hey larry and sloan ..maybe your parents know something that you dont.. Maybe they have lived though all these lies and crap before.. Ever think of that?? No your young and still think supporting your country is the same as suporting the chief chimp in charge. When do you plan to enlist?? ha ha!!
Posted by: Charlie at April 11, 2007 07:55 PM
Cassandra well I thank you for our courtesy. I am glad you are open minded about this but I have had my posts taken down before by those that cant handle the awful truth about this awful administration. What amazes me is how easily people believe the transparent lies of Bush co and how willing they are to send their own kids to fight for his war.
I sometimes think its a pyschological thing.. people with friends and relatives in this war HAVE to believe that their loved one are not fighting for a lie.
As a Christian and a vet I have difficult understanding those that think dissent is politically motivated and some how unpatriotic.
Have a good night Cassandra and thanks for the chance to post!
Posted by: C harlie at April 11, 2007 08:06 PM
Cassandra I think you should look at post by SDN advocating hanging of those that disagree. Hateful idiot..beginning with "We are waking up"..
Posted by: Charlie at April 11, 2007 08:09 PM
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 08:10 PM
Cassandra, not being dense at all. Just making my point. The reason for going over there has changed more times than you can shake a stick at. First it was the fear factor with the WMD's, "We know where they are," as Rumsfeld stated. Then when those lies were exposed it was for liberating the Iraqis. Well, they're liberated. Now it's for implementing a democratic government. What's next after that?When one reason falls through another is created. Lies, lies, and more lies and it sickens me that people keep falling for this administrations bullshit propaganda machine.
Posted by: TrampleLad at April 11, 2007 09:07 PM
Iraq was chosen because it was thought to be the easiest to take. Hell, they had sanctions imposed against them and no-fly zones for how many years? They were crippled. That's why they thought it would be so easy just to stroll in and "be greeted as liberators", but then the occupation set in and now our soldiers are sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war, which all involved hate.
Posted by: TrampleLad at April 11, 2007 09:16 PM
Ah. I see that in addition to all the other things you have not read, we can add the 2003 SOTU speech (you know, just before the invasion of Iraq?) wherein the President laid out not one but THREE reasons for going to war.
And yeah. So crippled that in 1993 they launched an assassination plot IN KUWAIT against our former President and gave save harbor to the architect of the first WTC bombing (a bombing, I might add, that Clinton refused to believe had been committed by terrorists). Some "containment".
And after that he continued to fund terrorists who attacked Americans and other innocent civilians.
And as for being 'greeted as liberators', you obviously haven't seen the video of the NYTimes' John Burns talking about how he was on the ground and saw us actually being greeted as liberators, contrary to what most of the media continue to tell the American public. If you'd take the blinders off and visit any military blogs, you'd see scores of photos and posts that bear this out.
But I'd hate to harsh your liberal mellow with actual facts from Iraq.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 11, 2007 09:27 PM
Let me see if I get this right. Bush is wrong to try to make every effort to recognize whom is our enemy. And Americans are stupid to fight for freedom. Congress has the authorization to declare, fund, and support a war, but the President has no reason to follow their recommendations, by constitutional law. Simply put, none of that matters, Global warming will destroy the earth if you believe the rhetoric. Iran going nuclear is no clear danger, nor is islamic uprising thoughout the world. If the majority of Americans believe in losing this war (and I do not mean Iraq), then we already lost America. It is really so simple, you have no control, you gave it all up, you choose to allow the strong to make you meek. You think you are upholding justice, as it is trampled beneath you indignity. Save America? Funny how the socialists, communists, racists, anti-war, and the terrorists all have the same agenda. We have about 20 really serious problems we could discuss, but Anna and Imus make the news. How clever they are to keep you amused, and so completely in line. Follow, never lead, it is too hot being responsible. Anyone that joined this effort wants to win, at least give them the chance, if not your support.
Posted by: Robert at April 11, 2007 11:08 PM
Before someone says Congress did not declare war, I conceed that, but they did authorize it. Read the facts, then call me names, that is all you have on your side. Without your support, the terrorists would already be wiped out. Believe it or not, you can support only one side.
Posted by: Robert at April 11, 2007 11:13 PM
When was the last time Congress actually made a Declaration of War? I mean using that nasty little word "war"? Vietnam wasn't even a "declared war", was it? And I think the men and women who served there would beg to differ. Congress is into euphemisms like "authorization for the use of military force". I wish they had the guts to call it what it really is: WAR. Maybe not against a nation, as has traditionally been the case, but against an ideology spread around the globe, one that would use our own freedoms to plot our demise.
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at April 12, 2007 01:45 AM
I think that illustrates why we have an Executive branch, to break the logjams that occur in Congress. Unfortunately instant communication through the mass media has shifted the balance of power away in an unhealthy direction, allowing the press and Congress to demagogue issues to death - they drown out the bully pulpit and hamstring what was intended to be an energizing force in the government. This is something I've wanted to write about more but haven't had time to.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 12, 2007 07:14 AM
Bush has not recognized our enemy. He attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 used false evidence, KNOWN TO BE FALSE AT THE TIME, to scare us into a war.. and the fact that Sadam tried to kill his daddy is not sufficient reason to start this war. Every single reason he has given has proven false but the sheep keep following his lead down the road to disaster. Bush is Osama Bin Ladins dream come true..removed an enemy of Iran, trapped the US in a war on a foreign soil where millions see us as an enemy of Islam confirming what Bin Ladin has preached, supporting a government that has no desire to achieve national unity..but none of this matters. Just keep repeating that this is all going to make us safer, this is bringing democracy to Iraq, no need to be concerned with the national debt, no need to impose a war tax, no need to secure our Southern boarder.. Just keep repeating empty words about freedom, and nasty commies here and the biased media ( except for Fox and Limbaugh or course) and praise Jesus...and dont forget to slam Clinton..
Some of the posters here are like passengers on the Titanic who refused to believe the ship was sinking even as the waters closed over their heads.
Why is not one member of the Bush family in Iraq and how many members of Congress have relatives in Iraq fighting this noble war? One that I know of.
I Hope members of the military beging speaking out during one of Bush photo ops and let everyone know how much you enjoy being held over for another three months while millions sit on the sidelines and do nothing except say how much they support you even as they refuse to pay a war tax or find excuses not to go themselves.
Posted by: charlie at April 12, 2007 07:38 AM
Actually, most of the Congressmen with sons in Iraq happen to be Republicans. We were just talking about that last week and I listed them in the comments section. It was rather an amusing exercise.
And Jim Webb's son? Most people don't know this, but he quit college to enlist in the Marines, because he couldn't wait to get into the fight.
Sure puts a different face on Daddy's histrionics with the combat boots, doesn't it? I've written about that several times. Come back when you're better informed. I could dance circles around you in my sleep.
And as for 'members of the military speaking out', my husband is active duty (27 years) and like everyone else I know in the Corps is proud to serve. So that dog won't hunt. Extended tours are no problem as long as we get the job done. I've done two unaccompanied tours already and a third is no big deal. Twelve or fifteen months makes no difference.
During WWII men were gone for four years. This is war, not a picnic in the park. Our military are professionals, not spoiled prima donnas and you shame the uniform you once wore with your whining.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 12, 2007 07:48 AM
charlie= cranial-rectal inversion....
Posted by: Carrie at April 12, 2007 08:36 AM
Perhaps, since it was brought up by the representative of the "Opposition Party," it is worthwhile to remember the reason WHY the military is so short-handed.
Some 15 years ago, it was decided that the US did not need a sizable standing army. After all, the Soviet threat had been defeated, and the world was relatively quiet. So the government, led by the Honorable Mister Clinton, called upon the Dept of Defense to begin "Right-Sizing." The force levels that were required were slowly decreased. It was reduced in terms of how many overseas conflicts we could actively engage in at any one time. The military was pressured to reduce their manpower, and also to get "creative" in how they counted their numbers. Reservists were, for the first time, counted as being able to be called up in a sustained "conflict." Then Guardsmen. Material procurement dropped significantly.
It was an era of smart weapons and laser precision. All wars were going to be "clean" after that. The government's advisors said that we would need fewer people because we could send a couple Tomahawk missiles into a country and not ever risk a single American life.
So now, when we need boots in the dust, we have loafers in an office. When we need overwhelming firepower, we have 9mm handguns and "soft-kill" weapons. And when we needed heavily-armored soldiers, all we had was fancier camouflage uniforms with beret hats.
History is a powerful thing. It helps us all if we study it and learn from it. Pelosi & Company would be wise to learn that you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and you don't bring a pen when your diplomatic counterpart brings a scimitar.
Posted by: Warren at April 12, 2007 11:13 AM
So, Charlie, it's all lies? Wow, do you need to pull it out, and take a look around. We've found tons and tons of materials in Iraq whose only purpose was/is to be used in wmds. I forget the author's name, but I recently read a book from our local library. It's called "disinformation" and it's refuting all the "lies" that have been told by our media about how all the intelligence was "wrong". Take a look at it.
Posted by: Chad at April 12, 2007 11:16 AM
I couldn't agree more with Cassandra but I'll be even more blunt than her. I like Cassandra who is like me, a military wife only too well-aware of whose side liberal democrats truly are on - the enemies'.
For Charlie and TrampleLed: You two are a bunch of BDS sufferers who get off on the hate you spew not only against the President but the military. For one, drafted, ignorant, disaffected Vietnam Vet like Charlie, there are 10 who will disagree and harangue him as the Fonda wannabe he is.
While it's useful for ole Charlie and Co to spout their useful, anti-American innuendo and rhetoric, it's so easy to spout leftist talking points than actually do thinking on your own.
While Charlie and Co laud Cassandra about how she is good to "let" them spout their hate America first, hate Bush 'cause he's not Clinton first tripe, please consider this question: who the hell gave you your righs to spout off and be the useful idiots/tools that you are? Who? Yes, that would be the American military who I'm sure you'd spit on in a heart beat than welcome with any kind of grace or class.
Let's be frank. Ole Charlie is yet another disaffected, perhaps even "fake" Vietnam Vet (they tend to inhabit cyber space) who has already chosen his side. Because he was drafted in the Vietnam War (which I'm sure he thought was pointless too), he never got to "choose" the fight. Listen up, Charlie Boy, you don't want to support the war (which is the same as not supporting the troops) that's your choice. If you don't like the government, feel free to give up your veteran's benefits. I'm sure the VA could stand to listen to one less person like yourself whining without his meds.
It's convenient when we're at war and it appears to be a catastrophic mistake (portrayed by the MSM and leftist crazies like Charlie and CO), all the nuts come out of the woodwork. What good ole Charlie fails to grasp in all this is that a)the military is an all volunteer force b)that volunteer force gives him the ability to whine and c)just because this "loser" fought in Vietnam (which may not be true) doesn't give him the right to judge current military operations based on his narrow-minded prism of Vietnam War experience (plus he seems to be a bitter old man and do we really need to listen to more of them, I mean they seem to propagate Congress right now).
I'm sure that Charlie and Co will show all of us how mature they are by calling us "sheep" or "Bushbots." Here I thought that liberal democrats didn't like labels. Silly me. What people like Charlie and TrampleLed represent is the continued unwillingness to accept not only the results of elections (I had to accept Clinton and man he's still being laughed at by the military for the mistakes he's made) but the fact that evil does exist and they easily contribute to it.
Believe me, Charlie...we all see you for what you are: a hater. You call yourself a vet, but no self-respecting veteran I've ever met (including my WW II veteran father-in-law) takes VA benefits while criticizing the government. That's just hypocritical but then that's also the American way.
Be honest with both yourself and with us on this blog. You have more in common with DU, DailyK, Huff n' Puff and other left-wing, Bush-hating, military-hating, and America-hating blogs. You're free to spout because of our loved ones and we're free to tell you off as the nasty, hate-filled person you are. It's really too bad. You give Vietnam Vets a bad name.
Posted by: emjem24 at April 12, 2007 12:28 PM
Hmm... there's that presumption again from one of our latest trolls: That the War on Terror is really "The War Only On Those Who Had Something To Do With 9/11 Anyone Else Gets Off Scot Free" or similar.
(Hint: no, I'm not impressed by the "had nothing to do with 9/11" claim.)
Posted by: Patrick Chester at April 12, 2007 02:30 PM
Lincoln had his "Copperheads" aka the "Peace Democrats", and so does Bush. In fact, there are a few good examples of the modern version right here on this board.
Being ignorant of the past and thus doomed to repeat it, today's Copperheads are as much on the wrong side of history as their 1860s brethren. The similarities in the posturing, posing, and public attacks from the president's political enemies then and now are startling for those who wish to do the research.
Bottom line - obstructionism, defeatism, and capitulation is no more an acceptable strategy in 2007 than it was in 1864.
Posted by: Grant at April 12, 2007 08:14 PM
emjem24, you post your strong support of the US military and its members, yet completely discount a former service member? That's illogical.
"This is war, not a picnic in the park."
I'm sorry- when did Congress issue the Declaration of War? Because that's my definition of a war, irregardless of the politics.
"As long as it takes to make us secure and accomplish our objectives."
Do you feel more secure now than you did 5 years ago?
"THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO CUT OFF FUNDING SO THEY LOADED THEIR BILL WITH PORK TO CHEAT THEIR WAY INTO UNDERCUTTING THE WAR."
Loaded their bill with pork? Well, that's quite unheard of within the halls of Congress.Oh, wait.. it was just last year!
""Vote to defund or slow bleed our forces in the field and we will contribute to and campaign ceaselessly for your next opponent."
Tell me how you feel about these facts:
February 14, 2005: Bush submits $82 billion supplemental bill
May 11, 2005: Bush signs the supplemental
Total time elapsed: 86 days
February 16, 2006: Bush submits $72 billion supplemental bill
June 15, 2006: Bush signs the supplemental
Total time elapsed: 119 days
Posted by: SunMaid at April 13, 2007 10:23 AM
One big difference in this war is that no country supports the enemy, except maybe Americans and their allies. The enemy wears no uniform, and there is no line to hold. The "charlie" types just repeat the same rhetoric over and over, never stopping to look at what the real war is, or what lessons we can learn. Our military is up against an almost impossible goal of protecting those that do not want protection, they actually believe we can just quit and it will be over. I find that stunningly simple, and very harmful to America.
Posted by: Robert at April 13, 2007 10:32 AM
For anyone who says that Congress must declare a war in order for us to be in a war, I have one question for you:
If Congress had not declared war on Japan and Germany, would we have not been in a war when Pearl Harbor was bombed?
The enemy has declared war on us, so whether we like it or not, we ARE in a war.
Posted by: Warren at April 13, 2007 11:52 AM
Bingo Warren, some do get it. Unfortunately way too few. The proposal that we are more or less secure is trite and useless, you only know you are not secure when someone is cutting your head off, then you know you should have fought to be secure, rather than appease. Unfortunately, it is too late to worry how you feel.
Posted by: Robert at April 13, 2007 12:15 PM
"If Congress had not declared war on Japan and Germany, would we have not been in a war when Pearl Harbor was bombed?"
No, we would not have. Thanks for the Scooby-Doo "what-if?" conjecture.
At that time, we had a clear and present danger as well as a clear-cut objective. Commentators enjoy comparing this war with WWII, especially citing the length of both and that Democrats and "the left" are weak in their desire to impose a timeline.
In WWII, our goals were to defeat Germany, Japan, and Italy.
What is our goal in Iraq?
"The proposal that we are more or less secure is trite and useless"
Ah, that's amusing. Are you proposing that deploying a majority of our forces into a country halfway across the globe, depleting our reserves, draining our manpower, lowering our response time, and demoralizing our troops by extending their tours is better than keeping them here, to protect us?
Please don't bother with the straw man arguments of "they're fighting the terrorists over there so they don't have to fight them here," because terrorist attacks worldwide (excluding both afghanistan and iraq) have only INCREASED since the war began.
Posted by: SunMaid at April 13, 2007 12:33 PM
SunMaid (or MoonBeam, or like... whatever) would like to keep our "manpower, our reserves" here at home to be used on.... what?
Ummm... nothing. Because we can never go to war anywhere. War is wrong/bad because it kills people and demoralizes the troops who keep volunteering to go back :p
Give me a freaking break.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 13, 2007 12:40 PM
Absolutely agree, Cassandra. These people are cowards - they love nothing so much that they would sacrifice their comfort, much less their lives, for it.
Give them three squares and digital cable and they'd live under Stalin with a smile.
Yet they call people with any morals or guts jarhead rednecks.
"Diplomacy," "sophistication" and "nuance" are modern buzzwords for "Please don't hurt me, I'll do whatever you say."
Posted by: societyis2blame at April 13, 2007 01:00 PM
Oh, and BTW, SunMaid, unlike hippies, killers tend to fight back when you start killing them. Until you kill enough of them (Wikipedia Japan, Germany 1941-1945).
If you ever find yourself in a fight, tell yourself "fighting back only creates more enemies." Getting your own ass kicked gives you a whole different perspective on that idea.
Posted by: societyis2blame at April 13, 2007 01:05 PM
"SunMaid (or MoonBeam, or like... whatever) would like to keep our "manpower, our reserves" here at home to be used on.... what?"
Nothing like Ad Hominem attacks to stengthen your arguments.
Used on what? How about protecting our country vice protecting Baghdad? How about enforcing our borders? How about locking down our ports and airways? How about taking care of a major US city that just suffered through a major natural disaster?
Please don't tell me that the war in Iraq is more important than the things mentioned above?
"unlike hippies, killers tend to fight back when you start killing them. Until you kill enough of them"
How do you feel about small children being used in war as soldiers? Still want to kill them until they stop fighting back?
BTW, reality check: we're not engaging hippies. KTHXBAI.
"If you ever find yourself in a fight, tell yourself "fighting back only creates more enemies."
Hmmm, no..... I won't. I am a total berserker. Now, please tell me how Iraq "got us into a fight?"
Posted by: SunMaid at April 13, 2007 02:16 PM
Have you read the Constitution lately? We are not supposed to use the military in our own country. That is not what they signed up for.
And that's hardly an "attack". It's extremely mild sarcasm of the type most adults can handle. Unless your real name happens to be SunMaid, I don't think you personally have been "attacked". If it is, I'm sorry.
Armies are created to enforce a nation's foreign policy and defend against attacks. Though you personally don't happen to agree with the current war, it fits under that rubric under the doctrine that nations which harbor terrorists or finance terrorism will be held as accountable as the terrorists themselves. And Iraq, long before 9/11, had been determined to a major state sponsor of terrorism. Abu Nidal, also the architect of the 1993 WTC attack (ring a bell, anyone?) fled there and was given safe haven. The guy even tried to kill our former President while supposedly "contained" by UN sanctions. Some containment - he managed to send terrorist thugs into Kuwait and launch an assassination attempt. But he was "no threat to America or Americans". He was "contained".
The guy was still paying off terrorists right up the time he was removed and bragging about it. But this doesn't bother people like you because people like my husband had to deploy to "contain" him while he shot at them with total impunity.
What a maroon.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 13, 2007 02:32 PM
"Armies are created to enforce a nation's foreign policy and defend against attacks."
Which is a higher priority for you- protecting against attacks or enforcing foreign policy?
"It's extremely mild sarcasm of the type most adults can handle."
Ahem, juvenile name-changing in a dismissive way isn't something that most adults do, either.
"nations which harbor terrorists or finance terrorism will be held as accountable as the terrorists themselves."
Iraq (as a nation) *officially* does not currently harbor terrorists or have the ability to finance terrorism- remember, Mission Accomplished? So, once again- what's our goal in Iraq?
Let me understand you correctly- we can unilaterally attack any country on this planet based upon evidence that they support terrorism?
"Abu Nidal, also the architect of the 1993 WTC attack (ring a bell, anyone?) fled there and was given safe haven."
The same Abu Nidal who was assasinated by an Iraqi secret police squad? Wow, that IS some safe haven.
"people like my husband had to deploy to "contain" him while he shot at them with total impunity."
Should I be apologetic that your husband has a higher moral standing than a known killer and terrorist, thereby preventing him from openly engaging in a to-the-death firefight? Oh? Are you actually complaining about this? Wow. Suck it up- remember, we're the heroes here and have to live up to a higher standard. If you want to get down and dirty with terrorists, by all means.......... get dirty.
Posted by: SunMaid at April 13, 2007 03:07 PM
I don't have the power to "change" your name. Now you are just being silly, but what else is new. Our goal in Iraq has been announced over and over. If you're not paying attention, hearing one more time isn't going to help any. Neither will explaining the obvious meaning of 'mission accomplished' in the context of a homecoming cruise on an aircraft carrier returning to port... not that this ought to require any great degree of mental energy for anyone blinded by BDS.
"Abu Nidal, also the architect of the 1993 WTC attack (ring a bell, anyone?) fled there and was given safe haven."
..was two different people, Abu Nidal and Ramzi Yusef, but again.. oh nevermind. Finally,
"We" are the heroes???? Who, exactly, is "we"? Yes, I am complaining about people like "you", who sit back and carp when you are not the ones having to deal with any of these problems yet have oh-so-many suggestions about how the people who *do* have to deal with them ought to go about it.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 13, 2007 03:22 PM
I'm not sure where in the Constitution is says we can't use our military here. If that was the case, the Civil War was WAY illegal :-| It was my understanding that the Posse Comitatus Act is what makes it illegal to use the U.S. military for "law enforcement" within the borders of the U.S.?
So, based on this, if SunMaid wants our military to have a new job ("How about protecting our country vice protecting Baghdad? How about enforcing our borders? How about locking down our ports and airways? How about taking care of a major US city that just suffered through a major natural disaster?"), SunMaid had better state petitioning Congress to repeal Posse Comitatus. National Guard can be used for law enforcement purposes, but not active duty military. So long as Congress leaves this act in force, saying you want the military to enforce our borders and lock down our ports and airways is a red herring. And our military DOES assist with natural disasters - that's not considered "law enforcement", so there's no prohibition against it.
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at April 13, 2007 08:55 PM
That is true only if the problem is defined as a law-enforcement problem. You need to repeal P.C. to have soldiers arresting immigrants and turning them over to the courts; but there are other ways of handling the problem besides making arrests. You could, for example, nationalize border land (say 100 yards on our side of it), and refuse to let anyone cross except at established checkpoints, which could be manned by DHS civilian officers.
The military's role would not then be a law enforcement activity; it would be a military activity. They require no special authorization to post guards on government property, and refuse passage to anyone lacking proper ID. They do exactly that at the Pentagon, for example.
Posted by: Grim at April 13, 2007 09:01 PM
Hey Emjen24 and the rest of your ilk.. you posted a whole rant denouncing me but not surprisingly you can not defend the Coward of Crawford and his stupid policies. There is not a single thing you have said except to attack me personally... but that is not surprising.. You and the likes of you resort to empty rhetoric attacking those that can plainly see that Dumbo the Emperor has no clothes because you cant and your cant bring yourself to admit your folly.
Try telling me that Bush did not list WMDs as the major cause of this needless war.. So where are they? Nowhere to be found. Now tell me they were whisked off to Syria or the North Pole..keep spinning excuses!
You believe this moron but ignore the findings of 16 separate intelligence agencies that say the war is making us LESS safe and is inflaming Islamic militants..Bush says that is naive.. like he is some kind of authority on anything beyond photo ops for the likes of you. Calling me names wont change that..
You have spend a half trillion dollars...and wasted thousands of lives ..for NOTHING. Actually you have not spent it..you stick our children with the bill because you wont put your money where your mouth is and pay for your folly.
This war is not doing a damn thing to defend us and if you had used that money to develop an alternative to oil we would all be a lot better off..
Bush has told one lie after another but for whatever reason you chose to believe him and you see your army being destroyed, the nation drowning in a sea of debt, incompetence and cronyism everywhere but as long as the President tells you this is all in the interest of freedom you think its wonderful. 68% of Iraqi people say attacks on US soldiers are justified.. so much for your idea of grateful Iraqis. The county may desire freedom and democracy but apparently not enought to put aside ethnic differences and stop killing each other.
I defy you to tell me that if any Democrat had done exactly the same thing as this moron has you would still follow him as you do. You support for this policy is no different than the Soviet people cheering the invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia liberting those people from 'creeping capitalism"
You first want us to honestly believe this is about WMDs, then about connections to terrorists, then about establishing a model democracy in Iraq at the point of a gun! How stupid do you think we are? Bush holds the hands of Saudi Princes that support and fund terrorism and you think that is ok!!!??
I am absolutely sure that if Bush attacked Sweden tomorrow saying he wanted to liberate them from their socialist government you would gladly support him and cheerfully send your kids to fight insisting that we were preserving our way of life and that only nasty liberals who were too propagandized were objecting.
This man has sent our troops into battle on a lie, fired generals who warned him about the folly, ignored his own fathers advice, sent them poorly prepared, failed to properly plan for the occupation, alienated our allies and is bankrupting our nation. Oh!! but he he is not a nasty democrat and somehow this will all make us safer. HA!
Bush told us he tried to avoid this war and if you believe that then you ought to read the Downing street memos or the Project for the New American Century which wanted war in 1998 and just needed a Pearl Harbor like incident to justify it. Cheney was a member of that group.. but you still prefer to keep your eyes closed and repeat some empty mantra that Bush is keeping us safe..and the Titanic will never sink... Repeating a thing over and over will not make it so..
This war is a disaster... and so is Bush.
Posted by: charlie at April 13, 2007 09:04 PM
One final thought... if you really supported the troops you would not send them into harms way without every effort to avoid that.. But the Support the Troops crowd is full of bullshit. Just watch what happens when one of the beloved troops critiizes Bushhead.. ask John Murtha or Max Cleland who lost both legs and one arm how they were treated by the Support the Troops crowd when they spoke up against Bush..for that matter even ask John McCain how they smeared him..or check with those in Walter Reed Hospital.. The troops are nothing but political cannon fodder for this national disgrace of a man George Bush.. Master of Disaster.. and national embarrassment..and the closest this country has ever come to becoming a fascist state...
Posted by: charlie at April 13, 2007 09:14 PM
The Civil War was a case where one half of our country seceded from the Union. So technically, I'm not sure that really qualifies as our military being used 'against our own citizens'. People who have seceded from the Union have forfeited the right to be considered American citizens.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 13, 2007 09:59 PM
Not so! The Union position was that secession was legally impossible, and therefore that Southerners were still American citizens. (This makes Reconstruction somewhat ironic -- having just fought and won a war over the point that the South could not leave the Union, the Union didn't like the Congressmen the South sent back to Washington. So, they threw the states out of the Union, instituted military governments, and forced them to petition for re-entry).
The Constitution, however, makes clear that the Federal government shall have the power to deal with insurrection, and may even repeal Habeus Corpus in times of rebellion. It may likewise do so in the case of invasions, which (to return to Miss Ladybug's point) is a term arguably applicable to illegal immigration on the scale we are now seeing.
Posted by: Grim at April 13, 2007 10:55 PM
Please don't bother with the straw man arguments of "they're fighting the terrorists over there so they don't have to fight them here," because terrorist attacks worldwide (excluding both afghanistan and iraq) have only INCREASED since the war began.
The nefarious often take a thought, put into their own context, and call it a debate. I do not recall typing this, but I accept it as truth. I really could not care less where you fight, if you fight, why you fight. The simple fact is, if you give in, you lose. Ask any child.
Posted by: Robert at April 13, 2007 11:28 PM
Wait, I forgot, children are all special, they must all be the same, ignorant and poor, so they can be controlled. Way to teach ignorance of life, it is so special the government cares, rather than family. Just brilliant.
Posted by: Robert at April 13, 2007 11:32 PM
Thanks for playing the "troops can't be used within the US" game, but you're woefully behind on your legal knowledge.
"On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill. Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws."
Did you know that this is the same Republican-controlled Congress which took over 119 days to fund the troops last year? So, where was the outrage then? Support the troops, indeed!
"The Civil War was a case where one half of our country seceded from the Union. So technically, I'm not sure that really qualifies as our military being used 'against our own citizens'."
That particular law wasn't passed until after the Civil War.
"The simple fact is, if you give in, you lose."
Please give us your definition of "give in."
"Abu Nidal, also the architect of the 1993 WTC attack (ring a bell, anyone?) fled there and was given safe haven."
..was two different people, Abu Nidal and Ramzi Yusef, but again.. oh nevermind."
You just might want to stop contradicting yourself, because you didn't quote me, you quoted yourself, then argued against what you stated previously.
""We" are the heroes???? Who, exactly, is "we"?"
That would be the UNITED States of America. Although this blog is dripping with partisanship, I still support you 100% in what you're doing and in you voicing your opinions, because that's what makes America great.Are you willing to support a fellow American, also? BTW, that's a yes or no question, so please phrase it so.
Posted by: SunMaid at April 14, 2007 04:09 AM
Oh, and about the post itself....
1.)"Military Families Angry Over Congressional Inaction" is a false title, because they are doing SOMETHING. Inaction = no action.You can't claim with a straight face that even debate is inaction. If so, please grab Webster's.
2.) McQ, a Vietnam vet himself...
From the article:
"To put it bluntly, the VFW backs the President and the Republicans position on this."
Nothing like partisanship to clear the way for funding the troops!
3.)"ultimately break the morale of our troops in the field and directly jeopardize their safety,"
I am sure the recent extension of duty did the same.
4.) "The President hammered the same points home today in Fairfax:"
Yeah, he really hammered those talking points home -
"It's now been 64 days since I have requested that Congress pass emergency funding for these troops. "
Psst....... 64 is less than 119 mmmkay?
5.) "substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground."
Hmmm, I seem to recall this being done during the Clinton years. Oh, it must have been something that Clinton did, right?
6.) "Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. "
So the troops know who has the final say, and who said NO to funding the troops.
7.) "And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying this money."
A new report from the Congressional Research Service makes clear that Bush’s deadline is completely fabricated.
8) "They screamed that they couldn't possibly support the war because there weren't enough boots on the ground."
I think you are mistaken- they claimed that we never had a sufficient force to begin with, in the early critical stages of the war,simply because the American people wouldn't care for a large force overseas.
9.)"But we have put a new strategy in place - the same one that was so successful in Tal Afar."
Is this the same Tal Afar that recently "hosted" the deadliest single terrorist strike since the war started? Heckuva job!
10.)"The Commandant of the Marine Corps is so hopeful about Anbar, he thinks it has now turned the corner."
You know, "the next 3-6 months are critical."
11.) "What was the one thing the ISG said we should NOT DO?"
Well, you know, terrorists can read the book as well as you or I-perhaps staying the course (meaning the ISG) isn't the best course of action?
12.) "She questions the fundamental seriousness of people who are constantly shifting the goalposts. And she wants an end to the game playing. There are lives at stake."
True, obviously. Because we have to find those WMDs! Or, was it topple a dictator? Or promote democracy? Or stabilize the region? Or take out a terrorist groundswell? Look, I am tired of playing games- tell me what the goal is here?
Posted by: SunMaid at April 14, 2007 04:41 AM
Sunmaid you said it beautifully. But unfortunately there are those that just refuse to see the obvious truth.
I once read a book by Russian dissident Alexander Solgenitzen ( spelling is all wrong I know) and he was saying how he tried to tell the Russian people how Mother Russia was crumbling but they just did not want to hear it. The same is true in the US. Think of it.. our jobs going overseas, our dependency on foreign oil, our social decay, our open boarders, our stretched military, and so much more. Not all of these problems can be put on Bush but the fact is that he has made our situation far worse and refuses to admit his mistakes perferring platitudes and photo ops instead of real action.
Imagine a HALF trillion dollars spent on an insane war whose purpose changes as each is proven false.
The evidence is clear Sunmaid and I only wish Cassanda, an obvioiusly concerned person, could see what the real problem is. No country or empire lasts forever and unfortunately we have squandered our legacy. I have no doubt that historians will look back to the Presidency of George Bush as one of the significant moments in our history when we needed a leader like Roosevelt or Lincoln but instead got Bush..the essence of style over substance..who ruled by causing divisions, undermined the Constitution, squandered our precious lives and money and neglected our festering problems and substituted photo ops and platitudes for real action and effective leadership. He is a disgrace to us all but an even bigger disgrace is the failure of so many Americans to recognize him for what he is.
Not much more I can say. If some folks dont get it by now they never will. I say Support the Troops Impeach Bush!
I just wish that good and concerned people like Cassandra could see the obvious truth about Bush but they are made fearful and their patriotism exploited by these ruthless men who seek politial domination and will stop at nothing to achieve it.
Oh and Robert I am glad you accept it as truth that terrorist attacks have risen worldwide.. you did say that in your post but it is really turning logic on its head to think that this is like WW2 2 with front lines and that if you defeat them there they wont come here. Terrorism is an IDEA not a military force of tanks and planes and it cannot be stopped by our invading a Muslim country for reasons proven false and thus treating the entire mideast to a nightly TV scenes of Muslim people tortured and dying because of our actions. And before you even bring it up, yes Sadam Hussein was evil but he was their evil and their problem now we have broken the pottery and we own it!
Posted by: Charlie at April 14, 2007 08:34 AM
The goal was all THREE of those things, and it was ALWAYS all three of those things. All you need to do is look up the President's speeches on the White House web site. I have cited them and excerpted the relevant passages many, many times.
The idea that WMDs were the only reason for going in is an antiwar liberal strawman that is totally without basic in fact so I feel absolutely no need to refute it. There were 3 reasons cited for going into Iraq from the get-go - I know, because initially both my husband and I were not inclined to support this war on the WMD argument alone.
So you can just stop trying to float that argument . It's a non-player. We were both paying very close attention at the time.
And FWIW, I wasn't persuaded to support this was by anything the President or Cheney said. I was persuaded by reading up on Hussein myself and by something George Schultz wrote. So again, your whole insulting 'brainwashing' argument really doesn't apply. You just can't handle the fact that someone doesn't agree with you. Get over it.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 14, 2007 08:41 AM
As for your other arguments, I'm not going into all of them but that is not what the Congressional Research Service found at all. They found exactly what the President said: the military can limp along until July only by moving money out of other accounts, not, as you say, that the deadline is bogus.
Those other accounts include maintenance on equipment and facilities, training and travel, and personnel accounts and the Sec. of the Army has already testified that two of the biggest results would be deferred maintenance on equipment and that people currently in theater would have their tours extended since those about to rotate over won't have funds for predeployment training:
In a letter sent this week to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, and Pete Geren, the acting Army secretary, said that without new money in April, the Army would ''be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families.''
While the Congressional Research Service document said the Army could keep money flowing to Iraq through midsummer, it acknowledged there would be costs associated with the financial juggling.
''In order to ensure that funding is available for the later months of the year, the Army may very well decide that it must slow down its non-war-related operations before money would run out by, for example, limiting facility maintenance and repairs, delaying equipment overhauls, restricting travel and meetings, and perhaps slowing down training,'' the analysis said.
Hardly jibes with what you just said, does it?
Posted by: Cassandra at April 14, 2007 08:58 AM
"The Pentagon and the White House have started sounding alarms and sketching worst-case scenarios if Congress does not pass the 2007 supplemental by April 15."
The CRS memo, on page 2 paragraph one, states that they have enough funding until the end of May by using the funds already there. So, the first claim of the Administration is FALSE.
As for getting IOU's and whatnot for the additional funds should Congress agree to disagree or should THE DECIDER decide not to fund the troops...
"Should the situation get dire, the secretary of defense could invoke the Civil War-era “Feed and Forage Act” to continue war operations. The act allows the military to obligate money for clothing, food, fuel, housing, transportation and medical supplies in excess of available appropriations for the year, without first getting congressional approval."
"In 2005, when the supplemental was delayed until May, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that he would have to invoke the Feed and Forage Act to keep the deployed troops operating because funds were running out at the beginning of May. The supplemental was signed May 5, 2005."
Hey, look........ Republican, conservative controlled Congress delaying the funding for the troops?
This whole "dire emergency" about funding for the troops is pure, unfiltered FUD and you're downing double-shots of the hateraide in complete, unwavering support of the administrations talking points.
Oh, when the Decider DOES veto the funding bill, please don't try to lay the blame on Congress, the Democrats, the Left, Liberals, or (the usual fav) Bill Clinton- because Bush has the final say.Whether or not he agrees with the provisions embodied within it, the bill has both Republican and Democrat projects tacked onto it, but most importantly GETS FUND TO THE TROOPS.
Posted by: SunMaid at April 14, 2007 01:23 PM
Hey Cassandra by what twisted logic do you figure that Bush vetoing money for the war means the Democrats are depriving the military of money for the war?
The Congress is voting for the money its just that for some strange reason (?!!!) they think that in a democratic society they ought to have some say in the matter. I know that in a fascist state that would not be the case and Bush is moving to correct that but until that happens he must share power.
As for your other reasons for the war, dont tell me that WMDs were not the one that 99% of the justifying statements were about. When Colin Powel spoke at the UN he didnt list as one of the reasons that Sadam tried to kill Bush's Daddy
Bush is a liar and that is easy to see. I will give you just one example if you can open your eyes and your mind. When talking about wiretaps there is a court that is supposed to oversee the President..a secret court that Conservatives were dead set against when it started...saying such powers were far beyond what a democratic society could tolerate. Bush went even further.
The President is supposed to submit requests to that court because there is supposed to be oversight in a democratic society. Bush told us " WHENEVER you are talking about wiretaps you are talking about court warrents because we are protecting the Constitution" That was a lie as he was wiretapping at the very moment without such warrents! Of course that did not stop the Liar in Chief as he then told a group that Democrats were objecting because "they did not want us to listen in on the terrorists!" So there is...Cassandra for all to see... a blatant lie followed by a horrible distortion. The radical right..as opposed to traditional freedom loving Conservatives, proceeds to spin and spin in defense of such anti Democratic actions.. The reason is simple.....deep down inside these people do not believe in democracy but follow the teachings of the father of the neo cons Leo Strauss who argued that people need to be lied to and manipulated essentially because they cant be trusted to make their own decisions. In other words the hell with democracy it doesnt work and lets embrace fascism. That is what they believe in. Manipulation and lies of a grand scale because they know better than us and they have no faith in the average man or woman.
Its like Huey Long once said when asked if the US will ever go fascist.. "yes" he said, " but they will just call it something else!" I was in a country where the fasicist took over, ironically because of Muslim bombing, and take it from me when the President demands the power to arrest anyone he wants, even a US citizen, and hold them indefinately with no access to the legal system and endorses torture as a means to "protect us" we are knocking at fascisms door. When the President disregards his sworn oath to uphold the law and makes secret signing statements undercutting Congress then we are further along the road to tyranny..maybe not today but surely in the future.
Bush is more like Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines where I was stationed when he took over, than he is like anything else in our nations history. Bush tramples on American values while hiding behind the flag and our troops as he promotes his failed agenda. He is just like petty dictators elsewhere in the world and you, unfortunately, are just like the cheering people of Iran who think the clown over there is some kind of national hero. Same coin just a different side. They cant see it and apparently neither can you.
Posted by: charlie at April 14, 2007 02:48 PM
The UN did not authorize us to go to war.
The UN is not part of the United States government, Charlie.
Both of your arguments are ridiculous and simply ignore any inconvenient facts you don't wish to face, like what Bush said to the American people (that's us, Charlie), or the rather obvious fact that if someone doesn't pay you on April 15th and you have already committed all the money you have (which is the case) it has to be taken away from other things in order to make up for the money you didn't get paid.
Any moron can see this.
Oh. Excuse me. Present company excepted.
I don't have time to waste arguing with the two of you. Pleasant as this has been, I have things to do.
Now do run along, won't you? You've been allowed to state your case at great length, but this is my living room and I really do not have time to go down the same old rabbit hole with every BDS sufferer who drops in.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 14, 2007 05:24 PM
When your world is spinning so fast to the right everything else seems to be going left. That's how you get "liberal media".
This is a fascinating blog. I would ask anyone the question, how is Congress "micro-managing" when it is working to set the war's most fundamental strategy. That is "macro-managing" and if anybody tells you different...like George and Carl and Dick and Rush and ... they are just feeding you distortions of our language and thus distortions of the truth.
Bottom line, we have no democracy when the electorate is mislead and misinformed by our leaders. Paraphrasing Will Rogers, 'I love my Country, it's just the government I object to.' America. Love it or change it (back).
Posted by: art at April 14, 2007 09:51 PM
It has never been the place of Congress to make wartime strategy Art. That's the piece of the puzzle you seem to be missing.
We have a Department of Defense to make strategy and a Commander in Chief to do these things. Not Congress. Go take a civics class, or read a history book.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 14, 2007 10:14 PM
Cassandra thank your husband for his service.. appreciate anyone who sacrifices for his or her country.. but make sure he realizes he is being used by the most ignorant arrogant moron ever to sit in the White House. The facts are there and most already realize that Look at the mess that is reported today regarding wounded vets care..compare that to the care and feeding Bush gives to his friends in Saudi Arabia..
Bush is man totally devoid of any morals or concept of what it means to be an American. Yes I question even his patriotism. He is a small man relying on lies and spin to fake being a great leader when in fact he is a disgusting buffoon playing "war time president" with his photo op landing on a carrier with a staged Mission Accomplished banner and then showing up in Baghdad to carve a fake turkey in front of all the cameras.
He is a dry drunk and a fascist at heart and you and those that support him are enabelers. But you just dont see that and never will. This is not a war on terrorism..this is terrorists dream come true and its a watershed event in the decline of the counry I love and for which my father spent most of his life 90% after being hit by a German fighter while on a raid on Augsburg Germany. He was proud of his service and is country and so was I but Bush has dragged our country into the mud and I will now keep quiet when I see that happening.
Enought from me.. either you see it or you dont Amen!
If you want to do me one final favor in return for my efforts to enlighten you, send my email address to sunmaid.. I would like to correspond with her.
Posted by: charlie at April 15, 2007 11:03 AM
correction to above "My father was 90% diabled after beign hit etc...
Posted by: charlie at April 15, 2007 11:06 AM
further correction "I will NOT keep quiet''
Yes I am angry and should have checked my post more carefully. My apologies
Posted by: charlie at April 15, 2007 11:07 AM
I agree with you. It is up to the Generals to make wartime strategy (I won't bring up the concept of "war czar").
However, here again is the misuse of the language with the intent to mislead. Congress is not proposing "wartime strategy", they are proposing the end of wartime in Iraq, something the Constitution I believe gives them sole authority to accomplish. Congress is not acting to deny our troops the money they need for force protection, they are acting to provide troops money for a phased withdrawal.
Finally, unless you want to change our form of government, don't tell us the "war" Congress is inappropriately trying to abandon is the "war on terror". That "war" will likely never have a definable end as it never had a Constitutionally definable start or purpose. Do we fight terrorists? Yes. But how and where? Not with our armed forces in Iraq, and certainly not abandoning reality, the Constitution or its specified checks and balances.
Posted by: Art at April 15, 2007 12:41 PM
It was all Bush's fault, the day Woodrow Wilson got America involved in WWI.
We as progressyves find in Bush a fascinating parallel to the Goracle.
Then Bush got us into WWII, the Korean Police action that resulted in one of the longest cease fires ever. And to top it all off, he was the shadow behind Johnson's pledge to not send one
red blooded American to Vietnam.
Then he persuaded Saddam to invade Kuwait. Of course, there was a Bush Interregnum during the Clinton Reign of Error and we got involved in the Balkans. That was the war to prevent ethnic cleansing.
A good war, because liberals supported it. After the Restoration of the Bush junta due to collusion among the Supremes, we were right back at perpetual war for peace. Within seconds of Bush taking back his throne, OBL acted. On Bush's orders of course. You can tell because he finished reading a children's story and then
just ambled to Air Force One.
And I know all this is true because I read it at BlameBush.
Posted by: conspiracy1 at April 15, 2007 01:39 PM
I don't know why but your comment reminded me of a line from Ghostbusters
"During the rectification of the Vuldronaii the Traveler came as a large, moving Torb. Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him—that of a giant Sloar. Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day, I can tell you."
Posted by: Carrie at April 15, 2007 01:49 PM
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Hermann Goering, Hitler's propaganda chief
It's not overstating the case to say that we could be at a make or break point for US democracy.. oh but how silly of me..such things only happen in other countries at other times because we are a different species of humanoid..
and conspiracyone, no offense intended, but you sound like a kid that just cant take a correction.
Posted by: charlie at April 15, 2007 02:44 PM
One of those "checks and balances" you speak of, Art, is the Presidential veto.
Several Democrats in Congress openly admitted that the Democrats did NOT HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS THIS BILL WITHOUT THE PORK THEY LOADED INTO IT.
IOW, THEY BOUGHT VOTES for withdrawal deadlines with earmarks, contradicting everything the Democrats have said they wanted the President to do over the past year. Hypocrisy, plain and simple. It contradicts the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group they lambasted the President for "not listening to". Now he has (according to James Baker) adopted a plan that implements most of his recommendations they are trying to sabotage it.
All the Presidential veto does is say, "Hey, if you honestly have the votes, override me". They thing is, they didn't have the votes to pass a straight bill in the first place and you know it. Charles Rangel, no friend of Bush's, openly admitted it. So did several other Democrats.
This was not "the will of the people". It was a dirty deal, pure and simple.
Posted by: Cassandra at April 15, 2007 03:12 PM
Charlie is a Sloar! I am burning!!!
Call the Ghostbusters or Liberal Larry!
Posted by: conspircay1 at April 15, 2007 04:31 PM
"Several Democrats in Congress openly admitted that the Democrats did NOT HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS THIS BILL WITHOUT THE PORK THEY LOADED INTO IT."
Bush’s own supplemental request to Congress contained millions in non-war related funds.
Contained in Bush’s request were funds for federal prisons, Kosovo debt relief, flood control on the Mississippi, nutrition programs in Africa, educational and cultural exchange activities around the world, disease control in South Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe, and salaries for U.S. marshals.
The request spread additional funding across seven major departments of the federal government. Such items were not only contained in the White House request for this year’s supplemental but have been part of nearly every supplemental the president has signed since the beginning of the Iraq war. One quarter of the money in last year’s $94 billion “Iraq” supplemental was directed at a variety of domestic programs.
The overwhelming majority of non-Iraq spending is for vital needs, including upgrading medical care for Iraq veterans, U.S. operations in Afghanistan, children’s health care, and emergency funds for agricultural disaster areas.
"THEY BOUGHT VOTES"
Could you point out the number of votes that they bought, please? KTHX.
"Hypocrisy, plain and simple."
THE PRESIDENT: Again, my opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, $87 billion in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor.
THE PRESIDENT: When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, “I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.”
AUDIENCE: Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!
THE PRESIDENT: Then he said he was “proud” of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a “complicated” matter. There’s nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.
Oh, BTW, Cassandra, congratulations on your new minority status!!!! Wooooo!!!
CBS News Poll. April 9-12, 2007
Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?
Should not: 38%
Posted by: SunMaid at April 16, 2007 09:26 AM
SunMaid is a Sloar too. Are you telling me that polling data is the 'will of the people?' I will tell you what the will of the people is: Writing and calling your representative and TELLING THEM.
Special interest groups, lobbyists who represent deep pocket corporations, etc are NOT the will of the people. But Diane Feinstein knows about that.
Of course, I would know nothing about that, as I am currently eyeballing the GA State legislation and have several letters in to my rep.
But I digress.
Posted by: conspiracy1 at April 16, 2007 11:39 AM
"Now do run along, won't you? You've been allowed to state your case at great length, but this is my living room and I really do not have time to go down the same old rabbit hole with every BDS sufferer who drops in."
Even when you ask politely, they won't leave....
*biting tongue on incredibly rude comment that would probably be over their heads*
Posted by: Sly2017 at April 16, 2007 12:47 PM
"Are you telling me that polling data is the 'will of the people?'"
No, and it wasn't my intention to do so. You're extrapolating from.........?
"Even when you ask politely, they won't leave...."
Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: SunMaid at April 16, 2007 01:13 PM
I hear lots of people looking backwards at why we went to war, why we shouldn't have gone to war, who called who a name, etc.
From those who are the "Opposition Party" to this blog, may I hear your plan of action for moving forward, without creating an enormous power vacuum in the dead center of the Middle East?
Please use specifics (no vague comments such as, "I'd open a dialogue and be nicer to people").
Posted by: Warren at April 16, 2007 03:02 PM
When it comes to our troops or this nation the demacratic CONgress drag their feet but when it comes to some rediclous pork project or giving themselves a pay raise they do it right now and we dont call in a CONgress for nothing
Posted by: spurwing plover at April 16, 2007 03:03 PM
I am extrapolating from the Clinton Reign of Error. Policy was driven by polls. And the fact that most liberals cite polls as a valid debating point. But it is all about feelings.
Yes, I am conspiracy1.
Posted by: Cricket at April 16, 2007 05:22 PM
If I were one of your kids I would punish myself.
Posted by: Cricket at April 16, 2007 05:24 PM
"Pot, meet kettle."
Posted by: SunMaid at April 16, 2007 01:13 PM
I've not been asked to leave. And if/when that day does come, I possess the common courtesy to just that. Can you say the same? Without lying, that is.......
Posted by: Sly2017 at April 16, 2007 05:26 PM
Well today a four star general, John Sheehan. says he not taking the job as war czar for these reasons..
It would have been a great honor to serve this nation again. But after thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan -- and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.
And Bush has acknowledged that Congress does have a role in decision making..
Warren the plan is this.. ever been in sales? and received a draw? without a deadline after which this draw will terminate, salesmen have no incentive to sell..they just live off the draw. That is why salesmen must have deadlines and the same is true of the Iraqi government which must realize we are leaving and that unless THEY stop their tribal warfare the entire nation will decent into a brutal carnage. Its really up to them but with no deadlines they have no incentive to change and so far they have done little to reign in the militias and establish a national government. They prefer instead to settle old tribal feuds. That is the reason we need to set a deadline. Understand?
We also need to hold accountable the man and administration that got us into this mess. Hope you also agree with that.
Posted by: charlie at April 16, 2007 05:44 PM
Cricket if you were one of my kids I would punish muyself too..
Posted by: charlie at April 16, 2007 05:46 PM
Good. We agree that being around each other is
enough to engender self discipline. Since you were asked to leave and I was here first, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Posted by: Cricket at April 16, 2007 06:23 PM
Now we can add Bush Medal of Freedom winner George Tenent to the latest one to pick on our beloved President. He said the President never really considered any options other than war and was neligent in checking out the facts..
Tenet is no hero. If he felt this way he should have said so at the time. HOWEVER, he has stated that the President never seriously discussed any other way of dealing with Sadam Hussein other than war and never really questioned the evidence. All the President’s claims otherwise are bullcrap..Is anyone surprised?
Bush spokespeople have denied this say that Tenent was not involve in all the discussions. Ya! that’s right! The head of the CIA was not involved in other discussions by the President! What the hell kind of discussions on these other methods could have taken place without ever having ONCE included Tenent. Perhaps the included Karl Rove,instead?
If you believe that the President really did have such discussions just not with Tenent, then I guess you also believe that Bush is a regular literary lion, as he says, that reads 90 books a year! (still cant put a coherent sentence together for some strange reason, which I am sure is somehow the fault of Bill Clinton!)
Understand one thing if you dont understand anything else. BUSH IS A DAMN LIAR.. he is willing to say anything to cover his sorry butt and he and his cronies took this nation to war based on either total incompetence or deliberate lies! WHAT THE HELL MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED?! Bush was sleeping at the switch when he received a message that OBL was “determined to strike in the US” and he did nothing. Three thousand killed in the worst terrorist attack in history. Oh but that is not his fault, now is it???!!
Now he has gotten us into a war in which tens of thousand have been killed and millions driven from their homes and the radical islamic funamentalists have gained a massive recruiting platform. Ya he really really cares about those poorly equiped troops, doesnt he? (just dont get injured or die folks cause then they dont want to know you!)
Bush is guilty of criminal actions and he is resisting any withdrawal plan because it reflects badly on him , never mind how many more a killed because of him.
Instead of nitpicking the likes of Pelosi we ought to begin immediate impeachment against this lying, ignorant, pompus , arrogant moron who has led our nation down the road to disaster and who is responsible for so much death and destruction that he is one of the worlds greatest killers! Bush and Cheney and Rove think the average American is just an object to be used and manipulated for political ends. The dont belong in Washington. They belong in jail and if you cant see this now than take off the damn glasses wake up before our nation winds up on he junk pile of history!
I am a Vietnam era vet and I am totally ashamed and disgusted with those that are dragging our nation into the dirt and those that enable them!
Posted by: charlie at April 28, 2007 09:10 AM