THe military is ailing --- and a Republican president does not appear up to the job of remedying it --- but then again --- a Republican president never was...since Lincoln...
Bush's draft dodge
The president doesn't support a draft, but our Army isn't built to fight a war such as Iraq without one.
By Lawrence J. Korb and Max A. Bergmann, LAWRENCE J. KORB is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. MAX A. BERGMANN is a research associate at the center.
May 26, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...la-news-comment
PERHAPS THE ONLY issue in which there is near-total bipartisan unity in Washington is opposition to the draft. Those who oppose continuing the war in Iraq object to the draft for obvious reasons. But supporters of the president's Iraq policy should not get off so easily.
By vetoing the initial Iraq war supplemental spending bill because it contained a timetable for withdrawal, President Bush clearly believes that a substantial number of U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. But how are we going to sustain operations in Iraq beyond 12 to 18 months? The president insists that setting a withdrawal timetable will tie the hands of commanders on the ground, but it is not the timetable that will tie their hands. It is the breaking of the U.S. Army.
Currently, our ground forces, specifically the Army, are stretched to their limits. Our soldiers and Marines have been fighting in Iraq for more than four years and in Afghanistan for almost six. To meet the demands of the president's surge, the Army is scrambling to find enough troops. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has already been forced to extend tours for soldiers serving in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. Soldiers are being sent back to Iraq for their second and third deployments; some have not even been home a year before being sent back. Many new recruits are being sent into intense combat in Baghdad without proper training. And in some cases, the Army has been so desperate that, as Mark Benjamin of Salon magazine first reported, it is even forcing injured soldiers back into combat before they have adequately recovered. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently remarked that "the ground combat capability of the U.S. armed forces is shot."
Meanwhile, the National Guard is in even worse shape. The head of the National Guard has said that 90% of the Army National Guard is poorly equipped, raising real questions about the Guard's ability to respond to disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the tornado that wiped out Greensburg, Kan. Yet more than 13,000 Guardsmen have been notified that they likely will be sent back to Iraq in 2008.
The Army was simply not built to fight protracted ground wars like the one in Iraq. After the draft was ended in 1973, the current all-volunteer system was created out of the mind-set of "no more Vietnams." The Army was intended to be a small, highly trained fighting force that would act in an initial-response capacity to repel and counter the Soviets or other aggressors.
In the event of a major conflict, the active-duty Army would be supported in the short and medium term by the National Guard and Reserves. But if a conflict were to grow in length or intensity, the Army would revert to the draft. The all-volunteer force was not put in place to be an alternative to conscription but was intended to be a bridge to it. This is why we require young men to register with the Selective Service System when they turn 18.
Although the president and his administration have insisted that operations in Iraq will be difficult and will take a long time, Bush has done nothing to seriously prepare for such a long-term commitment. Considering the current state of the Army, if the president wants to sustain a substantial number of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the next 18 months, he should call for reinstating the draft. That would be the responsible path.
Yet the president will never call for the draft. He knows the country would never support the level of sacrifice for this war that implementing a draft would demand. But this is one of the very reasons why the all-volunteer Army was designed the way it was — to prevent a commander in chief from fighting a war that lacks the support of the public.
Instead, the president will lean even more heavily on those who have already served. As a result, troops will be sent back for their third, fourth and fifth deployments; through "stop-loss" orders, soldiers will be prevented from leaving the service even though they have fulfilled their term of duty; deployments will be extended even longer; and the National Guard and Reserves will stay on duty in Iraq, further depleting our already thin domestic response capability.
In the end, the president will not only be unable to stabilize Iraq, he will have destroyed the finest army the world has known.
If the president is committed to fighting the war in Iraq over the long term, instead of simply running out the clock on his presidency, he should have the courage of his convictions and call for reinstating the draft. If not, the only responsible course is to set a timetable to bring the troops home.
Full Version: Bush' Continuing Betrayal of The Military And Its Troops
More of the same -- from the White House lip service in support of the military in 2003 which was found to be hollow as it recommended benefit cuts to the troops as they were being sent off to war in Iraq to a lack of armor and ammunition and a plan --- now to seeing a pay raise as unnecessaary...
Yeah --- Bush really supports the troops...
David Broder: Troops deserve pay that isn't merely adequate
5/30/2007 7:16:30 AM
http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/te...295917&z=12
WASHINGTON -- There's a struggle going on between the White House and Congress over pay for the armed forces.
The difference seems small. President Bush proposed a 3 percent, across-the-board increase for all ranks. The House has passed a 3.5 percent increase, and the Senate, also under Democratic control, seems inclined to go along with the higher figure.
In a May 16 memo outlining a series of objections to the House version of the defense authorization bill, the White House Office of Management and Budget termed the 3.5 percent increase "unnecessary." It said that, "when combined with the overall military benefit package, the president's proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families."
That came as news to Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, a freshman Democrat from New Hampshire. She told her colleagues in the House that when her husband was an Army officer during the Vietnam War, "I was a military spouse, and I lived on military pay. It is very difficult to do that. But we do that with honor and with gratitude for the chance to serve this country."
But Shea-Porter said she had to wonder at the values of a president who supports billions of dollars in tax cuts but balks at adequately raising the pay of the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. "How much does this really mean?'' she asked. Not that much for many in the ranks.
"For an E-4 (a corporal) it means $200 a year. $200 a year!"
The White House does not see it as Shea-Porter does. A spokesman for the president told me that military pay has increased 28 percent since 2000 -- more than in a comparable period during the Clinton presidency. Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who is spearheading the fight for the higher figure on his side of the Capitol, pointed out in an interview that Congress in 1999 established the principle that military pay should increase each year by one-half of one percent above the Employment Cost Index -- a measure of civilian pay standards. But the administration says that requirement expired two years ago, and since then, Kerry said, that standard has not been met; last year, the raise was only 2.2 percent, the lowest since 1994. The administration says the long-term pay goal has been met; Kerry insists a catch-up raise is still needed.
The fight, like so many others in Washington, has become partisan, with such high-profile Democrats as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, joining Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.
Their statements are plainly designed to carry the message that Democrats care more about the well-being of the troops than do their Republican rivals -- a counter to the GOP's traditional affinity for the military.
"Whatever we offered, the Democrats would go higher," the White House spokesman said. He also pointed to the cost of the additional half-percent increase -- $265 million next year, and $7.3 billion during the following five. Those are significant sums, but a tiny percentage of the military budget.
The other side of the story is best told in the words of an anonymous service member who recently sent the Military Times readers' forum the following message: "If there is someone in the administration that feels that we, the hard-working American soldiers, don't need additional pay raises, then maybe they should get from behind their desk and pick up a gun and vest and go stand guard at the entry control points in Iraq. And while they are out there, let's take away their six-figure income and give them $3.50 per day on top of anywhere from $15K-$45K per year.
"For all that we give to keep our country safe, the administration should at least want to help us eliminate any burden we may have financially. No, I'm not saying make us rich, and no one who enters the armed services expects to ever be rich. But we don't expect to have to take out loans just to put food on the table for our families either."
Whatever Congress finally decides to pay the men and women in uniform, we owe them that much -- and more.
David Broder is a columnist for the Washington Post. His e-mail address is davidbroder@washpost.com.
Yeah --- Bush really supports the troops...
David Broder: Troops deserve pay that isn't merely adequate
5/30/2007 7:16:30 AM
http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/te...295917&z=12
WASHINGTON -- There's a struggle going on between the White House and Congress over pay for the armed forces.
The difference seems small. President Bush proposed a 3 percent, across-the-board increase for all ranks. The House has passed a 3.5 percent increase, and the Senate, also under Democratic control, seems inclined to go along with the higher figure.
In a May 16 memo outlining a series of objections to the House version of the defense authorization bill, the White House Office of Management and Budget termed the 3.5 percent increase "unnecessary." It said that, "when combined with the overall military benefit package, the president's proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families."
That came as news to Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, a freshman Democrat from New Hampshire. She told her colleagues in the House that when her husband was an Army officer during the Vietnam War, "I was a military spouse, and I lived on military pay. It is very difficult to do that. But we do that with honor and with gratitude for the chance to serve this country."
But Shea-Porter said she had to wonder at the values of a president who supports billions of dollars in tax cuts but balks at adequately raising the pay of the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. "How much does this really mean?'' she asked. Not that much for many in the ranks.
"For an E-4 (a corporal) it means $200 a year. $200 a year!"
The White House does not see it as Shea-Porter does. A spokesman for the president told me that military pay has increased 28 percent since 2000 -- more than in a comparable period during the Clinton presidency. Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who is spearheading the fight for the higher figure on his side of the Capitol, pointed out in an interview that Congress in 1999 established the principle that military pay should increase each year by one-half of one percent above the Employment Cost Index -- a measure of civilian pay standards. But the administration says that requirement expired two years ago, and since then, Kerry said, that standard has not been met; last year, the raise was only 2.2 percent, the lowest since 1994. The administration says the long-term pay goal has been met; Kerry insists a catch-up raise is still needed.
The fight, like so many others in Washington, has become partisan, with such high-profile Democrats as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, joining Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.
Their statements are plainly designed to carry the message that Democrats care more about the well-being of the troops than do their Republican rivals -- a counter to the GOP's traditional affinity for the military.
"Whatever we offered, the Democrats would go higher," the White House spokesman said. He also pointed to the cost of the additional half-percent increase -- $265 million next year, and $7.3 billion during the following five. Those are significant sums, but a tiny percentage of the military budget.
The other side of the story is best told in the words of an anonymous service member who recently sent the Military Times readers' forum the following message: "If there is someone in the administration that feels that we, the hard-working American soldiers, don't need additional pay raises, then maybe they should get from behind their desk and pick up a gun and vest and go stand guard at the entry control points in Iraq. And while they are out there, let's take away their six-figure income and give them $3.50 per day on top of anywhere from $15K-$45K per year.
"For all that we give to keep our country safe, the administration should at least want to help us eliminate any burden we may have financially. No, I'm not saying make us rich, and no one who enters the armed services expects to ever be rich. But we don't expect to have to take out loans just to put food on the table for our families either."
Whatever Congress finally decides to pay the men and women in uniform, we owe them that much -- and more.
David Broder is a columnist for the Washington Post. His e-mail address is davidbroder@washpost.com.
Last Updated: 9:37 am | Sunday, May 27, 2007
Small towns feed military
Rural, suburban areas fertile for new recruits
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...EWS01/705270429
BY HOWARD WILKINSON | HWILKINSON@ENQUIRER.COM
Scan the rows of young men and women, decked out in cap and gown, at any high school graduation ceremony and imagine the stories yet to be written, the dreams yet to be fulfilled.
Each will have a different dream: Become a lawyer and run for Congress. Own a business.
Be a high school football coach. Get married, have children.
And among them, a handful will want something else: To be a soldier. An airman. A sailor. A Marine.
In a nation at war in Iraq and elsewhere, in a battle that some say will last for generations, this dream could have the highest price tag of all.
Acrobat PDFs:
• Military recruiting by the numbers
• Recruits per 10,000 population (map by counties)
• Recruits by high school
"I've had a pretty good life so far,'' said 18-year-old Kyle Phipps of Maineville, a new Kings High School grad who will leave next month for Fort Knox, where he will become a U.S. Army cavalry scout, a post that could mean that his next stop in life is Iraq.
"I owe something to this country,'' Phipps said, sitting in the family room of his home in a quiet subdivision.
His parents Tim and Debbie were at his side. "I want to repay that," he said.
The young men and women who, like Phipps, have chosen the military life are not, the numbers show, the poorest of the poor, the kids from the urban core, or the least educated among their peers, swept up off the streets by voracious recruiters and a U.S. military desperate to fill the ranks.
Here in Southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky, the recruits come, voluntarily, from the ring of middle-class suburbs, small towns and rural areas where, many believe, the benefits of military service outweigh the risks, and the urge to serve is embedded in young people by their fathers and grandfathers.
A database of Army recruiting data prepared by the National Priorities Project, a liberal research group, shows that:
In 2005 and 2006 a handful of area communities were at the top of the scale, with 17-50 recruits per 10,000 population. They included the Seven Mile area of Butler County, the Camp Dennison area of Clermont County, Oregonia and Waynesville in Warren County, and Foster, Ky.
A long list of communities fell in the second tier, with 10-16 recruits per 10,000 population, including Lebanon, Monroe, Middletown, Hamilton, Glendale, Springdale, Forest Park, Colerain and Delhi townships, and the tiny Clermont County towns of Moscow and Felicity.
Cincinnati's West Side is generally more fertile recruiting ground than its East Side, the numbers show.
"These young people are not victims; they are young warriors,'' said Tim Kane, a former Air Force officer who is director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for International Trade and Economics and author of a study of the demographic makeup of U.S. military recruits.
"They know what they are doing,'' Kane said. "They are willing to risk their lives in the middle of a very confusing war, one that doesn't have popular support. That says something about them."
'LOWERED THE BAR'
After nearly six years of war that, many say, have strained the military to the breaking point, recruitment has remained strong - even in the Army and the Marine Corps, which have borne the brunt of the combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said that some of those recruiting numbers - particularly for the Army - are inflated because of lower recruitment standards adopted since 9/11.
"The Army, in particular, has lowered the bar for recruits,'' said Korb, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. "The overall numbers look great, but look how they are doing it - they're taking more kids who haven't graduated from high school, more kids who didn't do well on the aptitude tests." And, Korb said, the Army is taking more older recruits - raising the maximum age from 35 to 40 in January 2005 and, again, to 42 in June 2005.
Citing Army statistics, he said that in 2006, 81 percent of Army recruits were high school graduates, compared to 94 percent before the Iraq war began.
And the number of "moral waivers" granted to recruits who have been convicted of crimes has risen by 65 percent since the war began. Here, in Southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky, where hundreds of recruiters from all service branches work the high schools on a daily basis, recruiting is strongest in the areas where Kane's 2006 national study said it would be - in the small towns, middle-class suburbs and rural areas that ring the city.
Kane said young people from those kinds of communities are motivated by personal gain and by patriotism.
"Many of them see this as a way to get money for college, to build better lives,'' said Kane. "But there is also something about these communities that instills in people the obligation to serve."
A SLIDE SHOW AND A TRIP
They are, of course, nudged along the way by recruiters.
Mark Coots and Jeremy DeLorenzo, two Air Force staff sergeants, share a cramped space in the Air Force recruiting office near Florence Mall. The first thing potential recruits see as they enter the storefront office is a wall of Polaroid photographs of dozens of young men and women who have signed on the dotted line. "I like talking to these young people because they are just like I was when I was their age,'' said DeLorenzo, a Madison, Ind. native. "They're trying to figure out what to do with their lives.''
DeLorenzo will show potential recruits a slide show on Air Force life; and give them a real-life example - he often loads them into his car and drives them to Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Dayton, where they can see the barracks, the mess hall and the flight lines for themselves.
And, both Coots and DeLorenzo always meet with the parents of high school prospects.
"We want the parents involved,'' Coots said. "They ask good questions. They ask about pensions and health care and career opportunities.''
And, in many cases, the parents are needed to sign the enlistment papers because their sons and daughters have not yet reached 18.
Veronika Dunbar's son, Joshua Souders, was one of those. He is a junior at Fairfield High School and needed a parent's signature to sign up for the Army. He will do his basic training this summer and enter the active service after his high school graduation next year.
Dunbar said the prospect of her son going to war "scares the hell out of me."
"But I understand it,'' Dunbar said. "We live in a country where we can do and say what we want because there are young men like Joshua. I can't tell you how proud I am of him."
Small towns feed military
Rural, suburban areas fertile for new recruits
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...EWS01/705270429
BY HOWARD WILKINSON | HWILKINSON@ENQUIRER.COM
Scan the rows of young men and women, decked out in cap and gown, at any high school graduation ceremony and imagine the stories yet to be written, the dreams yet to be fulfilled.
Each will have a different dream: Become a lawyer and run for Congress. Own a business.
Be a high school football coach. Get married, have children.
And among them, a handful will want something else: To be a soldier. An airman. A sailor. A Marine.
In a nation at war in Iraq and elsewhere, in a battle that some say will last for generations, this dream could have the highest price tag of all.
Acrobat PDFs:
• Military recruiting by the numbers
• Recruits per 10,000 population (map by counties)
• Recruits by high school
"I've had a pretty good life so far,'' said 18-year-old Kyle Phipps of Maineville, a new Kings High School grad who will leave next month for Fort Knox, where he will become a U.S. Army cavalry scout, a post that could mean that his next stop in life is Iraq.
"I owe something to this country,'' Phipps said, sitting in the family room of his home in a quiet subdivision.
His parents Tim and Debbie were at his side. "I want to repay that," he said.
The young men and women who, like Phipps, have chosen the military life are not, the numbers show, the poorest of the poor, the kids from the urban core, or the least educated among their peers, swept up off the streets by voracious recruiters and a U.S. military desperate to fill the ranks.
Here in Southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky, the recruits come, voluntarily, from the ring of middle-class suburbs, small towns and rural areas where, many believe, the benefits of military service outweigh the risks, and the urge to serve is embedded in young people by their fathers and grandfathers.
A database of Army recruiting data prepared by the National Priorities Project, a liberal research group, shows that:
In 2005 and 2006 a handful of area communities were at the top of the scale, with 17-50 recruits per 10,000 population. They included the Seven Mile area of Butler County, the Camp Dennison area of Clermont County, Oregonia and Waynesville in Warren County, and Foster, Ky.
A long list of communities fell in the second tier, with 10-16 recruits per 10,000 population, including Lebanon, Monroe, Middletown, Hamilton, Glendale, Springdale, Forest Park, Colerain and Delhi townships, and the tiny Clermont County towns of Moscow and Felicity.
Cincinnati's West Side is generally more fertile recruiting ground than its East Side, the numbers show.
"These young people are not victims; they are young warriors,'' said Tim Kane, a former Air Force officer who is director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for International Trade and Economics and author of a study of the demographic makeup of U.S. military recruits.
"They know what they are doing,'' Kane said. "They are willing to risk their lives in the middle of a very confusing war, one that doesn't have popular support. That says something about them."
'LOWERED THE BAR'
After nearly six years of war that, many say, have strained the military to the breaking point, recruitment has remained strong - even in the Army and the Marine Corps, which have borne the brunt of the combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said that some of those recruiting numbers - particularly for the Army - are inflated because of lower recruitment standards adopted since 9/11.
"The Army, in particular, has lowered the bar for recruits,'' said Korb, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. "The overall numbers look great, but look how they are doing it - they're taking more kids who haven't graduated from high school, more kids who didn't do well on the aptitude tests." And, Korb said, the Army is taking more older recruits - raising the maximum age from 35 to 40 in January 2005 and, again, to 42 in June 2005.
Citing Army statistics, he said that in 2006, 81 percent of Army recruits were high school graduates, compared to 94 percent before the Iraq war began.
And the number of "moral waivers" granted to recruits who have been convicted of crimes has risen by 65 percent since the war began. Here, in Southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky, where hundreds of recruiters from all service branches work the high schools on a daily basis, recruiting is strongest in the areas where Kane's 2006 national study said it would be - in the small towns, middle-class suburbs and rural areas that ring the city.
Kane said young people from those kinds of communities are motivated by personal gain and by patriotism.
"Many of them see this as a way to get money for college, to build better lives,'' said Kane. "But there is also something about these communities that instills in people the obligation to serve."
A SLIDE SHOW AND A TRIP
They are, of course, nudged along the way by recruiters.
Mark Coots and Jeremy DeLorenzo, two Air Force staff sergeants, share a cramped space in the Air Force recruiting office near Florence Mall. The first thing potential recruits see as they enter the storefront office is a wall of Polaroid photographs of dozens of young men and women who have signed on the dotted line. "I like talking to these young people because they are just like I was when I was their age,'' said DeLorenzo, a Madison, Ind. native. "They're trying to figure out what to do with their lives.''
DeLorenzo will show potential recruits a slide show on Air Force life; and give them a real-life example - he often loads them into his car and drives them to Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Dayton, where they can see the barracks, the mess hall and the flight lines for themselves.
And, both Coots and DeLorenzo always meet with the parents of high school prospects.
"We want the parents involved,'' Coots said. "They ask good questions. They ask about pensions and health care and career opportunities.''
And, in many cases, the parents are needed to sign the enlistment papers because their sons and daughters have not yet reached 18.
Veronika Dunbar's son, Joshua Souders, was one of those. He is a junior at Fairfield High School and needed a parent's signature to sign up for the Army. He will do his basic training this summer and enter the active service after his high school graduation next year.
Dunbar said the prospect of her son going to war "scares the hell out of me."
"But I understand it,'' Dunbar said. "We live in a country where we can do and say what we want because there are young men like Joshua. I can't tell you how proud I am of him."
Marine:
You strike me as someone who was a big Reagan fan...
What do you have to say about the fact that many Reagan advisors have jumped ship on Bush on military and foreign affairs issues --- are these individuals traiotrs to the cause --- or could it be that the Bush foreign policy and execution of a military strategy are both bankrupt of effective ideas -- substituting them instead with political goals -- which frankly makes these Reagan advisors sick to their stomach...
Caught Off Guard
The Link Between Our National Security and Our National Guard
By Lawrence J. Korb, Sean Duggan
May 21, 2007
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?Do..._page=index.cfm
Read the full report (PDF)
View the interactive map
Four years ago this month, President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. Today, the administration is completing its latest escalation by sending an additional 30,000 troops into what the National Intelligence Estimate of February 2007 describes as a civil war. However controversial this escalation may be, proponents and opponents of the war have reached a consensus on an equally important issue: nearly six years of war in Afghanistan and over four years in Iraq has pushed the total Army (Active, Guard, and Reserve) to the breaking point.
The crisis in our nation’s active armed forces has received a great deal of attention, but the corresponding crisis in the Guard and Reserves, the reserve component of our military, has gone largely unnoticed. Yet to maintain the occupation in Iraq and our commitment to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has had to rely increasingly on reserve forces. In 2005 alone, 14 of the Guard’s 38 brigades (including nine of the Army National Guard’s 16 Enhanced brigades) were deployed either to Iraq or Afghanistan; seven Guard brigades served in Iraq and another two served in Afghanistan—for a total of more than 35,000 combat troops. In 2005, 46 percent (or about 60,000) of the troops in Iraq were from the reserve component.1
The Department of Defense has recently announced plans to deploy four more Guard brigades—more than 13,000 troops—to Iraq within the next year, shortening their time between deployments to meet the demands of the administration.2 Lt. General Steven Blum, the chief of the National Guard, summarized the situation when he said the Guard is “in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but both have the same symptoms; I just have a higher fever.”3
The current predicament of the Army National Guard reflects the changing role of the force itself—shifting the reserve component’s dual-purpose balance between domestic commitments and overseas imperatives decisively toward the latter as the Pentagon struggles to maintain high levels of ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heavy reliance on the Army National Guard, its combat units (Enhanced Separate Brigades) in particular, for overseas operations represents a fundamental change from the Guard’s planned role as a strategic reserve force whose wartime function was to deploy in the later stages of a major conflict if needed.
Ground troop levels in both theaters of war could not be sustained at the current rate without the numbers and skills provided by the men and women of the Army National Guard. Continued heavy use of Guard forces, however, has raised concerns about whether it can successfully perform both its domestic and international missions effectively.
As the Guard increasingly assumes the role of the active Army’s operational reserve, what consequences will there be for domestic contingencies and homeland security? In a previous report, “Beyond the Call of Duty,” we discussed the use of active brigades since September 11. This report will do the same for the 16 Enhanced Brigades of the Army National Guard. After clarifying the scope of the overuse of the reserve component, we will analyze the consequences for national security and homeland defense and then outline recommendations to ensure that the Army’s strategy and future plans for the Guard enhance the security of the American people at home and abroad.
Read the full report (PDF)
View the interactive map
You strike me as someone who was a big Reagan fan...
What do you have to say about the fact that many Reagan advisors have jumped ship on Bush on military and foreign affairs issues --- are these individuals traiotrs to the cause --- or could it be that the Bush foreign policy and execution of a military strategy are both bankrupt of effective ideas -- substituting them instead with political goals -- which frankly makes these Reagan advisors sick to their stomach...
Caught Off Guard
The Link Between Our National Security and Our National Guard
By Lawrence J. Korb, Sean Duggan
May 21, 2007
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?Do..._page=index.cfm
Read the full report (PDF)
View the interactive map
Four years ago this month, President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. Today, the administration is completing its latest escalation by sending an additional 30,000 troops into what the National Intelligence Estimate of February 2007 describes as a civil war. However controversial this escalation may be, proponents and opponents of the war have reached a consensus on an equally important issue: nearly six years of war in Afghanistan and over four years in Iraq has pushed the total Army (Active, Guard, and Reserve) to the breaking point.
The crisis in our nation’s active armed forces has received a great deal of attention, but the corresponding crisis in the Guard and Reserves, the reserve component of our military, has gone largely unnoticed. Yet to maintain the occupation in Iraq and our commitment to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has had to rely increasingly on reserve forces. In 2005 alone, 14 of the Guard’s 38 brigades (including nine of the Army National Guard’s 16 Enhanced brigades) were deployed either to Iraq or Afghanistan; seven Guard brigades served in Iraq and another two served in Afghanistan—for a total of more than 35,000 combat troops. In 2005, 46 percent (or about 60,000) of the troops in Iraq were from the reserve component.1
The Department of Defense has recently announced plans to deploy four more Guard brigades—more than 13,000 troops—to Iraq within the next year, shortening their time between deployments to meet the demands of the administration.2 Lt. General Steven Blum, the chief of the National Guard, summarized the situation when he said the Guard is “in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but both have the same symptoms; I just have a higher fever.”3
The current predicament of the Army National Guard reflects the changing role of the force itself—shifting the reserve component’s dual-purpose balance between domestic commitments and overseas imperatives decisively toward the latter as the Pentagon struggles to maintain high levels of ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heavy reliance on the Army National Guard, its combat units (Enhanced Separate Brigades) in particular, for overseas operations represents a fundamental change from the Guard’s planned role as a strategic reserve force whose wartime function was to deploy in the later stages of a major conflict if needed.
Ground troop levels in both theaters of war could not be sustained at the current rate without the numbers and skills provided by the men and women of the Army National Guard. Continued heavy use of Guard forces, however, has raised concerns about whether it can successfully perform both its domestic and international missions effectively.
As the Guard increasingly assumes the role of the active Army’s operational reserve, what consequences will there be for domestic contingencies and homeland security? In a previous report, “Beyond the Call of Duty,” we discussed the use of active brigades since September 11. This report will do the same for the 16 Enhanced Brigades of the Army National Guard. After clarifying the scope of the overuse of the reserve component, we will analyze the consequences for national security and homeland defense and then outline recommendations to ensure that the Army’s strategy and future plans for the Guard enhance the security of the American people at home and abroad.
Read the full report (PDF)
View the interactive map
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ May 31 2007, 09:40 AM) 
Marine:
You strike me as someone who was a big Reagan fan...
You strike me as someone who was a big Reagan fan...
Well sort of. I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 just because I was afraid Reagan would start a thermo-nuclear war. But by 1984 and all the new equipment I was finally getting so I could do my job in the Marines Reagan had won me over, sort of.
Voted for Reagan in 1984 but it's the only time I've regreted a vote I cast. Little did I know that 1984 was going to be the last opportunity I would ever have to vote for and the last time the democratic party was going to run a real democrat for 16 years.
Marine:
Really.
I never supported Reagan in 1980 or 84 -- but came to really appreciate his foreign policy approach after he left. Of course, I
In 2000, I thought Gore was the best candidate for president that the Democrats had nominated since Kennedy in 1960.
Johnson I had high hopes for, but his domestic policies were really an extension of Kennedy's and the Vietnam War -- well we will likely disagree on it --- but I believe it was a Bright Shining Lie as Neil Sheehan disclosed in his chronicle of the life of John Paul Vann.
Really.
I never supported Reagan in 1980 or 84 -- but came to really appreciate his foreign policy approach after he left. Of course, I
In 2000, I thought Gore was the best candidate for president that the Democrats had nominated since Kennedy in 1960.
Johnson I had high hopes for, but his domestic policies were really an extension of Kennedy's and the Vietnam War -- well we will likely disagree on it --- but I believe it was a Bright Shining Lie as Neil Sheehan disclosed in his chronicle of the life of John Paul Vann.
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ May 31 2007, 11:23 AM)
Marine:
Really.
I never supported Reagan in 1980 or 84 -- but came to really appreciate his foreign policy approach after he left. Of course, I
In 2000, I thought Gore was the best candidate for president that the Democrats had nominated since Kennedy in 1960.
Johnson I had high hopes for, but his domestic policies were really an extension of Kennedy's and the Vietnam War -- well we will likely disagree on it --- but I believe it was a Bright Shining Lie as Neil Sheehan disclosed in his chronicle of the life of John Paul Vann.
Really.
I never supported Reagan in 1980 or 84 -- but came to really appreciate his foreign policy approach after he left. Of course, I
In 2000, I thought Gore was the best candidate for president that the Democrats had nominated since Kennedy in 1960.
Johnson I had high hopes for, but his domestic policies were really an extension of Kennedy's and the Vietnam War -- well we will likely disagree on it --- but I believe it was a Bright Shining Lie as Neil Sheehan disclosed in his chronicle of the life of John Paul Vann.
Well, if I had it to do over I'd a voted for Mondale. I have regretted not voting for him ever since I did it.
But I was just as happy that Reagan won.
We'll see which party supports the troops on this issue -- and which one says its too expensive ---
June 3, 2007
Editorial
What ‘Support Our Troops’ Entails
NEW YORK TIIMES
Whenever and however American troops withdraw from Iraq, a flood of wounded and psychologically damaged veterans will present the nation for decades to come with costly needs that already are overwhelming government services.
The backlog of disability claims stands at more than 405,000, with cases averaging 177 days to be processed — almost twice the backlog for civilians. Experts estimate that an additional 400,000 claims will be filed in the next two years.
At the same time, better battlefield care is sending veterans home with severe brain traumas that might have been fatal in earlier wars. Complex new treatments are required for these survivors and for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and symptoms of depression that veterans groups fear are driving up suicide rates.
Congress is taking the lead in prodding the Bush administration, which shamefully underestimated the cost of treating the wounded. The House is sensibly budgeting $6.6 billion more than last year for veterans health care and processing claims. A series of other measures approved by the House tackle only some of the problems but point in the right direction. The Senate should act quickly on these proposals, which include:
¶Creation of up to five new brain trauma research centers to create comprehensive treatment programs. This is a whole new field of intensive care prompted by the signature injury of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, inflicted in roadside bomb attacks.
¶Extending open-ended care for combat veterans to the first five years after their return, from the current two years. This is needed not only because of the backlog in claims and appeals but also because of the slower-evolving nature of postwar stress trauma and other illnesses.
¶A more intensive program to contact veterans who need to know about their rights.
Blue ribbon studies are under way, while the Department of Veterans Affairs scrambles to add claims processors and case managers to deal with such problems as outpatients who slip through the bureaucratic cracks. Far more is needed — especially speeding up the disastrously slow pace of judging benefit claims and appeals, and reforming anachronistic disability standards from World War II that focused on returning wounded veterans to factory and farm jobs, not the modern work world.
Clearly, the administration has failed in more than its battle strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. While talking a lot about supporting the troops and using them shamelessly in Congressional battles and election years, the administration has systematically shortchanged the wounded and maimed who make it back from harm’s way. The nation has a moral obligation to help them face a whole new challenge of survival.
June 3, 2007
Editorial
What ‘Support Our Troops’ Entails
NEW YORK TIIMES
Whenever and however American troops withdraw from Iraq, a flood of wounded and psychologically damaged veterans will present the nation for decades to come with costly needs that already are overwhelming government services.
The backlog of disability claims stands at more than 405,000, with cases averaging 177 days to be processed — almost twice the backlog for civilians. Experts estimate that an additional 400,000 claims will be filed in the next two years.
At the same time, better battlefield care is sending veterans home with severe brain traumas that might have been fatal in earlier wars. Complex new treatments are required for these survivors and for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and symptoms of depression that veterans groups fear are driving up suicide rates.
Congress is taking the lead in prodding the Bush administration, which shamefully underestimated the cost of treating the wounded. The House is sensibly budgeting $6.6 billion more than last year for veterans health care and processing claims. A series of other measures approved by the House tackle only some of the problems but point in the right direction. The Senate should act quickly on these proposals, which include:
¶Creation of up to five new brain trauma research centers to create comprehensive treatment programs. This is a whole new field of intensive care prompted by the signature injury of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, inflicted in roadside bomb attacks.
¶Extending open-ended care for combat veterans to the first five years after their return, from the current two years. This is needed not only because of the backlog in claims and appeals but also because of the slower-evolving nature of postwar stress trauma and other illnesses.
¶A more intensive program to contact veterans who need to know about their rights.
Blue ribbon studies are under way, while the Department of Veterans Affairs scrambles to add claims processors and case managers to deal with such problems as outpatients who slip through the bureaucratic cracks. Far more is needed — especially speeding up the disastrously slow pace of judging benefit claims and appeals, and reforming anachronistic disability standards from World War II that focused on returning wounded veterans to factory and farm jobs, not the modern work world.
Clearly, the administration has failed in more than its battle strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. While talking a lot about supporting the troops and using them shamelessly in Congressional battles and election years, the administration has systematically shortchanged the wounded and maimed who make it back from harm’s way. The nation has a moral obligation to help them face a whole new challenge of survival.
Thank you Taz
Bringing the War Home
by ASTRA TAYLOR & LAURA HANNA
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...s=hannah_taylor
Bringing the War Home
by ASTRA TAYLOR & LAURA HANNA
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...s=hannah_taylor
They'll be home... if not this holiday season -- next...
JOhn Kerry's comment is on my mind a lot lately --- how do you ask the last soldier to die for a mistake...or something like that...
JOhn Kerry's comment is on my mind a lot lately --- how do you ask the last soldier to die for a mistake...or something like that...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 3 2007, 01:19 PM)
They'll be home... if not this holiday season -- next...
JOhn Kerry's comment is on my mind a lot lately --- how do you ask the last soldier to die for a mistake...or something like that...
JOhn Kerry's comment is on my mind a lot lately --- how do you ask the last soldier to die for a mistake...or something like that...
Or the one before that... or the one before that... I think you get the idea...
QUOTE(wundermaus @ Jun 3 2007, 01:22 PM)
Or the one before that... or the one before that... I think you get the idea...
You must be reading my mind
COMMENTARY
Sarasohn: Only some of us are at war – the rest just watch it on TV
David Sarasohn, THE OREGONIAN
Click-2-Listen
Sunday, June 03, 2007
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/e...asohn_edit.html
For a bureaucratic policy, at least paragraph 11(a) of IAW Change 3, DOD Directive 5122.5 reads pretty clearly:
"Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member's prior written consent."
On the other hand, as David Carr of The New York Times recently pointed out, it has a considerable impact on what Americans see about the Iraq war.
Most soldiers, after all, don't prepare to go on missions by signing legal waivers permitting their filming if they get hit, and most journalists in Iraq — courageous as they have to be — wouldn't ask for them.
So the insulation between the small percentage of Americans directly involved in this war, and the huge majority that is the rest of us, gets a little thicker.
Nobody wants any American family to learn of a death by seeing it on the news — which didn't happen before this policy — and there are images, shatteringly common in Iraq, that nobody would ever put on a front page.
But this policy sounds like other rules for covering Iraq, like the one that forbids photographs of coffins coming home.
It's not that anyone's coffin is recognizable; it's just that a picture of 10 flag-draped coffins has a different impact than a simple news release saying that 10 more Americans died in Iraq on one day — Memorial Day.
It's the favorite refrain of the Bush administration that we're at war, but it's worth asking who "we" is. A tiny proportion of American families have a member who's served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the same people keep getting sent over and over again — now for third or even fourth tours of duty.
More literally, some of us are at war.
The rest of us are kept away from it, urged to support the troops but not to do anything in particular. Not to pay war taxes, not to buy war bonds, not to change anything about our lives, not even specifically to enlist to fight in it.
Watching sports over a weekend, Americans can see a lot of armed forces recruitment ads. But they're all about educational benefits and learning leadership skills; none of them mention that there's an actual war going on at the moment.
And, of course, nobody wants to mention that if there were a Vietnam-era draft in place, the history of the last five years would have been very different.
Of all the possible things that the people running this war could have learned from Vietnam — the problems of fighting in a country you don't understand, the difficulties of a land war in Asia, the need for a back-up plan because things will probably go wrong — the one that they absorbed most deeply is the need to control information about the war.
So there were limits on how the return of casualties could be covered, and limits on who could talk to reporters, and now limits on how photos and footage of U.S. casualties can be released.
The military has also declared limits on how soldiers are supposed to use YouTube.com.
There are other constrictions that have nothing to do with official policy.
At the worst moments of Vietnam, American reporters could walk the streets and talk to Vietnamese. In Iraq, that would be suicidal — not only for the reporter but also for the Iraqi talking to him. Last week, two Iraqi staff members of ABC News were murdered on their way home.
Between danger — more than 100 news media people have now died in Iraq — and expense, the number of reporters even trying to convey the reality of the war is dropping.
"This tiny remaining corps of reporters," says James Glantz, a Baghdad correspondent for the Times, "becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told."
Controlling the information limits our sense not only of the reality of the war, but of the cost paid by the Americans who fight it.
With the vast electronic resources of 2007, it's hard to control information as much as governments would like. But limiting it still raises the walls between the relatively few who fight this war — repeatedly — and the rest of us who see it on television.
Or who see parts of it on television.
Sarasohn: Only some of us are at war – the rest just watch it on TV
David Sarasohn, THE OREGONIAN
Click-2-Listen
Sunday, June 03, 2007
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/e...asohn_edit.html
For a bureaucratic policy, at least paragraph 11(a) of IAW Change 3, DOD Directive 5122.5 reads pretty clearly:
"Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member's prior written consent."
On the other hand, as David Carr of The New York Times recently pointed out, it has a considerable impact on what Americans see about the Iraq war.
Most soldiers, after all, don't prepare to go on missions by signing legal waivers permitting their filming if they get hit, and most journalists in Iraq — courageous as they have to be — wouldn't ask for them.
So the insulation between the small percentage of Americans directly involved in this war, and the huge majority that is the rest of us, gets a little thicker.
Nobody wants any American family to learn of a death by seeing it on the news — which didn't happen before this policy — and there are images, shatteringly common in Iraq, that nobody would ever put on a front page.
But this policy sounds like other rules for covering Iraq, like the one that forbids photographs of coffins coming home.
It's not that anyone's coffin is recognizable; it's just that a picture of 10 flag-draped coffins has a different impact than a simple news release saying that 10 more Americans died in Iraq on one day — Memorial Day.
It's the favorite refrain of the Bush administration that we're at war, but it's worth asking who "we" is. A tiny proportion of American families have a member who's served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the same people keep getting sent over and over again — now for third or even fourth tours of duty.
More literally, some of us are at war.
The rest of us are kept away from it, urged to support the troops but not to do anything in particular. Not to pay war taxes, not to buy war bonds, not to change anything about our lives, not even specifically to enlist to fight in it.
Watching sports over a weekend, Americans can see a lot of armed forces recruitment ads. But they're all about educational benefits and learning leadership skills; none of them mention that there's an actual war going on at the moment.
And, of course, nobody wants to mention that if there were a Vietnam-era draft in place, the history of the last five years would have been very different.
Of all the possible things that the people running this war could have learned from Vietnam — the problems of fighting in a country you don't understand, the difficulties of a land war in Asia, the need for a back-up plan because things will probably go wrong — the one that they absorbed most deeply is the need to control information about the war.
So there were limits on how the return of casualties could be covered, and limits on who could talk to reporters, and now limits on how photos and footage of U.S. casualties can be released.
The military has also declared limits on how soldiers are supposed to use YouTube.com.
There are other constrictions that have nothing to do with official policy.
At the worst moments of Vietnam, American reporters could walk the streets and talk to Vietnamese. In Iraq, that would be suicidal — not only for the reporter but also for the Iraqi talking to him. Last week, two Iraqi staff members of ABC News were murdered on their way home.
Between danger — more than 100 news media people have now died in Iraq — and expense, the number of reporters even trying to convey the reality of the war is dropping.
"This tiny remaining corps of reporters," says James Glantz, a Baghdad correspondent for the Times, "becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told."
Controlling the information limits our sense not only of the reality of the war, but of the cost paid by the Americans who fight it.
With the vast electronic resources of 2007, it's hard to control information as much as governments would like. But limiting it still raises the walls between the relatively few who fight this war — repeatedly — and the rest of us who see it on television.
Or who see parts of it on television.
Supporting the Troops:’ The President’s Latest Example
Robert Fantina
Robert Fantina is the author of "Desertion and the American Soldier, 1776-2006".
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=28630
Description of the book:
Military desertion, its reasons and consequences, are not commonly known in America. In most cases, the reasons soldiers desert are inherent in the military system itself. The author investigates those reasons, from the American Revolution to the Iraqi occupation, and describes the government's often-brutal response to deserters.
About the author:
Robert Fantina is a long-time activist for peace and social justice. He has worked with the Coalition for Peace Action in New Jersey. Originally involved in the Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign in 2004, he eventually worked as a district organizer through MoveOn.org on the Kerry campaign in Florida. Following the 2004 presidential election, he moved to Canada, where he now resides.
Robert Fantina
June 3, 2007
Whenever Congress, or anyone else for that matter, suggests ending the war in Iraq, President Bush puts on his ‘enraged’ mask and accuses them of not supporting the troops. How he and his cohorts have been able to successfully convince the American public, and cow the Democratic Congress, into believing that one supports the troops by having a war for them will never be explained; it is absolutely inexplicable.
Mr. Bush’s record of ‘supporting the troops’ can best be described as dismal. From starting an unnecessary war, to sending them into battle without the equipment necessary to protect themselves, to smiling over the roaches, rodents, filth and neglect that are so much a part of veterans' medical treatment, Mr. Bush has continually treated them as expendable military supplies. And now, in addition to signing legislation to continue the war, he is also keeping his perfect record of abuse intact by opposing a 3.5% pay raise for soldiers; the president feels that 3% is sufficient.
Opposition to the increase was voiced in the following statement issued by the White House: “When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families.”
Like his overused and much-abused mantra of ‘supporting the troops,’ Mr. Bush appears to have an odd interpretation of what constitutes ‘a good quality of life.’ In 2002, author Loretta Schwartz-Nobel published 'Growing up Empty,' a book about hunger in America. Among the people she interviewed for her book were military families. She described what she heard from families at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in San Diego: “For several days at the end of each paycheck period, they often have almost nothing to eat — sometimes absolutely nothing. That’s when they turn up desperate at food pantries, soup kitchens, bread lines, because they’ve literally run out.”
More recent evidence is not encouraging. An October 2004, news story related the following: “It has been reported that families of American soldiers working abroad, mostly in Iraq, have been left in poverty. According to American news channel CBS News, the majority of families are living below the poverty line, living off welfare benefits and charity.”
Ms. Schwartz-Nobel further stated that it is her observation that hunger among military families is a well-guarded secret. The myth, she suggests, that the military ‘takes care of its own’ is so deeply engrained within the American psyche that it is difficult for Americans to recognize the truth. Said she: “It’s even hard for me to believe and I see it every day.”
Todd Bowers, the director of government affairs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and himself an Iraq war veteran, clarified what the additional .5% pay raise would mean to service members. The 3% increase as approved by the generous Mr. Bush averages to approximately $29.00 a month. The additional .5% would bring that amount to a grand total of $35.00 a month.
The gap between military and civilian pay is approximately 3.9%; Congress has requested, and Mr. Bush has promised to veto, a bill that would reduce that gap to 1.4% within five years. As Mr. Bowers pointed out, service members have many of the same expenses as civilians: their families must be housed and fed, cars must be maintained, telephone bills must be paid, children must have the opportunity to attend college, etc. One could reasonably argue that they should also be compensated for the risk they undertake by serving in a war zone. The extra .5%, equating to an average of $6.00 a month, does not appear to be an extraordinary amount. As Mr. Bowers stated: “We’re talking about $6 for someone that is serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan that is away from their families. It’s not too much to ask.” One finds it difficult to disagree with his assessment.
It is important to compare Mr. Bush’s penny-pinching attitude toward U.S. soldiers, whom he has unnecessarily placed in constant, mortal danger, to his actions impacting the financial health of U.S civilians. During his first term, the president issued a broad new tax package which provided refund checks to many Americans. The fact that many of those happy beneficaries of Mr. Bush’s benevolence – what he described as simply the return of overpayments by the citizens from the government –opened their federal refund checks only to forward them to their state’s coffers, significantly depleted by the federal tax cut, was not noted among all the fanfare of the tax ‘cut.’
At the time Mr. Bush first proposed these tax ‘cuts,’ then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle summed up their results. Said he: “If you make over $300,000 a year, this tax cut means you get to buy a new Lexus. If you make $50,000 a year, you get to buy a muffler on your used car.”
While Mr. Bush opposes adding $6.00 a month to a military pay raise so soldiers can provide their families with food, he appears anxious to assure that the richest Americans can continue to afford that new Lexus.
Under Mr. Bush’s disastrous years as president, the rich have improved their financial situation as the middle class and the poor have suffered. That Mr. Bush acts to keep soldiers in the ‘poor’ cateogry only demonstrates once again his arrogance and hypocrisy.
Robert Fantina
Robert Fantina is the author of "Desertion and the American Soldier, 1776-2006".
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=28630
Description of the book:
Military desertion, its reasons and consequences, are not commonly known in America. In most cases, the reasons soldiers desert are inherent in the military system itself. The author investigates those reasons, from the American Revolution to the Iraqi occupation, and describes the government's often-brutal response to deserters.
About the author:
Robert Fantina is a long-time activist for peace and social justice. He has worked with the Coalition for Peace Action in New Jersey. Originally involved in the Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign in 2004, he eventually worked as a district organizer through MoveOn.org on the Kerry campaign in Florida. Following the 2004 presidential election, he moved to Canada, where he now resides.
Robert Fantina
June 3, 2007
Whenever Congress, or anyone else for that matter, suggests ending the war in Iraq, President Bush puts on his ‘enraged’ mask and accuses them of not supporting the troops. How he and his cohorts have been able to successfully convince the American public, and cow the Democratic Congress, into believing that one supports the troops by having a war for them will never be explained; it is absolutely inexplicable.
Mr. Bush’s record of ‘supporting the troops’ can best be described as dismal. From starting an unnecessary war, to sending them into battle without the equipment necessary to protect themselves, to smiling over the roaches, rodents, filth and neglect that are so much a part of veterans' medical treatment, Mr. Bush has continually treated them as expendable military supplies. And now, in addition to signing legislation to continue the war, he is also keeping his perfect record of abuse intact by opposing a 3.5% pay raise for soldiers; the president feels that 3% is sufficient.
Opposition to the increase was voiced in the following statement issued by the White House: “When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families.”
Like his overused and much-abused mantra of ‘supporting the troops,’ Mr. Bush appears to have an odd interpretation of what constitutes ‘a good quality of life.’ In 2002, author Loretta Schwartz-Nobel published 'Growing up Empty,' a book about hunger in America. Among the people she interviewed for her book were military families. She described what she heard from families at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in San Diego: “For several days at the end of each paycheck period, they often have almost nothing to eat — sometimes absolutely nothing. That’s when they turn up desperate at food pantries, soup kitchens, bread lines, because they’ve literally run out.”
More recent evidence is not encouraging. An October 2004, news story related the following: “It has been reported that families of American soldiers working abroad, mostly in Iraq, have been left in poverty. According to American news channel CBS News, the majority of families are living below the poverty line, living off welfare benefits and charity.”
Ms. Schwartz-Nobel further stated that it is her observation that hunger among military families is a well-guarded secret. The myth, she suggests, that the military ‘takes care of its own’ is so deeply engrained within the American psyche that it is difficult for Americans to recognize the truth. Said she: “It’s even hard for me to believe and I see it every day.”
Todd Bowers, the director of government affairs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and himself an Iraq war veteran, clarified what the additional .5% pay raise would mean to service members. The 3% increase as approved by the generous Mr. Bush averages to approximately $29.00 a month. The additional .5% would bring that amount to a grand total of $35.00 a month.
The gap between military and civilian pay is approximately 3.9%; Congress has requested, and Mr. Bush has promised to veto, a bill that would reduce that gap to 1.4% within five years. As Mr. Bowers pointed out, service members have many of the same expenses as civilians: their families must be housed and fed, cars must be maintained, telephone bills must be paid, children must have the opportunity to attend college, etc. One could reasonably argue that they should also be compensated for the risk they undertake by serving in a war zone. The extra .5%, equating to an average of $6.00 a month, does not appear to be an extraordinary amount. As Mr. Bowers stated: “We’re talking about $6 for someone that is serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan that is away from their families. It’s not too much to ask.” One finds it difficult to disagree with his assessment.
It is important to compare Mr. Bush’s penny-pinching attitude toward U.S. soldiers, whom he has unnecessarily placed in constant, mortal danger, to his actions impacting the financial health of U.S civilians. During his first term, the president issued a broad new tax package which provided refund checks to many Americans. The fact that many of those happy beneficaries of Mr. Bush’s benevolence – what he described as simply the return of overpayments by the citizens from the government –opened their federal refund checks only to forward them to their state’s coffers, significantly depleted by the federal tax cut, was not noted among all the fanfare of the tax ‘cut.’
At the time Mr. Bush first proposed these tax ‘cuts,’ then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle summed up their results. Said he: “If you make over $300,000 a year, this tax cut means you get to buy a new Lexus. If you make $50,000 a year, you get to buy a muffler on your used car.”
While Mr. Bush opposes adding $6.00 a month to a military pay raise so soldiers can provide their families with food, he appears anxious to assure that the richest Americans can continue to afford that new Lexus.
Under Mr. Bush’s disastrous years as president, the rich have improved their financial situation as the middle class and the poor have suffered. That Mr. Bush acts to keep soldiers in the ‘poor’ cateogry only demonstrates once again his arrogance and hypocrisy.
Posted on Sun, May. 27, 2007email thisprint this
NOT SUPPORTING our TROOPS
VA essentially creating red tape to deny care to veterans
By Julie Creek
Cathie Rowand/The Journal Gazette
Sean Johnson broke three vertebrae in his back when he fell off a truck in Tikrit, Iraq. He ended up having surgery on his own after the military effectively refused to treat him. It took mounds of red tape and calls to Sen. Evan Bayh’s office to resolve the medical bills and disability status.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazett...al/17288473.htm
One Sunday in January 2005, Spc. Sean Johnson fell off a truck. He had been working on a construction project near the Iraqi city of Tikrit with his unit of the Ohio National Guard when he slipped and fell hard, landing on his back.
Because it was Sunday and the troop clinic wasn’t open for non-emergency injuries, Johnson waited until Monday to see a doctor for the intense pain in his back. The doctor prescribed ibuprofen and sent him back to duty.
Over the next few days, the pain got worse, and Johnson returned again and again to the clinic, where he was given more ibuprofen and sent back to duty. He said the other members of his unit accused him of malingering. Still in severe pain a month later, Johnson returned home on regular leave and saw his family doctor. The doctor ordered an MRI, which revealed three fractured vertebrae in Johnson’s lower back. Johnson called his Guard unit and told the commander that a specialist recommended immediate surgery to stabilize his spine.
That single phone call would plunge Johnson into a bureaucratic swamp created by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It would take him nearly two years to reach the other side.
Roughly 1.4 million men and women have served in the armed forces in Iraq or Afghanistan since the fall of 2001, some career military and some who were inspired to join after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. About 4,000 have died, and thousands more have been injured, many – like Johnson – in non-combat situations.
This isn’t a story about bureaucratic bumbling – or even about overwhelmed caseworkers trying to fight their way through mounds of files. Such stories are common. This also isn’t a story about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong.
As Americans prepare to observe Memorial Day, this is a story about how our government sometimes treats soldiers who come back alive. The government doesn’t let them get well.
Instead of doing whatever they have to do to make sure that soldiers and vets receive the care and benefits they were promised, the federal government is wielding red tape to effectively deny care and compensation and hold down costs. At the same time:
•The VA is cutting back the ranks of disability claims adjusters and giving performance bonuses to top VA officials.
•A backlog of disability cases and appeals wait for decisions – 1,800 in northern Indiana alone and an estimated 800,000 nationwide.
•Soldiers and others in the military who appeal disability decisions wait years for their cases to be heard.
All of this is apart from the scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Washington Post revealed in February that wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed often become mired in red tape as they seek further treatment or decisions about whether they will stay in the military. The Post also discovered poor living conditions – including vermin, mold, filth and leaking roofs – in an Army building that houses recovering soldiers.
“They’re not incompetent,” said Paul Sullivan, a former VA official who resigned two years ago in a policy dispute and now heads Veterans for Common Sense. “This is intentional. This is the policy.”
And the swamp that tried to swallow Sean Johnson is about to get far larger.
Troop shortages have forced the military to redeploy units to war zones over and over, keeping most on active duty. Veterans activist groups are warning that a tidal wave of veterans with complex brain injuries and mental health problems will descend on the VA when the Iraq war finally ends and vets apply for health and disability benefits they were promised. They fear that the VA health system doesn’t have the resources available to be ready.
How can a government ask a group of its citizens to bleed and die on behalf of their country and then nickel and dime the injured survivors to death when they come back? The government not only doesn’t support the troops, it doesn’t even respect them.
Political analysts are fond of pointing out parallels between the war in Vietnam and the Iraq war, but the comparisons are strictly political. The Vietnam War was fought primarily by young male draftees, many of them poor and black. This war is being fought by men and women with spouses and children. National Guard members – whose average age is 33 – leave families and careers to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They’re fighting a different war with different weapons. Improvised explosive devices – the weapon of choice among insurgents in Iraq – often cause devastating brain injuries.
Unless they volunteered, most soldiers in Vietnam did a single tour of duty. In a war fought using volunteers, many soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have been deployed to war zones three or four times during their tenure, and for many others, their tours were extended. The multiple tours have led psychiatric experts to fear that as many as one-third of returning vets will develop post-traumatic stress disorder sometime after they return.
When Sean Johnson picked up the phone and told his commander he needed back surgery, he was ordered to report to the Army’s medical holding company in Fort Knox, Ky. He obeyed, taking his medical records with him. He never saw a doctor, but a medical assistant who evaluated him decided he didn’t need surgery after all and recommended epidural injections instead.
Three months and two injections later, Johnson demanded to be allowed to seek civilian health care. It was granted, and he finally had surgery in Fort Wayne to implant steel rods and screws in his back and fuse his vertebrae in December 2005, nearly a year after he was injured.
Then the bill arrived.
Even though he was injured in a war zone, the Army demanded that Johnson pay $6,000 of the $140,000 medical bill. Still recovering from surgery and the father of an infant son, Johnson didn’t have $6,000. After three months of haggling and a call from Sen. Evan Bayh’s office, the military eventually agreed to forget the bill.
Then Johnson set out to apply for disability payments, but when he applied, his unit said his records didn’t exist, even after nine requests from a county veterans’ service officer. Frustrated, Johnson contacted Bayh’s office again.
Lots of frustrated vets have contacted Bayh’s office lately. In the past year, VA cases have surpassed even the Social Security office as the government agency Bayh’s constituents complain most about, said Eric Kleiman, communications director in Bayh’s Washington office. Kleiman said the office currently has dozens of open cases involving veterans’ health benefits.
Complaints and news stories about the failure of the Department of Defense and the VA to care properly for injured vets prompted Bayh and other senators to offer several bills designed to improve conditions at military hospitals and reduce red tape in delivery of services to vets.
Much of the frustration arises because vets must wait six to eight months after they file disability requests for caseworkers to return with a decision, said George Jarboe, who runs the Allen County Veterans Service office. And unless they’re eligible for some other reason, most vets can’t use the VA health care system until their case is decided, he added.
If a disability claim is denied, said John Hickey, director of rehabilitation for the American Legion in Indiana, it can take three to four years for an appeal to be heard.
“I think the VA is swamped with claims,” Hickey said. “What they really need is more help.”
Hickey said the most telling indication that the VA’s disability staff is overwhelmed is the large number of appeals that his organization wins on behalf of vets.
“We win a lot of claims through the appeals process,” he said. “That tells you that something isn’t being done up-front. More than half of the claims we file are either remanded for more information or granted.”
Claims backlogs aren’t a natural consequence of war, Paul Sullivan argues. The VA created the backlog to discourage vets from filing. He cites a decision to cut the number of claims caseworkers as proof. And he added that it’s appalling that top VA officials would give themselves bonuses during wartime with benefits backlogs running at six months or more.
Moreover, vets claiming disability must start by completing a 23-page claim form and obtain their own military discharge records and medical records from the Department of Defense.
“We’re five years into war and the VA and DOD aren’t sharing records,” Sullivan said. “They’ve just started to do it for the most seriously wounded soldiers.”
Congress recently shot down one of the VA’s plans to limit the number of veterans diagnosed with PTSD – and forbade the VA from reviewing 72,000 PTSD claims that had been previously approved. The VA bowed to public pressure and suspended a requirement that vets obtain a second signature for a PTSD claim.
Intervention from Bayh’s office got instant results. After months of claiming that his records didn’t exist, Johnson received a letter from his unit that said the records had been found in a box on the floor.
Last year, the VA finally granted Johnson a 40 percent disability, which entitles him to payments each month. Though his back injury left him unable to return to Iraq, Johnson is still under contract with the Guard. He is resisting reassignment to his original unit, arguing that the members of his unit harassed him after he was hurt.
Now 32, he lives near Avilla, shares custody of his 2-year-old son with his former wife, and has returned to work building houses for Redmond Homes. He still has back pain but says it’s bearable.
“I really thought this would be something that would make me proud,” he said of his time in the service. “It’s something I regret now. I even won two awards for the construction projects I worked on.”
In 1924, a grateful Congress voted a bonus to World War I veterans but decided not to pay it until 1945. In the meantime, the country slipped into the Great Depression, and in May 1932, some 15,000 destitute veterans descended on Washington, many with families in tow, set up camp near the Capitol and demanded their bonuses.
A month later, Congress voted down a bill that would have paid them. The attorney general ordered the “Bonus Army” to disperse, and when they refused, President Hoover ordered the army to clear them out. Led by Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur in a detachment that included Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Maj. George Patton, the men, women and children were driven out of the city. Their camp was burned, two babies died, and hospitals were swamped with casualties.
Seventy-five years later, America’s long, tormented history with its military veterans marches on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Creek is an editorial writer for The Journal Gazette. She joined the newspaper in 1990 and was an education reporter and assistant metro editor. You can reach her at 260-461-8609 or by email at jcreek@jg.net
NOT SUPPORTING our TROOPS
VA essentially creating red tape to deny care to veterans
By Julie Creek
Cathie Rowand/The Journal Gazette
Sean Johnson broke three vertebrae in his back when he fell off a truck in Tikrit, Iraq. He ended up having surgery on his own after the military effectively refused to treat him. It took mounds of red tape and calls to Sen. Evan Bayh’s office to resolve the medical bills and disability status.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazett...al/17288473.htm
One Sunday in January 2005, Spc. Sean Johnson fell off a truck. He had been working on a construction project near the Iraqi city of Tikrit with his unit of the Ohio National Guard when he slipped and fell hard, landing on his back.
Because it was Sunday and the troop clinic wasn’t open for non-emergency injuries, Johnson waited until Monday to see a doctor for the intense pain in his back. The doctor prescribed ibuprofen and sent him back to duty.
Over the next few days, the pain got worse, and Johnson returned again and again to the clinic, where he was given more ibuprofen and sent back to duty. He said the other members of his unit accused him of malingering. Still in severe pain a month later, Johnson returned home on regular leave and saw his family doctor. The doctor ordered an MRI, which revealed three fractured vertebrae in Johnson’s lower back. Johnson called his Guard unit and told the commander that a specialist recommended immediate surgery to stabilize his spine.
That single phone call would plunge Johnson into a bureaucratic swamp created by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It would take him nearly two years to reach the other side.
Roughly 1.4 million men and women have served in the armed forces in Iraq or Afghanistan since the fall of 2001, some career military and some who were inspired to join after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. About 4,000 have died, and thousands more have been injured, many – like Johnson – in non-combat situations.
This isn’t a story about bureaucratic bumbling – or even about overwhelmed caseworkers trying to fight their way through mounds of files. Such stories are common. This also isn’t a story about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong.
As Americans prepare to observe Memorial Day, this is a story about how our government sometimes treats soldiers who come back alive. The government doesn’t let them get well.
Instead of doing whatever they have to do to make sure that soldiers and vets receive the care and benefits they were promised, the federal government is wielding red tape to effectively deny care and compensation and hold down costs. At the same time:
•The VA is cutting back the ranks of disability claims adjusters and giving performance bonuses to top VA officials.
•A backlog of disability cases and appeals wait for decisions – 1,800 in northern Indiana alone and an estimated 800,000 nationwide.
•Soldiers and others in the military who appeal disability decisions wait years for their cases to be heard.
All of this is apart from the scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Washington Post revealed in February that wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed often become mired in red tape as they seek further treatment or decisions about whether they will stay in the military. The Post also discovered poor living conditions – including vermin, mold, filth and leaking roofs – in an Army building that houses recovering soldiers.
“They’re not incompetent,” said Paul Sullivan, a former VA official who resigned two years ago in a policy dispute and now heads Veterans for Common Sense. “This is intentional. This is the policy.”
And the swamp that tried to swallow Sean Johnson is about to get far larger.
Troop shortages have forced the military to redeploy units to war zones over and over, keeping most on active duty. Veterans activist groups are warning that a tidal wave of veterans with complex brain injuries and mental health problems will descend on the VA when the Iraq war finally ends and vets apply for health and disability benefits they were promised. They fear that the VA health system doesn’t have the resources available to be ready.
How can a government ask a group of its citizens to bleed and die on behalf of their country and then nickel and dime the injured survivors to death when they come back? The government not only doesn’t support the troops, it doesn’t even respect them.
Political analysts are fond of pointing out parallels between the war in Vietnam and the Iraq war, but the comparisons are strictly political. The Vietnam War was fought primarily by young male draftees, many of them poor and black. This war is being fought by men and women with spouses and children. National Guard members – whose average age is 33 – leave families and careers to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They’re fighting a different war with different weapons. Improvised explosive devices – the weapon of choice among insurgents in Iraq – often cause devastating brain injuries.
Unless they volunteered, most soldiers in Vietnam did a single tour of duty. In a war fought using volunteers, many soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have been deployed to war zones three or four times during their tenure, and for many others, their tours were extended. The multiple tours have led psychiatric experts to fear that as many as one-third of returning vets will develop post-traumatic stress disorder sometime after they return.
When Sean Johnson picked up the phone and told his commander he needed back surgery, he was ordered to report to the Army’s medical holding company in Fort Knox, Ky. He obeyed, taking his medical records with him. He never saw a doctor, but a medical assistant who evaluated him decided he didn’t need surgery after all and recommended epidural injections instead.
Three months and two injections later, Johnson demanded to be allowed to seek civilian health care. It was granted, and he finally had surgery in Fort Wayne to implant steel rods and screws in his back and fuse his vertebrae in December 2005, nearly a year after he was injured.
Then the bill arrived.
Even though he was injured in a war zone, the Army demanded that Johnson pay $6,000 of the $140,000 medical bill. Still recovering from surgery and the father of an infant son, Johnson didn’t have $6,000. After three months of haggling and a call from Sen. Evan Bayh’s office, the military eventually agreed to forget the bill.
Then Johnson set out to apply for disability payments, but when he applied, his unit said his records didn’t exist, even after nine requests from a county veterans’ service officer. Frustrated, Johnson contacted Bayh’s office again.
Lots of frustrated vets have contacted Bayh’s office lately. In the past year, VA cases have surpassed even the Social Security office as the government agency Bayh’s constituents complain most about, said Eric Kleiman, communications director in Bayh’s Washington office. Kleiman said the office currently has dozens of open cases involving veterans’ health benefits.
Complaints and news stories about the failure of the Department of Defense and the VA to care properly for injured vets prompted Bayh and other senators to offer several bills designed to improve conditions at military hospitals and reduce red tape in delivery of services to vets.
Much of the frustration arises because vets must wait six to eight months after they file disability requests for caseworkers to return with a decision, said George Jarboe, who runs the Allen County Veterans Service office. And unless they’re eligible for some other reason, most vets can’t use the VA health care system until their case is decided, he added.
If a disability claim is denied, said John Hickey, director of rehabilitation for the American Legion in Indiana, it can take three to four years for an appeal to be heard.
“I think the VA is swamped with claims,” Hickey said. “What they really need is more help.”
Hickey said the most telling indication that the VA’s disability staff is overwhelmed is the large number of appeals that his organization wins on behalf of vets.
“We win a lot of claims through the appeals process,” he said. “That tells you that something isn’t being done up-front. More than half of the claims we file are either remanded for more information or granted.”
Claims backlogs aren’t a natural consequence of war, Paul Sullivan argues. The VA created the backlog to discourage vets from filing. He cites a decision to cut the number of claims caseworkers as proof. And he added that it’s appalling that top VA officials would give themselves bonuses during wartime with benefits backlogs running at six months or more.
Moreover, vets claiming disability must start by completing a 23-page claim form and obtain their own military discharge records and medical records from the Department of Defense.
“We’re five years into war and the VA and DOD aren’t sharing records,” Sullivan said. “They’ve just started to do it for the most seriously wounded soldiers.”
Congress recently shot down one of the VA’s plans to limit the number of veterans diagnosed with PTSD – and forbade the VA from reviewing 72,000 PTSD claims that had been previously approved. The VA bowed to public pressure and suspended a requirement that vets obtain a second signature for a PTSD claim.
Intervention from Bayh’s office got instant results. After months of claiming that his records didn’t exist, Johnson received a letter from his unit that said the records had been found in a box on the floor.
Last year, the VA finally granted Johnson a 40 percent disability, which entitles him to payments each month. Though his back injury left him unable to return to Iraq, Johnson is still under contract with the Guard. He is resisting reassignment to his original unit, arguing that the members of his unit harassed him after he was hurt.
Now 32, he lives near Avilla, shares custody of his 2-year-old son with his former wife, and has returned to work building houses for Redmond Homes. He still has back pain but says it’s bearable.
“I really thought this would be something that would make me proud,” he said of his time in the service. “It’s something I regret now. I even won two awards for the construction projects I worked on.”
In 1924, a grateful Congress voted a bonus to World War I veterans but decided not to pay it until 1945. In the meantime, the country slipped into the Great Depression, and in May 1932, some 15,000 destitute veterans descended on Washington, many with families in tow, set up camp near the Capitol and demanded their bonuses.
A month later, Congress voted down a bill that would have paid them. The attorney general ordered the “Bonus Army” to disperse, and when they refused, President Hoover ordered the army to clear them out. Led by Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur in a detachment that included Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Maj. George Patton, the men, women and children were driven out of the city. Their camp was burned, two babies died, and hospitals were swamped with casualties.
Seventy-five years later, America’s long, tormented history with its military veterans marches on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Creek is an editorial writer for The Journal Gazette. She joined the newspaper in 1990 and was an education reporter and assistant metro editor. You can reach her at 260-461-8609 or by email at jcreek@jg.net
The basis of this thread is a piece of garbage.
It would seem that even the most idiotic amongst us would have given up the all dems good, all repubs bad hooey years ago.
It would seem that even the most idiotic amongst us would have given up the all dems good, all repubs bad hooey years ago.
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Jun 6 2007, 01:57 PM)
The basis of this thread is a piece of garbage.
It would seem that even the most idiotic amongst us would have given up the all dems good, all repubs bad hooey years ago.
It would seem that even the most idiotic amongst us would have given up the all dems good, all repubs bad hooey years ago.
But at least sometimes dems are good, and repubs are bad.
I don't think Bush has done a good job for the troops myself. I don't care if in his own mind he thinks he is doing a good job.
Bottom line, he has given them an untenable job to do, but one in which they are still in harm's way, and that is simply wrong.
Mac2:
As usual, taking things out of context.
This thread rails against Bush and his idiotic statements that he and his party are the ones who act in the best interests of our troops...
If you have not been privy to his rhetoric in this regard --- then you are forgiven for your ignorance...if you have --- then you know full well what this is all about.
As usual, taking things out of context.
This thread rails against Bush and his idiotic statements that he and his party are the ones who act in the best interests of our troops...
If you have not been privy to his rhetoric in this regard --- then you are forgiven for your ignorance...if you have --- then you know full well what this is all about.
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 6 2007, 02:51 PM)
Mac2:
As usual, taking things out of context.
This thread rails against Bush and his idiotic statements that he and his party are the ones who act in the best interests of our troops...
If you have not been privy to his rhetoric in this regard --- then you are forgiven for your ignorance...if you have --- then you know full well what this is all about.
As usual, taking things out of context.
This thread rails against Bush and his idiotic statements that he and his party are the ones who act in the best interests of our troops...
If you have not been privy to his rhetoric in this regard --- then you are forgiven for your ignorance...if you have --- then you know full well what this is all about.
Who wrote this?............. "THe military is ailing --- and a Republican president does not appear up to the job of remedying it --- but then again --- a Republican president never was...since Lincoln..."
Who posted it?
Mac2:
Which of these articles which illustrate the negative impact of Bush actions or inactions is incorrect?
If none --- then isn't it the case that Bush and the Executive Branch agencies he presides over are hurting the troops with their policies or lack of policies?
And if this is true -- isn't it proper to rail against such hypocrisy?
Which of these articles which illustrate the negative impact of Bush actions or inactions is incorrect?
If none --- then isn't it the case that Bush and the Executive Branch agencies he presides over are hurting the troops with their policies or lack of policies?
And if this is true -- isn't it proper to rail against such hypocrisy?
I did --- because since Lincoln --- I don't believe there has been a Republican president who has led us successfully in battle from start to finish...sicne lIncoln
The Gulf War may be an exception --- but that was a minor instance...IMHO
And I was talking about the president and not the party...that is what the title of the thread is...
The Gulf War may be an exception --- but that was a minor instance...IMHO
And I was talking about the president and not the party...that is what the title of the thread is...
And the intro was followed by articles by Lawrence Korb --- a former Bush/Reagan advisor who believes this president's policies have had a negative impact on the troops...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 6 2007, 02:56 PM)
I did --- because since Lincoln --- I don't believe there has been a Republican president who has led us successfully in battle from start to finish...sicne lIncoln
The Gulf War may be an exception --- but that was a minor instance...IMHO
And I was talking about the president and not the party...that is what the title of the thread is...
And then it is followed by a former Reagan and Bush advisors comments regarding how the Bush Administration's policies have hurt the troops...
PLease don't just read my rhetoric. Also read the posts that follow.
The Gulf War may be an exception --- but that was a minor instance...IMHO
And I was talking about the president and not the party...that is what the title of the thread is...
And then it is followed by a former Reagan and Bush advisors comments regarding how the Bush Administration's policies have hurt the troops...
PLease don't just read my rhetoric. Also read the posts that follow.
That proves my point. Your rhetoric, the basis for this thread, is in fact garbage.
Then when you attempted to frame me as ignorant, you just made yourself small.
So stop squirming so much and stand up for what you say without the smallness and little side comments.
I know I would not want to be a member of Bush's Army.. They are being thrown away as garbage.
Smallness...
Mac 2 -- make an argument for once ---
Issue a premise --- offer supporting points --- and then support for those points in the form of further argument or articles...
I makle arguments - you may not agres with them --- which I think is more a personal thing than what your point of view is... but I make them...
I post a thread and an article -- and people know where I stand...
I make no secret of the point --- I support my point of view with comments from others offering perspectvie and analysis and I respond to just about every comment or argument against my point...
So make an argument for once --- advance a point of view instead of your one sentence blurbs that provide no analysis -- just opinion ---
My opinions have been supported on this and every thread that I post on...
You obviously don't like what I am saying --- you may not find it productive --- but that's life in the big city my friend...
A forum is for discussion --- and I offer my opinions to promote discussions.
I'd like to have one with you --- but you instead get lost in petty minutiae...
So instead of making your ad hominem attacks --- and judgments --- offer a credible argument for once...
I dare you...
Rebut my argument and my sources...
I believ ethat the Bush Administration through its policies have hurt our troops --- I believe they continue to advance policies that are hurting our troops and crippling our military's abilities to defend this nation...
I believe the Republican party during the last 6 years has supported them (the Bush Ad) in their efforts...and not exercised the type of oversight that would prevent tragedies like sending in an inadequate number of troops --- the Walter Reed Hospital debacle --- lack of armored vests and vehicles --- inadequate ammunition --- inadequate training --- inadequate time to recharge and rehabilitate after service in combat --- an inadequate plan to accomplish the mission -- lack of a defined mission - and lack of resources to accomplish it --- and keeping in a Secretary of Defense that was micromanging combat in Iraq and the Pentagon and not letting our generals get the job done on the ground...
There is my argument --- and I have offered support not with past articles but with present articles --- this is happening today --- and it represents a threat to our national security preparedness at home and abroad...
There is my argument Mac 2 -- the one I have made throughout this thread...
Now respond...
Not with your empty accusations --- but offer me a real response with support for your arguments...
This is how Bush started the Iraq engagement...
I consider such behavior which has continued throughout this Admnistration to be utterly disturbing...
So you can try and make your accusations that this thread is garbage --- but your statements are meaningless unless they are backed up with something...
So make a credible argument and back them up...
You know what they say -- put up or....
Nothing but lip service
Issue Date: June 30, 2003
http://www.dailykos.net/archives/003248.html
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.
The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.
But Bush’s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.
The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush’s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush’s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.
The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.
Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”
Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks
Demonstrate that I am way off base...have the courage to articulate a detailed argument ---
Mac 2 -- make an argument for once ---
Issue a premise --- offer supporting points --- and then support for those points in the form of further argument or articles...
I makle arguments - you may not agres with them --- which I think is more a personal thing than what your point of view is... but I make them...
I post a thread and an article -- and people know where I stand...
I make no secret of the point --- I support my point of view with comments from others offering perspectvie and analysis and I respond to just about every comment or argument against my point...
So make an argument for once --- advance a point of view instead of your one sentence blurbs that provide no analysis -- just opinion ---
My opinions have been supported on this and every thread that I post on...
You obviously don't like what I am saying --- you may not find it productive --- but that's life in the big city my friend...
A forum is for discussion --- and I offer my opinions to promote discussions.
I'd like to have one with you --- but you instead get lost in petty minutiae...
So instead of making your ad hominem attacks --- and judgments --- offer a credible argument for once...
I dare you...
Rebut my argument and my sources...
I believ ethat the Bush Administration through its policies have hurt our troops --- I believe they continue to advance policies that are hurting our troops and crippling our military's abilities to defend this nation...
I believe the Republican party during the last 6 years has supported them (the Bush Ad) in their efforts...and not exercised the type of oversight that would prevent tragedies like sending in an inadequate number of troops --- the Walter Reed Hospital debacle --- lack of armored vests and vehicles --- inadequate ammunition --- inadequate training --- inadequate time to recharge and rehabilitate after service in combat --- an inadequate plan to accomplish the mission -- lack of a defined mission - and lack of resources to accomplish it --- and keeping in a Secretary of Defense that was micromanging combat in Iraq and the Pentagon and not letting our generals get the job done on the ground...
There is my argument --- and I have offered support not with past articles but with present articles --- this is happening today --- and it represents a threat to our national security preparedness at home and abroad...
There is my argument Mac 2 -- the one I have made throughout this thread...
Now respond...
Not with your empty accusations --- but offer me a real response with support for your arguments...
This is how Bush started the Iraq engagement...
I consider such behavior which has continued throughout this Admnistration to be utterly disturbing...
So you can try and make your accusations that this thread is garbage --- but your statements are meaningless unless they are backed up with something...
So make a credible argument and back them up...
You know what they say -- put up or....
Nothing but lip service
Issue Date: June 30, 2003
http://www.dailykos.net/archives/003248.html
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.
The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.
But Bush’s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.
The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush’s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush’s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.
The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.
Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”
Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks
Demonstrate that I am way off base...have the courage to articulate a detailed argument ---
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 7 2007, 10:35 AM)
Smallness...
Mac 2 -- make an argument for once ---
Issue a premise --- offer supporting points --- and then support for those points in the form of further argument or articles...
I makle arguments - you may not agres with them --- which I think is more a personal thing than what your point of view is... but I make them...
I post a thread and an article -- and people know where I stand...
I make no secret of the point --- I support my point of view with comments from others offering perspectvie and analysis and I respond to just about every comment or argument against my point...
............................................
...............................................
Mac 2 -- make an argument for once ---
Issue a premise --- offer supporting points --- and then support for those points in the form of further argument or articles...
I makle arguments - you may not agres with them --- which I think is more a personal thing than what your point of view is... but I make them...
I post a thread and an article -- and people know where I stand...
I make no secret of the point --- I support my point of view with comments from others offering perspectvie and analysis and I respond to just about every comment or argument against my point...
............................................
...............................................
Smallness.....
Very few things in life no matter how small are " a personal thing" to me. Rest assured that you not.
My only comment at this time is that effective counter-points in a discussion can be and often are very brief.
Onward and upward.
AS for the personal stuff --- let me know the last time you weighed in positively on a thread I started...
I never recall that happening...
What is the nature of the comments you leave on my threads...
Do they go after the arguments --- and their analysis --- no -- they're little digs here and there...
Now ask me the same question...
I suggested your Memorial Day thread was a fantastic idea...
Perhaps you missed that...
So -- you may not believe that you have anything personal in your responses --- or you may wish others to believe that --- but actions speak louder than words...
I await your brief reply...if you think you can rebut my arguments briefly...
Let me just offer a little suggestion --- "Poppycock" is not an argument...
I never recall that happening...
What is the nature of the comments you leave on my threads...
Do they go after the arguments --- and their analysis --- no -- they're little digs here and there...
Now ask me the same question...
I suggested your Memorial Day thread was a fantastic idea...
Perhaps you missed that...
So -- you may not believe that you have anything personal in your responses --- or you may wish others to believe that --- but actions speak louder than words...
I await your brief reply...if you think you can rebut my arguments briefly...
Let me just offer a little suggestion --- "Poppycock" is not an argument...
I thought this was some sound advice from an Alabaman...
June 8, 2007
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/p...53/1014/OPINION
In between the Clinton- and Bush-bashing, the abortion discussion, creation or evolution diversions, seat belts, cell phones, speeding, stop light cameras, taxes, and all the other diversions, what does supporting our troops really mean?
When you buy a magnet for your car, not a single dime goes to help our soldiers, seamen, airmen or marines. You can pray all you want, but the IEDs still explode.
If you want to support our troops, give some time or money to things like the Red Cross, the services support agencies, write a congressman and ask when they will return from the "war" at your local airport. Then take some cookies or just greet them. Car magnets do nothing, slogans on your computer, desk, office, or other locations do nothing. Do something that actually supports them.
So take the time and investment to do something real. Support our troops. They are dying for us. Let them know you really care and it's not just a façade.
Harold Kouns
Millbrook
June 8, 2007
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/p...53/1014/OPINION
In between the Clinton- and Bush-bashing, the abortion discussion, creation or evolution diversions, seat belts, cell phones, speeding, stop light cameras, taxes, and all the other diversions, what does supporting our troops really mean?
When you buy a magnet for your car, not a single dime goes to help our soldiers, seamen, airmen or marines. You can pray all you want, but the IEDs still explode.
If you want to support our troops, give some time or money to things like the Red Cross, the services support agencies, write a congressman and ask when they will return from the "war" at your local airport. Then take some cookies or just greet them. Car magnets do nothing, slogans on your computer, desk, office, or other locations do nothing. Do something that actually supports them.
So take the time and investment to do something real. Support our troops. They are dying for us. Let them know you really care and it's not just a façade.
Harold Kouns
Millbrook
"Betrayal" is a poor choice of word here; linking it to the many previous leaders of the President's party is ...away past "poor choice."
One could debate that Bush is using the army in a badly-conceived mission, or that the President's policies do not match his words, or a whole list of others.
Betrayal is beyond all of that and if used here in this way could be used in dealing with Lincoln in the middle of the Civil War just as well. And now just as then the poorly thought-out rhetoric only damaged the speakers cause and this good old country.
One could debate that Bush is using the army in a badly-conceived mission, or that the President's policies do not match his words, or a whole list of others.
Betrayal is beyond all of that and if used here in this way could be used in dealing with Lincoln in the middle of the Civil War just as well. And now just as then the poorly thought-out rhetoric only damaged the speakers cause and this good old country.
And this thread has yet to even touch on the way that contractors have received a boon in the Iraq war while soldiers providing the same functions --- get a small percentage of the contractor take...
This war is one of the most offensive with regard to supporting the troops because the troops do the dirty work and the contractors get rich...and this is the Pentagon overseen by President Bush and Halliburton-Cheney is responsible for this...
So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this --- I'm not buying it --- or that we're in this together ...and no one bears more responsibility - I don't think so...
The Bush Administration has prosecuted this war and the Republican party has laid down and allowed it to happen ignoring Democratic calls for oversight...which would serve the troops...
Soldiers vs. Contractors
New York Times
December 15, 2005
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/15/opinion/edspend.php
It's what passes for crunch time at the Pentagon. Word has now gone out that $32 billion in savings must be found out of the $2.3 trillion the Defense Department is planning to spend in the next five years.
After the Pentagon's spending orgy over the past five years, there is plenty of scope for cutting, without weakening America's defenses - but only if the cuts come out of the most costly and least needed Air Force and Navy weapons programs, not from the money required to replenish and re-equip the Army and Marine ground forces that have been worn down by Iraq.
Alleviating the dangerous strain on America's overstretched, underrested and increasingly taxed land-based forces must be the Pentagon's highest priority for the next five years. Even if it becomes possible to draw down some fraction of the troops now in Iraq and Afghanistan, the overall size of America's land forces needs to be increased to reverse the declines in readiness and morale, help recruiting, and reduce the reliance on the Reserves for overseas combat.
America cannot be a global military power without a healthy Army.
Without significant new investment to add and train more soldiers, the Army's strength will continue to deteriorate.
Very few critics of the military's spending priorities want the United States to relinquish its current dominance in the skies and on the seas. But in a world where no rival military powers are remotely capable of challenging America, that dominance can be preserved without loading every new plane and ship with every conceivable technological marvel, whether or not it is relevant to the military mission at hand.
Much of the astounding 41 percent increase in military spending over the past five years has gone toward hugely expensive air and sea combat systems - and this in an era when America's toughest battles are being fought on land against foes that have no known air force or navy.
The Air Force and the Navy can play only secondary roles in wars like Iraq. Their spending plans are increasingly oriented toward the possibility of future military conflict with China. That is not totally absurd. China's military planning is increasingly oriented toward the possibility of future conflict with the United States - for example, a clash over the Taiwan Strait.
But war with China is a remote, unlikely and avoidable contingency. It should not dominate current military spending - especially if China is simply being used as an excuse to justify expensive equipment the Pentagon wants to buy. Given the huge lead the United States now holds in air and sea technology, the Navy and Air Force can be re-equipped with everything they really need at a more realistic and affordable pace.
The Air Force should step up the pace of its introduction of unpiloted drones, which can be used for surveillance and for attacks. They are much cheaper than fighter jets and do not risk pilots' lives.
This war is one of the most offensive with regard to supporting the troops because the troops do the dirty work and the contractors get rich...and this is the Pentagon overseen by President Bush and Halliburton-Cheney is responsible for this...
So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this --- I'm not buying it --- or that we're in this together ...and no one bears more responsibility - I don't think so...
The Bush Administration has prosecuted this war and the Republican party has laid down and allowed it to happen ignoring Democratic calls for oversight...which would serve the troops...
Soldiers vs. Contractors
New York Times
December 15, 2005
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/15/opinion/edspend.php
It's what passes for crunch time at the Pentagon. Word has now gone out that $32 billion in savings must be found out of the $2.3 trillion the Defense Department is planning to spend in the next five years.
After the Pentagon's spending orgy over the past five years, there is plenty of scope for cutting, without weakening America's defenses - but only if the cuts come out of the most costly and least needed Air Force and Navy weapons programs, not from the money required to replenish and re-equip the Army and Marine ground forces that have been worn down by Iraq.
Alleviating the dangerous strain on America's overstretched, underrested and increasingly taxed land-based forces must be the Pentagon's highest priority for the next five years. Even if it becomes possible to draw down some fraction of the troops now in Iraq and Afghanistan, the overall size of America's land forces needs to be increased to reverse the declines in readiness and morale, help recruiting, and reduce the reliance on the Reserves for overseas combat.
America cannot be a global military power without a healthy Army.
Without significant new investment to add and train more soldiers, the Army's strength will continue to deteriorate.
Very few critics of the military's spending priorities want the United States to relinquish its current dominance in the skies and on the seas. But in a world where no rival military powers are remotely capable of challenging America, that dominance can be preserved without loading every new plane and ship with every conceivable technological marvel, whether or not it is relevant to the military mission at hand.
Much of the astounding 41 percent increase in military spending over the past five years has gone toward hugely expensive air and sea combat systems - and this in an era when America's toughest battles are being fought on land against foes that have no known air force or navy.
The Air Force and the Navy can play only secondary roles in wars like Iraq. Their spending plans are increasingly oriented toward the possibility of future military conflict with China. That is not totally absurd. China's military planning is increasingly oriented toward the possibility of future conflict with the United States - for example, a clash over the Taiwan Strait.
But war with China is a remote, unlikely and avoidable contingency. It should not dominate current military spending - especially if China is simply being used as an excuse to justify expensive equipment the Pentagon wants to buy. Given the huge lead the United States now holds in air and sea technology, the Navy and Air Force can be re-equipped with everything they really need at a more realistic and affordable pace.
The Air Force should step up the pace of its introduction of unpiloted drones, which can be used for surveillance and for attacks. They are much cheaper than fighter jets and do not risk pilots' lives.
Betrayal is a bad word choice?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/betrayal
be·tray(b-tr)
tr.v. be·trayed, be·tray·ing, be·trays
1.
a. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one's country.
b. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
2. To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one's better nature.
3. To divulge in a breach of confidence: betray a secret.
4. To make known unintentionally: Her hollow laugh betrayed her contempt for the idea.
5. To reveal against one's desire or will.
6. To lead astray; deceive. See Synonyms at deceive.
Well, there is the definition --- and 2,3, and 6 seem pretty much on point...
I beleive the Commander in Chief has a solemn obligation of trust and honor that he owes to the men and women in the armed forces when he commits them to combat where they may make the ultimate sacrifice for their nation.
I believe the actions I have outlined here offer a clear betrayal of that obligation...
IMHO --- I thnk you are mincing words here.
The troops have been betrayed by Bush --- as Commander in Chief...
What happened at Walter Reed was on his watch...
What happened with the poor planning of the Iraq war happened under his authority...
What happened with Bush saying he could not have foreseen the insurgency which has been responsible for the deaths of most of our soldiers was a lie...the CIA specifically warned Bush about the insurgency --- and that this would be a direct result of an Iraqi invasion.
So Bush lied here...
Sending troops into battle without the proper plan to win, training, adequate forces to accomplish the mission, and the equipment and other resources to accomplish the mission is a betrayal IMHO.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/betrayal
be·tray(b-tr)
tr.v. be·trayed, be·tray·ing, be·trays
1.
a. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one's country.
b. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
2. To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one's better nature.
3. To divulge in a breach of confidence: betray a secret.
4. To make known unintentionally: Her hollow laugh betrayed her contempt for the idea.
5. To reveal against one's desire or will.
6. To lead astray; deceive. See Synonyms at deceive.
Well, there is the definition --- and 2,3, and 6 seem pretty much on point...
I beleive the Commander in Chief has a solemn obligation of trust and honor that he owes to the men and women in the armed forces when he commits them to combat where they may make the ultimate sacrifice for their nation.
I believe the actions I have outlined here offer a clear betrayal of that obligation...
IMHO --- I thnk you are mincing words here.
The troops have been betrayed by Bush --- as Commander in Chief...
What happened at Walter Reed was on his watch...
What happened with the poor planning of the Iraq war happened under his authority...
What happened with Bush saying he could not have foreseen the insurgency which has been responsible for the deaths of most of our soldiers was a lie...the CIA specifically warned Bush about the insurgency --- and that this would be a direct result of an Iraqi invasion.
So Bush lied here...
Sending troops into battle without the proper plan to win, training, adequate forces to accomplish the mission, and the equipment and other resources to accomplish the mission is a betrayal IMHO.
The President states that he and the Republican party support the troops ---
How is prosecuting the poor planning and prosecition of this war --- this height of incompetence not a betrayal of his statement that he and his policies are supporting the troops...
I think this is a thin argument at best...and as I suggest above --- a mere mincing of words.
Mac2:
If you were a soldier and your heard your Commander in Chief and his Vice President stated that the US soliders would be greeted with flowers and friendship by the Iraqi people and the war would be over in six months ...and you later learned that this was a lie -- that the CIA had said we would not be greeted -- that there would be a significant insurgency and the war would last for years --- wouldn't you feel the slight bit betrayed...
Isn't a lie a betrayal?
The troops have been repeatedly lied to and manipulated --- isn're that a betrayal?
Isn't Bush ignoring sound advice from his military commanders in Iraq that his "surge" plan will not work a betrayal of the troops?
How is prosecuting the poor planning and prosecition of this war --- this height of incompetence not a betrayal of his statement that he and his policies are supporting the troops...
I think this is a thin argument at best...and as I suggest above --- a mere mincing of words.
Mac2:
If you were a soldier and your heard your Commander in Chief and his Vice President stated that the US soliders would be greeted with flowers and friendship by the Iraqi people and the war would be over in six months ...and you later learned that this was a lie -- that the CIA had said we would not be greeted -- that there would be a significant insurgency and the war would last for years --- wouldn't you feel the slight bit betrayed...
Isn't a lie a betrayal?
The troops have been repeatedly lied to and manipulated --- isn're that a betrayal?
Isn't Bush ignoring sound advice from his military commanders in Iraq that his "surge" plan will not work a betrayal of the troops?
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 8 2007, 10:14 AM)
And this thread has yet to even touch on the way that contractors have received a boon in the Iraq war while soldiers providing the same functions --- get a small percentage of the contractor take...
This war is one of the most offensive with regard to supporting the troops because the troops do the dirty work and the contractors get rich...and this is the Pentagon overseen by President Bush and Halliburton-Cheney is responsible for this...
So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this --- I'm not buying it --- or that we're in this together ...and no one bears more responsibility - I don't think so...
...............................
................................
This war is one of the most offensive with regard to supporting the troops because the troops do the dirty work and the contractors get rich...and this is the Pentagon overseen by President Bush and Halliburton-Cheney is responsible for this...
So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this --- I'm not buying it --- or that we're in this together ...and no one bears more responsibility - I don't think so...
...............................
................................
"So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this"
Who here, other than you, has said this?
Mac2:
In post 16 you are the one who called this thread hooey --- and the suggestion that all dems are good and reps bad -- garbage...
Of course, nowhere did I say that was the case ---
I did say that there has not been an effective Republican war president since Lincoln --- and I did say that the Republican party has enabled Bush's incompetence because of a lack of oversight...
My point is that in this instance there is a culpable party --- and the thread is aimed at that party.
Stop distracting from the issue --- make the argument that what the thread stands for is wrong...
You tried to suggest that betrayal was an improper term --- a weak argument --- which does not hold up given the blatant misrepresentations by the Bush Administration.
Now argue that Bush has not betrayed the troops ---
Offer examples where he has supported them -- where his policies have had the anticipated impact --- to benefit them...
Can you make that argument?
I don't think you can...
And if you cannot, then why are challenging the topic of this thread.
One would think if the premise of your argument is so clear --- that this thread is garbage --- that you should be able to articulate an argument readily.
Still waiting...
In post 16 you are the one who called this thread hooey --- and the suggestion that all dems are good and reps bad -- garbage...
Of course, nowhere did I say that was the case ---
I did say that there has not been an effective Republican war president since Lincoln --- and I did say that the Republican party has enabled Bush's incompetence because of a lack of oversight...
My point is that in this instance there is a culpable party --- and the thread is aimed at that party.
Stop distracting from the issue --- make the argument that what the thread stands for is wrong...
You tried to suggest that betrayal was an improper term --- a weak argument --- which does not hold up given the blatant misrepresentations by the Bush Administration.
Now argue that Bush has not betrayed the troops ---
Offer examples where he has supported them -- where his policies have had the anticipated impact --- to benefit them...
Can you make that argument?
I don't think you can...
And if you cannot, then why are challenging the topic of this thread.
One would think if the premise of your argument is so clear --- that this thread is garbage --- that you should be able to articulate an argument readily.
Still waiting...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 8 2007, 12:19 PM)
Mac2:
In post 16 you are the one who called this thread hooey --- and the suggestion that all dems are good and reps bad -- garbage...
Of course, nowhere did I say that was the case ---
I did say that there has not been an effective Republican war president since Lincoln --- and I did say that the Republican party has enabled Bush's incompetence because of a lack of oversight...
My point is that in this instance there is a culpable party --- and the thread is aimed at that party.
Stop distracting from the issue --- make the argument that what the thread stands for is wrong...
You tried to suggest that betrayal was an improper term --- a weak argument --- which does not hold up given the blatant misrepresentations by the Bush Administration.
Now argue that Bush has not betrayed the troops ---
Offer examples where he has supported them -- where his policies have had the anticipated impact --- to benefit them...
Can you make that argument?
I don't think you can...
And if you cannot, then why are challenging the topic of this thread.
One would think if the premise of your argument is so clear --- that this thread is garbage --- that you should be able to articulate an argument readily.
Still waiting...
In post 16 you are the one who called this thread hooey --- and the suggestion that all dems are good and reps bad -- garbage...
Of course, nowhere did I say that was the case ---
I did say that there has not been an effective Republican war president since Lincoln --- and I did say that the Republican party has enabled Bush's incompetence because of a lack of oversight...
My point is that in this instance there is a culpable party --- and the thread is aimed at that party.
Stop distracting from the issue --- make the argument that what the thread stands for is wrong...
You tried to suggest that betrayal was an improper term --- a weak argument --- which does not hold up given the blatant misrepresentations by the Bush Administration.
Now argue that Bush has not betrayed the troops ---
Offer examples where he has supported them -- where his policies have had the anticipated impact --- to benefit them...
Can you make that argument?
I don't think you can...
And if you cannot, then why are challenging the topic of this thread.
One would think if the premise of your argument is so clear --- that this thread is garbage --- that you should be able to articulate an argument readily.
Still waiting...
********************************************************************************
************
" "So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this"
Who here, other than you, has said this? "
********************************************************************************
***********
My question to you above was quite simple!
It would be foolish for me to pursue this with you and overlook the fact that you have among other things framed me into the position that:
It is I who " want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this --- ...and no one bears more responsibility."
You just made that up to support yourself, and it had no basis in reality to me or any other poster in this thread. At the very best you can not help yourself and can not deal with the reality of my position.
You have been exposed here, and in order to advance the discussion you must simply accept your exposure.
Mac2:
Your tactic of philibustering minutiae is quite apparent to everyone on this site.
Rather than making a substantive argument, you look for some peripheral inconsequential issue to grab a hold of and characterize and you allow that to stand for your argument.
Well, its not a rebuttal or an argument.
I pointed out how the BUsh Administration policies and/or inocmpetence is responsible, and how the Republican Congress' lack of oversight/incompetence has contributed...
The ball is in your court.
It has been for a while.
The best you can do is attack peripheral issues...
I was hoping we might truly have a deep discussion of these matters...
BUt I do not expect a response from you because on this board there is no issue that you have discussed deeply for whatever reason.
You seem to prefer to have others do the deep analysis and critique and you just either agree or disagree with whatever someone else writes...
If that is the case, so be it.
However, I think you are missing out on a chance to really debate and discuss...
Your tactic of philibustering minutiae is quite apparent to everyone on this site.
Rather than making a substantive argument, you look for some peripheral inconsequential issue to grab a hold of and characterize and you allow that to stand for your argument.
Well, its not a rebuttal or an argument.
I pointed out how the BUsh Administration policies and/or inocmpetence is responsible, and how the Republican Congress' lack of oversight/incompetence has contributed...
The ball is in your court.
It has been for a while.
The best you can do is attack peripheral issues...
I was hoping we might truly have a deep discussion of these matters...
BUt I do not expect a response from you because on this board there is no issue that you have discussed deeply for whatever reason.
You seem to prefer to have others do the deep analysis and critique and you just either agree or disagree with whatever someone else writes...
If that is the case, so be it.
However, I think you are missing out on a chance to really debate and discuss...
Deanie Mills's Blog
What "The Troops" Really Think: Voices from Iraq
By Deanie Mills | bio
http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/blog/deani...oices_from_iraq
"In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place…(but now, on his third deployment), "We killed a man who was setting a roadside bomb. And when we searched the bomber's body, we found identification showing that he was a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
"I thought, What are we doing here? Why are we still here? We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.
"If we stayed here for five, even ten more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy. It would go straight into a civil war. That's how it feels, like we're putting a band-aid on this country until we leave here."--Staff Sgt. David Safstrom, Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division.
"In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war. Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me." (that we should get out.)--Sgt. First Class David Moore, platoon sergeant., same unit, self-described "conservative Texas Republican"
"The Iraqi Army would not fight with us. Some actually picked up weapons and fought against us…Before that fight, there were a few true believers. After that, I don't think you'll find a true believer in this unit. They're paratroopers. There's no question they'll fulfill their mission. But they're fighting now for pride in their unit, professionalism, loyalty to their fellow soldiers, and chain of command."--Capt. Douglas Rogers, same unit.
"I don't believe we should be here in the middle of a civil war. We've all lost friends over here. Most of us don't know what we're fighting for anymore. We're serving our country and our friends, but the only reason we go out every day is for each other.
"I don't want any more of my guys to get hurt or die. If it was something I felt righteous about, maybe. But for this country and this conflict, no, it's not worth it."--Sgt. Kevin O'Flarity, squad leader, same unit
(source: "As Allies Turn Foe,Disillution Rises in Some G.I.'s," by Michael Kamber, New York Times, May 28, 2007.)
"They feed us (the intelligence) that they want. I guarantee that everyone in the city knows where we're going. Because the Iraqi Army told them. The only thing they don't know is how big a force we're coming with…It's a debacle."--Spec. Josh Lake, 26, of Ventura, Calif., Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade
"The general feeling among us is we're not really doing anything here. We clear one neighborhood, then another one fires up. It's an ongoing battle. It never ends. It's just the same old bull."--Spec. Daniel Caldwell, 20, Montesano, Wash., same unit
"We're constantly being told that it's not our fight. It is their fight." (the Iraqi Army) "But that's not the case. Whenever we go and ask them for guys, they almost always say no, and we have to do the job ourselves."--Sgt. Jose Reynoso, 24, Yuma, Ariz., same unit
"You do have corruption problems among the ranks…They have militias inside them. They are pretty much everywhere. We're chasing ghosts."--Sgt. Justin Hill, 24, Abilene, Tex., same unit
(source: "U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy," by Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post,, January 12, 2007.)
"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do. I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."--Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division
"What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us. Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight.
"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away. And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."--Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, Pulaski, Tenn.,1st Infantry Divisiont
"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much. This isn't our war--we're just caught in the middle."--Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, York, Penn., 2nd Infantry Division
"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it’s not going to change."--Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, Tulsa, Okla., 2nd Infantry Division
(source: "Soldiers in Iraq View Troop Surge as Lost Cause," by Tom Lasseter, McClatchy Newspapers, February 3, 2007.)
"Why are we here when this country still to date does not want us here? Why does our president's personal agenda consume him so much, that he can not pay attention to what is really going on here? I'm still here in this country wondering why, and having to pick up the pieces of what is left of my friend in our room. I would just like to know what is the true reason we are here? This country poses no threat to our own. So why must we waste the lives of good men on a country that does not give a damn about itself? Most of my friends here share my views, but do not have the courage to say anything."--Pvt. Donald C. Hudson, Jr., 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division
(source: "A Soldier in Iraq Asks in Despair: Why Are We Here?" by Donald C. Hudson, Jr., Clarksville, Tennessee Online, May 29, 2007.)
"When are we going to get out of here? We don't feel like we're making any progress."--Spc. David Williams, 22, Boston, Mass., 82nd Airborne Division, the first of five "surge" brigades to arrive in Iraq. This was a question he hoped to pose to Sen. Joseph Lieberman during a visit, but never did.
"We're not making any progress. It just seems like we drive around all day waiting to get shot at. It's just more troops, more targets. But I'd never really say that to the senator." (Lieberman). "I think I'd be a private if I did."--Spc. Will Heden, 21, Chester, Conn., same unit
"It's like everything else in this war. (referring to Baghdad) It hasn't changed."--Spec. Kevin Adams, 20, Moosup, Conn., same unit
"I think it's important we don't lose our will."--remarks made by Sen. Joseph Lieberman to the troops of the 82nd Airborne
(source: "Lieberman Talks to Troops in Baghdad," by Leila Fedel, McClatchy Newspapers, May 30, 2007.)
"In January, we were doing routine presence patrol through the city of Hawja, and one of our trucks was hit by a roadside bomb, an IED, and it killed four of the soldiers out of the five that were in the truck. And during the recovery of the fallen soldiers all the debris inside the truck--we just had the truck loaded with school supplies and soccer balls and crayons and notebooks and coloring books. We just wanna help. And it was just a really eye-opening and frustrating experience. Because we're still getting killed out there."--Spc. Kevin Torres, who appeared on 60 Minutes, out of uniform, to explain why he was one of several thousand soldiers and Marines to sign the Appeal for Redress petition to Congress to end the war.
(when asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan, "What would you say to the people that say, 'All right, it's clear that the war in Iraq is incredibly difficult and life is really tough both for Americans and for Iraqis, but pulling out's not the answer. It's only gonna get worse. There's gonna be all-out civil war.'"):
"How does that become the default? Either someday, we have to leave. We can't stay in Iraq for the next thousand years."
(asked if there's a possibility that Iraq might be better off if American troops stay and finish the job):
"But then our lives are hanging in the balance of a flip of a coin…We volunteered to make a difference, not just to be part of an experiment."--Sgt. Ronn Cantu, answering her on the program
(source: "G.I.'s Petition Congress to End Iraq War," CBS News, Sunday, February 25, 2007.)
"We really don't want to go to Iraq, but we joined the military out of economic necessity. I'm scared. I just want people to know that we didn't want to go over there. We're not looking forward to it. People are over there dying and suffering. Nothing has been accomplished. We've sacrificed a lot of our time, and a lot of people have died for this. And for what?" --female Army soldier, due to deploy soon, who chose not to reveal her name, rank, or unit designation from fear of repercussions
(source: "Opposition to the War Growing Among Troops," by Sarah Olson, truthout.org, March 28, 2007.)
"What do you want us to accomplish over here? We aren't hearing any end state. We aren't hearing it from the president, from the defense secretary…We're working hard and the politicians are arguing. They don't have bullets flying over their heads. They aren't on the front lines, and their buddies aren't dying.
"…We're not complaining. We're tired of being lost. Have you ever been lost and at the same time getting shot at? It's miserable…I want to be here for a reason, not just a show of force."--Sgt. 1st Class Michael Eaglin, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division
"It's almost like the Vietnam War. We don’t know where we're going."--Spec. Adam Hamilton, same unit
(source: "Troops at Baghdad Outposts Seek Safety in Fortifications," by Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, May 8, 2007)
"There is an organized, constructive level of dissent with the ranks on this war…It's not political when people heed the call of their conscience. Not one more of my brothers should die for a lie. This is my generation's call to conscience."--Sgt. Liam Madden, 22, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, served in Iraq, 2003--assembling out of uniform to present the Appeal for Redress petition to Congress on Monday, January 15, 2007
(source: "Service Members Rally Against the War in Iraq," by William H. McMichael, The Navy Times, January 15, 2007.)
"One of the key things we all have in common is this frustration with the detachment that we see all around us, this idea that we're at war and everybody else is watching American Idol.
"It's tough to have such a serious sense of commitment, and then come home and see so many people focused on frivolous things. So I think this frustration is serious and growing. And I'll tell you the truth: I blame the president for that. One of the biggest criticisms of the president, and I hear this across the board, is that he hasn't asked the American people to do anything.
"Asking somebody to die for their country might not be the biggest thing you can ask. Asking my guys to kill, on my orders--as an officer, that's difficult. I'm telling that kid to squeeze that round off and take a man's life. And then he's got that baggage for the rest of his life. That's what you have to live with."--Paul Rieckhoff, former Army infantry officer, Iraq vet, co-founder of IAVA--Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and anti-war activist. He is the author of the book, Chasing Ghosts, about his experiences in Iraq.
(source: "An Invisible War," New York Times op-ed, by Bob Herbert, May 3, 2007. Subscription required.)
"We are not fighting the war on terrorism, we are in the middle of a civil war. Meanwhile, the guy who attacked this country on 9/11 is living in a cave in Afghanistan…
(Vice President) "Cheney is a draft-dodger. We've got a president who frankly knows nothing of war and a vice-president who knows even less. Senators on the fence have a choice. They can stand with veterans like us, or they can stand with the draft-dodgers down the road."--Jon Stoltz, 29, Iraq war veteran, co-founder of VoteVets.org, which has 20,000 members, including 1,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.
(source: "Veteran's Group Speaks Out on War," by Lyndsey Layton and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post,, February 8, 2007.)
"First and foremost, we should never have gone into Iraq. I felt betrayed by the commanders who said they'd find a way to make this war work, when they knew it wasn't practical. This was a betrayal of the men and women who are fighting in Iraq.
"You can protect the institution of the military through silence. To protect the men and women fighting this war, you have to speak up. There is no courage or honor in silence.
"From the very founding of this nation, patriotism was going against the grain for the greater good of the country. A true patriot is not afraid to look out for the best interests of the nation and its citizens. Today, we are using patriotism to subdue people, to convince them not to exercise their rights. Are we really serving the citizens well by being in Iraq? I think the truth is no, we're not.
"There's story upon story from people who say, 'I can't believe I'm going back for my third or fourth tour. They are all saying they have the same problems, on the streets, as they had when they left.
"I was frustrated that so many people in significant leadership positions remained silent about the war…People are dying. Families have been torn apart. This war is sucking the life out of our military. I cannot stay silent. I need to say that I am concerned enough to put my reputation at risk to point out that this war is wrong."--Chief Master Sgt. Jeff Slocum, 41, United States Air Force. Slocum spent 21 years in the military and planned to retire after 30 years, but has decided to leave the military and speak out.
(source: "War Causes Air Force Chief Master Sergeant to Change Course," by Sarah Olsen, for Truthout.org, April 24, 2007.)
ARMY REGULATION 530-1: OPERATIONS SECURITY (OPSEC): "An OPSEC review is required prior to publishing web log (blog) postings, comments on internet message boards, resumes, letters home…Failure to do so could result in court-martial or administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action.
"Effective immediately, no information may be placed on websites…unless it has been reviewed…The Army Web Risk Assessment Cell has been formed to scan blogs for information breaches and security violations."--"Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death," by Noah Schachtman, Wired.com, May 2, 2007.
The Pentagon has placed unprecedented restrictions on who can testify before Congress, reserving the right to bar lower-ranking officers, enlisted soldiers, and career bureaucrats from appearing before oversight committees or having their remarks transcribed, according to Defense Department documents.
Robert L. Wilkie, a former Bush administration national security official who left the White House to become assistant secretary of Defense for legislative affairs last year, has outlined a half-dozen guidelines that prohibit most officers and civilians appointed by President Bush.
The guidelines, described in an April 19 memo to the staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, adds that all field-level officers and enlisted personnel must be "deemed appropriate" by the Department of Defense before they can participate in personal briefings for members of Congress or their staffs; in addition, according to the memo, the proceedings must not be recorded.
Wilkie's memo also stipulated that any officers who are allowed to testify must be accompanied by an official from the administration, such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates or his top-level aides.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress see the move as a blatant attempt to bog down investigations of the war. But veterans of the legislative process--who say they have never heard of such guidelines before--maintain that the Pentagon has no authority to set such ground rules.--"Pentagon Restricting Testimony in Congress; Blocks Staff of Lower Rank," by Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, May 10, 2007
"When I returned from the war, almost 40 years ago now, I stood up and spoke from my heart and my gut about what I thought was wrong. I asked the question in 1971: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?...I never thought that I would be reliving the need to ask that question again." --Senator John Kerry, in remarks made January 29, 2007, as quoted in, "Soldier's Death Strengthens Senators' Antiwar Resolve," by Jonathan Weisman and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, January 30, 2007
What "The Troops" Really Think: Voices from Iraq
By Deanie Mills | bio
http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/blog/deani...oices_from_iraq
"In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place…(but now, on his third deployment), "We killed a man who was setting a roadside bomb. And when we searched the bomber's body, we found identification showing that he was a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
"I thought, What are we doing here? Why are we still here? We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.
"If we stayed here for five, even ten more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy. It would go straight into a civil war. That's how it feels, like we're putting a band-aid on this country until we leave here."--Staff Sgt. David Safstrom, Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division.
"In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war. Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me." (that we should get out.)--Sgt. First Class David Moore, platoon sergeant., same unit, self-described "conservative Texas Republican"
"The Iraqi Army would not fight with us. Some actually picked up weapons and fought against us…Before that fight, there were a few true believers. After that, I don't think you'll find a true believer in this unit. They're paratroopers. There's no question they'll fulfill their mission. But they're fighting now for pride in their unit, professionalism, loyalty to their fellow soldiers, and chain of command."--Capt. Douglas Rogers, same unit.
"I don't believe we should be here in the middle of a civil war. We've all lost friends over here. Most of us don't know what we're fighting for anymore. We're serving our country and our friends, but the only reason we go out every day is for each other.
"I don't want any more of my guys to get hurt or die. If it was something I felt righteous about, maybe. But for this country and this conflict, no, it's not worth it."--Sgt. Kevin O'Flarity, squad leader, same unit
(source: "As Allies Turn Foe,Disillution Rises in Some G.I.'s," by Michael Kamber, New York Times, May 28, 2007.)
"They feed us (the intelligence) that they want. I guarantee that everyone in the city knows where we're going. Because the Iraqi Army told them. The only thing they don't know is how big a force we're coming with…It's a debacle."--Spec. Josh Lake, 26, of Ventura, Calif., Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade
"The general feeling among us is we're not really doing anything here. We clear one neighborhood, then another one fires up. It's an ongoing battle. It never ends. It's just the same old bull."--Spec. Daniel Caldwell, 20, Montesano, Wash., same unit
"We're constantly being told that it's not our fight. It is their fight." (the Iraqi Army) "But that's not the case. Whenever we go and ask them for guys, they almost always say no, and we have to do the job ourselves."--Sgt. Jose Reynoso, 24, Yuma, Ariz., same unit
"You do have corruption problems among the ranks…They have militias inside them. They are pretty much everywhere. We're chasing ghosts."--Sgt. Justin Hill, 24, Abilene, Tex., same unit
(source: "U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy," by Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post,, January 12, 2007.)
"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do. I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."--Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division
"What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us. Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight.
"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away. And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."--Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, Pulaski, Tenn.,1st Infantry Divisiont
"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much. This isn't our war--we're just caught in the middle."--Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, York, Penn., 2nd Infantry Division
"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it’s not going to change."--Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, Tulsa, Okla., 2nd Infantry Division
(source: "Soldiers in Iraq View Troop Surge as Lost Cause," by Tom Lasseter, McClatchy Newspapers, February 3, 2007.)
"Why are we here when this country still to date does not want us here? Why does our president's personal agenda consume him so much, that he can not pay attention to what is really going on here? I'm still here in this country wondering why, and having to pick up the pieces of what is left of my friend in our room. I would just like to know what is the true reason we are here? This country poses no threat to our own. So why must we waste the lives of good men on a country that does not give a damn about itself? Most of my friends here share my views, but do not have the courage to say anything."--Pvt. Donald C. Hudson, Jr., 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division
(source: "A Soldier in Iraq Asks in Despair: Why Are We Here?" by Donald C. Hudson, Jr., Clarksville, Tennessee Online, May 29, 2007.)
"When are we going to get out of here? We don't feel like we're making any progress."--Spc. David Williams, 22, Boston, Mass., 82nd Airborne Division, the first of five "surge" brigades to arrive in Iraq. This was a question he hoped to pose to Sen. Joseph Lieberman during a visit, but never did.
"We're not making any progress. It just seems like we drive around all day waiting to get shot at. It's just more troops, more targets. But I'd never really say that to the senator." (Lieberman). "I think I'd be a private if I did."--Spc. Will Heden, 21, Chester, Conn., same unit
"It's like everything else in this war. (referring to Baghdad) It hasn't changed."--Spec. Kevin Adams, 20, Moosup, Conn., same unit
"I think it's important we don't lose our will."--remarks made by Sen. Joseph Lieberman to the troops of the 82nd Airborne
(source: "Lieberman Talks to Troops in Baghdad," by Leila Fedel, McClatchy Newspapers, May 30, 2007.)
"In January, we were doing routine presence patrol through the city of Hawja, and one of our trucks was hit by a roadside bomb, an IED, and it killed four of the soldiers out of the five that were in the truck. And during the recovery of the fallen soldiers all the debris inside the truck--we just had the truck loaded with school supplies and soccer balls and crayons and notebooks and coloring books. We just wanna help. And it was just a really eye-opening and frustrating experience. Because we're still getting killed out there."--Spc. Kevin Torres, who appeared on 60 Minutes, out of uniform, to explain why he was one of several thousand soldiers and Marines to sign the Appeal for Redress petition to Congress to end the war.
(when asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan, "What would you say to the people that say, 'All right, it's clear that the war in Iraq is incredibly difficult and life is really tough both for Americans and for Iraqis, but pulling out's not the answer. It's only gonna get worse. There's gonna be all-out civil war.'"):
"How does that become the default? Either someday, we have to leave. We can't stay in Iraq for the next thousand years."
(asked if there's a possibility that Iraq might be better off if American troops stay and finish the job):
"But then our lives are hanging in the balance of a flip of a coin…We volunteered to make a difference, not just to be part of an experiment."--Sgt. Ronn Cantu, answering her on the program
(source: "G.I.'s Petition Congress to End Iraq War," CBS News, Sunday, February 25, 2007.)
"We really don't want to go to Iraq, but we joined the military out of economic necessity. I'm scared. I just want people to know that we didn't want to go over there. We're not looking forward to it. People are over there dying and suffering. Nothing has been accomplished. We've sacrificed a lot of our time, and a lot of people have died for this. And for what?" --female Army soldier, due to deploy soon, who chose not to reveal her name, rank, or unit designation from fear of repercussions
(source: "Opposition to the War Growing Among Troops," by Sarah Olson, truthout.org, March 28, 2007.)
"What do you want us to accomplish over here? We aren't hearing any end state. We aren't hearing it from the president, from the defense secretary…We're working hard and the politicians are arguing. They don't have bullets flying over their heads. They aren't on the front lines, and their buddies aren't dying.
"…We're not complaining. We're tired of being lost. Have you ever been lost and at the same time getting shot at? It's miserable…I want to be here for a reason, not just a show of force."--Sgt. 1st Class Michael Eaglin, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division
"It's almost like the Vietnam War. We don’t know where we're going."--Spec. Adam Hamilton, same unit
(source: "Troops at Baghdad Outposts Seek Safety in Fortifications," by Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, May 8, 2007)
"There is an organized, constructive level of dissent with the ranks on this war…It's not political when people heed the call of their conscience. Not one more of my brothers should die for a lie. This is my generation's call to conscience."--Sgt. Liam Madden, 22, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, served in Iraq, 2003--assembling out of uniform to present the Appeal for Redress petition to Congress on Monday, January 15, 2007
(source: "Service Members Rally Against the War in Iraq," by William H. McMichael, The Navy Times, January 15, 2007.)
"One of the key things we all have in common is this frustration with the detachment that we see all around us, this idea that we're at war and everybody else is watching American Idol.
"It's tough to have such a serious sense of commitment, and then come home and see so many people focused on frivolous things. So I think this frustration is serious and growing. And I'll tell you the truth: I blame the president for that. One of the biggest criticisms of the president, and I hear this across the board, is that he hasn't asked the American people to do anything.
"Asking somebody to die for their country might not be the biggest thing you can ask. Asking my guys to kill, on my orders--as an officer, that's difficult. I'm telling that kid to squeeze that round off and take a man's life. And then he's got that baggage for the rest of his life. That's what you have to live with."--Paul Rieckhoff, former Army infantry officer, Iraq vet, co-founder of IAVA--Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and anti-war activist. He is the author of the book, Chasing Ghosts, about his experiences in Iraq.
(source: "An Invisible War," New York Times op-ed, by Bob Herbert, May 3, 2007. Subscription required.)
"We are not fighting the war on terrorism, we are in the middle of a civil war. Meanwhile, the guy who attacked this country on 9/11 is living in a cave in Afghanistan…
(Vice President) "Cheney is a draft-dodger. We've got a president who frankly knows nothing of war and a vice-president who knows even less. Senators on the fence have a choice. They can stand with veterans like us, or they can stand with the draft-dodgers down the road."--Jon Stoltz, 29, Iraq war veteran, co-founder of VoteVets.org, which has 20,000 members, including 1,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.
(source: "Veteran's Group Speaks Out on War," by Lyndsey Layton and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post,, February 8, 2007.)
"First and foremost, we should never have gone into Iraq. I felt betrayed by the commanders who said they'd find a way to make this war work, when they knew it wasn't practical. This was a betrayal of the men and women who are fighting in Iraq.
"You can protect the institution of the military through silence. To protect the men and women fighting this war, you have to speak up. There is no courage or honor in silence.
"From the very founding of this nation, patriotism was going against the grain for the greater good of the country. A true patriot is not afraid to look out for the best interests of the nation and its citizens. Today, we are using patriotism to subdue people, to convince them not to exercise their rights. Are we really serving the citizens well by being in Iraq? I think the truth is no, we're not.
"There's story upon story from people who say, 'I can't believe I'm going back for my third or fourth tour. They are all saying they have the same problems, on the streets, as they had when they left.
"I was frustrated that so many people in significant leadership positions remained silent about the war…People are dying. Families have been torn apart. This war is sucking the life out of our military. I cannot stay silent. I need to say that I am concerned enough to put my reputation at risk to point out that this war is wrong."--Chief Master Sgt. Jeff Slocum, 41, United States Air Force. Slocum spent 21 years in the military and planned to retire after 30 years, but has decided to leave the military and speak out.
(source: "War Causes Air Force Chief Master Sergeant to Change Course," by Sarah Olsen, for Truthout.org, April 24, 2007.)
ARMY REGULATION 530-1: OPERATIONS SECURITY (OPSEC): "An OPSEC review is required prior to publishing web log (blog) postings, comments on internet message boards, resumes, letters home…Failure to do so could result in court-martial or administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action.
"Effective immediately, no information may be placed on websites…unless it has been reviewed…The Army Web Risk Assessment Cell has been formed to scan blogs for information breaches and security violations."--"Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death," by Noah Schachtman, Wired.com, May 2, 2007.
The Pentagon has placed unprecedented restrictions on who can testify before Congress, reserving the right to bar lower-ranking officers, enlisted soldiers, and career bureaucrats from appearing before oversight committees or having their remarks transcribed, according to Defense Department documents.
Robert L. Wilkie, a former Bush administration national security official who left the White House to become assistant secretary of Defense for legislative affairs last year, has outlined a half-dozen guidelines that prohibit most officers and civilians appointed by President Bush.
The guidelines, described in an April 19 memo to the staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, adds that all field-level officers and enlisted personnel must be "deemed appropriate" by the Department of Defense before they can participate in personal briefings for members of Congress or their staffs; in addition, according to the memo, the proceedings must not be recorded.
Wilkie's memo also stipulated that any officers who are allowed to testify must be accompanied by an official from the administration, such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates or his top-level aides.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress see the move as a blatant attempt to bog down investigations of the war. But veterans of the legislative process--who say they have never heard of such guidelines before--maintain that the Pentagon has no authority to set such ground rules.--"Pentagon Restricting Testimony in Congress; Blocks Staff of Lower Rank," by Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, May 10, 2007
"When I returned from the war, almost 40 years ago now, I stood up and spoke from my heart and my gut about what I thought was wrong. I asked the question in 1971: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?...I never thought that I would be reliving the need to ask that question again." --Senator John Kerry, in remarks made January 29, 2007, as quoted in, "Soldier's Death Strengthens Senators' Antiwar Resolve," by Jonathan Weisman and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, January 30, 2007
Is betrayal the wrong term?
I don't think so...
May 28, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Trust and Betrayal
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NEW YORK TIMES
“In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war.” That’s what President Bush said last year, in a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.
Those were fine words, spoken by a man with less right to say them than any president in our nation’s history. For Mr. Bush took us to war not with reluctance, but with unseemly eagerness.
Now that war has turned into an epic disaster, in part because the war’s architects, who we now know were warned about the risks, didn’t want to hear about them. Yet Congress seems powerless to stop it. How did it all go so wrong?
Future historians will shake their heads over how easily America was misled into war. The warning signs, the indications that we had a rogue administration determined to use 9/11 as an excuse for war, were there, for those willing to see them, right from the beginning — even before Mr. Bush began explicitly pushing for war with Iraq.
In fact, the very first time Mr. Bush declared a war on terror that “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated,” people should have realized that he was going to use the terrorist attack to justify anything and everything.
When he used his first post-attack State of the Union to denounce an “axis of evil” consisting of three countries that had nothing to do either with 9/11 or with each other, alarm bells should have gone off.
But the nation, brought together in grief and anger over the attack, wanted to trust the man occupying the White House. And so it took a long time before Americans were willing to admit to themselves just how thoroughly their trust had been betrayed.
It’s a terrible story, yet it’s also understandable. I wasn’t really surprised by Republican election victories in 2002 and 2004: nations almost always rally around their leaders in times of war, no matter how bad the leaders and no matter how poorly conceived the war.
The question was whether the public would ever catch on. Well, to the immense relief of those who spent years trying to get the truth out, they did. Last November Americans voted overwhelmingly to bring an end to Mr. Bush’s war.
Yet the war goes on.
To keep the war going, the administration has brought the original bogyman back out of the closet. At first, Mr. Bush said he would bring Osama bin Laden in, dead or alive. Within seven months after 9/11, however, he had lost interest: “I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure,” he said in March 2002. “I truly am not that concerned about him.”
In all of 2003, Mr. Bush, who had an unrelated war to sell, made public mention of the man behind 9/11 only seven times.
But Osama is back: last week Mr. Bush invoked his name 11 times in a single speech, warning that if we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda — which wasn’t there when we went in — will be the winner. And Democrats, still fearing that they will end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave Mr. Bush another year’s war funding.
Democratic Party activists were furious, because polls show a public utterly disillusioned with Mr. Bush and anxious to see the war ended. But it’s not clear that the leadership was wrong to be cautious. The truth is that the nightmare of the Bush years won’t really be over until politicians are convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering. And that hasn’t happened yet.
Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a “movement” that “has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he should be treated as a lunatic.
When Mitt Romney says that a coalition of “Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda” wants to “bring down the West,” he should be ridiculed for his ignorance.
And when John McCain says that Osama, who isn’t in Iraq, will “follow us home” if we leave, he should be laughed at.
But they aren’t, at least not yet. And until belligerent, uninformed posturing starts being treated with the contempt it deserves, men who know nothing of the cost of war will keep sending other people’s children to graves at Arlington.
I don't think so...
May 28, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Trust and Betrayal
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NEW YORK TIMES
“In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war.” That’s what President Bush said last year, in a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.
Those were fine words, spoken by a man with less right to say them than any president in our nation’s history. For Mr. Bush took us to war not with reluctance, but with unseemly eagerness.
Now that war has turned into an epic disaster, in part because the war’s architects, who we now know were warned about the risks, didn’t want to hear about them. Yet Congress seems powerless to stop it. How did it all go so wrong?
Future historians will shake their heads over how easily America was misled into war. The warning signs, the indications that we had a rogue administration determined to use 9/11 as an excuse for war, were there, for those willing to see them, right from the beginning — even before Mr. Bush began explicitly pushing for war with Iraq.
In fact, the very first time Mr. Bush declared a war on terror that “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated,” people should have realized that he was going to use the terrorist attack to justify anything and everything.
When he used his first post-attack State of the Union to denounce an “axis of evil” consisting of three countries that had nothing to do either with 9/11 or with each other, alarm bells should have gone off.
But the nation, brought together in grief and anger over the attack, wanted to trust the man occupying the White House. And so it took a long time before Americans were willing to admit to themselves just how thoroughly their trust had been betrayed.
It’s a terrible story, yet it’s also understandable. I wasn’t really surprised by Republican election victories in 2002 and 2004: nations almost always rally around their leaders in times of war, no matter how bad the leaders and no matter how poorly conceived the war.
The question was whether the public would ever catch on. Well, to the immense relief of those who spent years trying to get the truth out, they did. Last November Americans voted overwhelmingly to bring an end to Mr. Bush’s war.
Yet the war goes on.
To keep the war going, the administration has brought the original bogyman back out of the closet. At first, Mr. Bush said he would bring Osama bin Laden in, dead or alive. Within seven months after 9/11, however, he had lost interest: “I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure,” he said in March 2002. “I truly am not that concerned about him.”
In all of 2003, Mr. Bush, who had an unrelated war to sell, made public mention of the man behind 9/11 only seven times.
But Osama is back: last week Mr. Bush invoked his name 11 times in a single speech, warning that if we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda — which wasn’t there when we went in — will be the winner. And Democrats, still fearing that they will end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave Mr. Bush another year’s war funding.
Democratic Party activists were furious, because polls show a public utterly disillusioned with Mr. Bush and anxious to see the war ended. But it’s not clear that the leadership was wrong to be cautious. The truth is that the nightmare of the Bush years won’t really be over until politicians are convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering. And that hasn’t happened yet.
Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a “movement” that “has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he should be treated as a lunatic.
When Mitt Romney says that a coalition of “Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda” wants to “bring down the West,” he should be ridiculed for his ignorance.
And when John McCain says that Osama, who isn’t in Iraq, will “follow us home” if we leave, he should be laughed at.
But they aren’t, at least not yet. And until belligerent, uninformed posturing starts being treated with the contempt it deserves, men who know nothing of the cost of war will keep sending other people’s children to graves at Arlington.
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 11 2007, 09:22 AM)
Mac2:
Your tactic of philibustering minutiae is quite apparent to everyone on this site.
......................................
.........................................
However, I think you are missing out on a chance to really debate and discuss...
Your tactic of philibustering minutiae is quite apparent to everyone on this site.
......................................
.........................................
However, I think you are missing out on a chance to really debate and discuss...
"Your tactic of philibustering minutiae is quite apparent to everyone on this site. "
You couldn't be more wrong.
You should try standing on your own and speaking for yourself sometime.
Mac2:
I have been begging you to prove me wrong and articulate a detailed argument --- to get off the fence and stand for something...and you have refused...picking on extraneous points to make your case for no longer participating in a discussion...
Who have I stood on this thread...
Some may agree with me --- but I have made my own points --- my own arguments --- and supported my points of view with facts and opinions of experts in the particular fields...
You on the other hand have offered little more than one or two sentence drive bys which offer little substance.
I believe I have suggested introspection to you before because like George W. Bush you appear to project your own insecurities on your rivals, rather than meeting a challenge that confronts you.
Make an argument that I am wrong...
I dare you...
Its hard to debate someone if they won't say anything...
I have provided argument and evidence to support my point of view --- why can't you do the same?
Stop worrying about what everyone else willl think and go out on a limb and take a position...support it with arguments --- and support those with opinion facts -- whatever...
You'll be surprised how liberating it can be...
I have been begging you to prove me wrong and articulate a detailed argument --- to get off the fence and stand for something...and you have refused...picking on extraneous points to make your case for no longer participating in a discussion...
Who have I stood on this thread...
Some may agree with me --- but I have made my own points --- my own arguments --- and supported my points of view with facts and opinions of experts in the particular fields...
You on the other hand have offered little more than one or two sentence drive bys which offer little substance.
I believe I have suggested introspection to you before because like George W. Bush you appear to project your own insecurities on your rivals, rather than meeting a challenge that confronts you.
Make an argument that I am wrong...
I dare you...
Its hard to debate someone if they won't say anything...
I have provided argument and evidence to support my point of view --- why can't you do the same?
Stop worrying about what everyone else willl think and go out on a limb and take a position...support it with arguments --- and support those with opinion facts -- whatever...
You'll be surprised how liberating it can be...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 12 2007, 09:14 AM)
Mac2:
I have been begging you to prove me wrong and articulate a detailed argument --- to get off the fence and stand for something...and you have refused...picking on extraneous points to make your case for no longer participating in a discussion...
Who have I stood on this thread...
Some may agree with me --- but I have made my own points --- my own arguments --- and supported my points of view with facts and opinions of experts in the particular fields...
You on the other hand have offered little more than one or two sentence drive bys which offer little substance.
I believe I have suggested introspection to you before because like George W. Bush you appear to project your own insecurities on your rivals, rather than meeting a challenge that confronts you.
Make an argument that I am wrong...
I dare you...
Its hard to debate someone if they won't say anything...
I have provided argument and evidence to support my point of view --- why can't you do the same?
Stop worrying about what everyone else willl think and go out on a limb and take a position...support it with arguments --- and support those with opinion facts -- whatever...
You'll be surprised how liberating it can be...
I have been begging you to prove me wrong and articulate a detailed argument --- to get off the fence and stand for something...and you have refused...picking on extraneous points to make your case for no longer participating in a discussion...
Who have I stood on this thread...
Some may agree with me --- but I have made my own points --- my own arguments --- and supported my points of view with facts and opinions of experts in the particular fields...
You on the other hand have offered little more than one or two sentence drive bys which offer little substance.
I believe I have suggested introspection to you before because like George W. Bush you appear to project your own insecurities on your rivals, rather than meeting a challenge that confronts you.
Make an argument that I am wrong...
I dare you...
Its hard to debate someone if they won't say anything...
I have provided argument and evidence to support my point of view --- why can't you do the same?
Stop worrying about what everyone else willl think and go out on a limb and take a position...support it with arguments --- and support those with opinion facts -- whatever...
You'll be surprised how liberating it can be...
Tazvilo, sorry that I was so hard on you.
Let's look at two aspects of your discussion:
1. "Who have I stood on this thread...:
Please explain?
2. "Its hard to debate someone if they won't say anything..."
I have said much, its just not what you wanted me to say. The problem is in fact when I don't say what you want to hear you tell me what I am thinking such as this "So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this........."
Thats not minutiae, it important. A reasonable person will not let you define their side on the issues, thats a real big problem that stops discussions with someone like you.
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Jun 6 2007, 11:57 AM)
The basis of this thread is a piece of garbage.
It would seem that even the most idiotic amongst us would have given up the all dems good, all repubs bad hooey years ago.
It would seem that even the most idiotic amongst us would have given up the all dems good, all repubs bad hooey years ago.
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Jun 6 2007, 02:07 PM)
That proves my point. Your rhetoric, the basis for this thread, is in fact garbage.
Then when you attempted to frame me as ignorant, you just made yourself small.
So stop squirming so much and stand up for what you say without the smallness and little side comments.
Then when you attempted to frame me as ignorant, you just made yourself small.
So stop squirming so much and stand up for what you say without the smallness and little side comments.
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Jun 7 2007, 09:45 AM)
Smallness.....
Very few things in life no matter how small are " a personal thing" to me. Rest assured that you not.
My only comment at this time is that effective counter-points in a discussion can be and often are very brief.
Onward and upward.
Very few things in life no matter how small are " a personal thing" to me. Rest assured that you not.
My only comment at this time is that effective counter-points in a discussion can be and often are very brief.
Onward and upward.
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Jun 8 2007, 09:09 AM)
"Betrayal" is a poor choice of word here; linking it to the many previous leaders of the President's party is ...away past "poor choice."
One could debate that Bush is using the army in a badly-conceived mission, or that the President's policies do not match his words, or a whole list of others.
Betrayal is beyond all of that and if used here in this way could be used in dealing with Lincoln in the middle of the Civil War just as well. And now just as then the poorly thought-out rhetoric only damaged the speakers cause and this good old country.
One could debate that Bush is using the army in a badly-conceived mission, or that the President's policies do not match his words, or a whole list of others.
Betrayal is beyond all of that and if used here in this way could be used in dealing with Lincoln in the middle of the Civil War just as well. And now just as then the poorly thought-out rhetoric only damaged the speakers cause and this good old country.
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Jun 8 2007, 09:47 AM)
"So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this"
Who here, other than you, has said this?
Who here, other than you, has said this?
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Jun 8 2007, 12:53 PM)
********************************************************************************
************
" "So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this"
Who here, other than you, has said this? "
********************************************************************************
***********
My question to you above was quite simple!
It would be foolish for me to pursue this with you and overlook the fact that you have among other things framed me into the position that:
It is I who " want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this --- ...and no one bears more responsibility."
You just made that up to support yourself, and it had no basis in reality to me or any other poster in this thread. At the very best you can not help yourself and can not deal with the reality of my position.
You have been exposed here, and in order to advance the discussion you must simply accept your exposure.
************
" "So frankly if you want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this"
Who here, other than you, has said this? "
********************************************************************************
***********
My question to you above was quite simple!
It would be foolish for me to pursue this with you and overlook the fact that you have among other things framed me into the position that:
It is I who " want to try and make an argument that the Democrats are equally to blame on this --- ...and no one bears more responsibility."
You just made that up to support yourself, and it had no basis in reality to me or any other poster in this thread. At the very best you can not help yourself and can not deal with the reality of my position.
You have been exposed here, and in order to advance the discussion you must simply accept your exposure.
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Jun 11 2007, 07:46 PM)
"Your tactic of philibustering minutiae is quite apparent to everyone on this site. "
You couldn't be more wrong.
You should try standing on your own and speaking for yourself sometime.
You couldn't be more wrong.
You should try standing on your own and speaking for yourself sometime.
Mac2:
Hard on me? Another cryptic response --- I do not know that it is possible for anyone on this site to be “hard on someone else”…since there are so many difficulties in this life that are more serious than participating in a forum…
1. You suggested that I need to stand on my own...which frankly is a bizarre statement because I have barely referenced anyone else in my posts...
I may agree with people and disagree with others --- but if there is one thing that can be categorically sai