Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Re: Foxfyre


Her opinions are illogical because you disagree with them?

And you think that's logical?

LOL.

Re: Foxfyre


NO! Her opinion in this case IS illogical whether or not I disagree with them.

BBB

Consider yourself recognized. I still fail to see what's so sunny about a future where policies are decided in a mudfight between Michael Moore dittoheads and Rush Limbaugh dittoheads, with the reasonable adherents to both parties crowded out. But if you're happy, I'm happy.

And that's probably also a question that Sheehan would refuse to answer if it ever were asked.

Agreed......it's not just regrettable, it's a tragedy. But it's the tragedy of the human condition. Public opinion is shaped by well devised sales appeals. And you can't argue with Mother Nature. So I say, let's accept it as necessary for now and move on to take our place, responsibly in the fight, using the necessary tools.

We know you can't legislate these things. The best we can do is advocate and work toward a world in which people get the opportunity to think for themselves......through education and a healthy up bringing, where bully tactics are not effective. But we're a long way from achieving that goal. Do you see the fundamentalists being open to negotiation? (By fundamentalist, I don't include only the religious fundamentalists, but the neo-con fundamentalists and the big business profit-at-all-costs-let's-make-ourselves-rich-and-damn-the-consequences fundamentalists. The groups that now dominate the Republican party have this in common. They all think literally and are fanatical in their resolve.)

It would be nice to work toward the goal of negotiation about fair play or, I should say, wise play. But first we have to obtain the power to provide an environment in which voters are able to think for themselves. We may be stuck with the bully influence peddlers forever now that pandora's box is wide open. I hope not. Actually, I don't see anything in that article that suggests use of the bullies. Maybe the progressives can find a way to sell our values without leaning too heavily on the bully techniques of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. That is a fine goal.

And thanks for the recognition.

Speaking of bully techniques....LOL.



Radioactive? Wow, them's fightin' words. So, if the DLC is the party of Durbin, Kerry, RodhamClintonRodham, etal.....get the popcorn ready, folks, 'cause the infighting has just begun!!!!!

I've just begun work on a play wherein the main character suffers a coronary, flatlines, peers briefly into the deep abyss but then is yanked mercilessly back up into the raucous and gaudy realm of mortals only to discover that, during the brief interim away, an alien sleeper-cell-sentience nestled within the Xerox Corp mainframe had cruelly removed the contents of many americans' craniums and then done a refill with copies of Britney Spears' brain.

Torture...just fine. Democracy...too damned inconvenient, after all. Loyalty to the Ruler...nothing else makes sense. Motherhood...a bloody blight on the land.

Vets understand War criticism not criticism of our troops
8.21.05
Vets understand Iraq War criticism is not criticism of our troops
by David Sirota

In case Democrats were worried that opposing the Preisdent's Iraq War policy will raise the ire of those in the military, they should read this piece in the Pensacola News-Journal*. The story, from a town with a sizable military population, notes that "If there's growing sentiment against the war in Iraq, many area veterans of the fight aren't taking it personally. Vets see the opposition as a protest against policy, not them or their service."

The thing is, it insults the intelligence of our soldiers to think that they will automatically believe that questioning the President's misguided Iraq War policy - and the lies that got us to that policy - is undermining the troops. In fact, as I wrote earlier today, when Democrats demand answers and an exit strategy, they are being pro-soldier, in that they are saying it is unacceptable for our political leaders to leave our troops in a perilous situation without a serious plan to bring them home.

* Published - August, 21, 2005
Vets see protests as attack on policy
Rallies not taken as personal slight
Troy Moon
@PensacolaNewsJournal.com

If there's growing sentiment against the war in Iraq, many area veterans of the fight aren't taking it personally.

Vets see the opposition as a protest against policy, not them or their service.

During the Vietnam War, many returning U.S. troops felt taunted, humiliated and treated with little or no respect. In contrast, today's veterans say they don't encounter animosity from people who don't agree with the U.S. military presence in Iraq.

"I have run into people who don't support the president's views on Iraq or our objectives, but I haven't run into a single person who said (he or she) doesn't support the troops," said Jason Crawford, a Purple Heart recipient who was shot in the face by opposition forces in December 2003 while in Iraq. "I think our society learned from Vietnam that it's not the men and women who sacrifice their lives and signed on the dotted lines who make up the plans and objectives. I think pretty much everyone supports the troops."

That's even if they don't approve of the U.S. involvement in Iraq that began in March 2003.

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, released earlier this month, showed 56 percent of Americans believe things are going "badly" for the United States in Iraq. And 54 percent of people say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq.

"I didn't believe we should have gone in there in the first place, and I'm still against the war," said David Howell, 24, of Pensacola. "But I respect anyone over there trying to do their job. It's not the troops' fault, it's the administration. (The troops are) a lot braver than me."

While many troops wish more Americans would support the war effort, some said it's heartening to know the folks back home wish them nothing but the best.

"They might not agree with (the war)," said Marine Corps Sgt. Ryan Bentele, 29, who returned from Iraq in May. "But they show us respect."

It's Vietnam veterans who are most appreciative, he said.

"They thank us the most," he said. "They had a hard time coming back and are truly appreciative of the job we're doing."

John Pritchard, president of the Vietnam Veterans Wall South Foundation and past commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 706 in Pensacola, said any anti-war sentiment today pales compared to the heated demonstrations and protests of the 1960s.

"I don't think you're ever going to see street demonstrations like you did in the '60s," said Pritchard, 58. "Let's face it, anyone who was an anti-war demonstrator during Vietnam is in their 50s or 60s now. It could be their grandchildren over there. I don't think you'll see the protests like we did then."

The most publicized recent protest is led by Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, Calif., who has camped near President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, since Aug. 6. Her son, Casey Sheehan, was killed five days after he arrived in Iraq last year.

Seeking a meeting with Bush, Sheehan earlier vowed to remain outside the ranch until the president returns to Washington on Sept. 3. She was forced to leave "Camp Casey" on Thursday night after her 74-year-old mother suffered a stroke. But she said she would return to the vigil at the ranch if possible.

Bentele said he feels for Cindy Sheehan but said she doesn't speak for all soldiers' families.

"There are a lot of moms who lost kids," he said.

Army Reserves Lt. Col. Alice Bell, 46, who spent 10 months in Kuwait in support of the Iraq invasion, said she has heard nothing but praise since returning home.

"It's not like in Vietnam, when they spat on troops coming back," she said. "Some people don't agree with the mission itself. But even if they're against the war effort, they're for the troops. They realize we're doing what we have to do, what we've been ordered to do, whether we agree with it or not."

Army National Guard Sgt. Shelton Johnson spent nearly a year in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. When he's in uniform, people often stop to offer him a verbal salute, he said.

"In Wal-Mart, customers come over and say 'Thank you,' " said Johnson, manager at the Kentucky Fried Chicken in Milton. "Most people are just real appreciative toward the soldiers."

Crawford, who now works for a health-care company, said he's not hurt by anti-war protests. On the contrary, he feels protests are a vital part of American democracy.

"As long as they're not defiant against the troops or the president, then I think it's actually healthy for our society and government," he said.

But Crawford and others believe there would be fewer protests and more support for military operations in Iraq if Americans had a clearer picture of what's going on there.

"We really made a difference in the lives of the Iraqis, and we're still making a difference," he said. "We're making progress. We're going to continue to face resistance, but we have to work through that. We can have liberty, freedom and democracy in that region.

"It puts a smile on my face knowing that the things we did there didn't happen in vain."

And you do?

As far as I can tell, she's not speaking for him but for herself, his mother. What I see happening here, this desire to chip chip chip away at any respect or sympathy there might be for this woman by demonizing her and, while you're at it, attempting to drive a post-mortem wedge between her and her son (as if you could possibly understand her son better than she could) is nothing short of disgusting. It's partisanship at its worst. If you don't like what she has to say, feel free to ignore her. Nothing would silence her faster.

She has no right to speak for him? Who are you to make that judgment?

BBB, Good article. Most necons continue to suggest that those of us against this stupid war is also against our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth, but necons are good at trying to use illogical reasoning to insult the intelligence of the military and the people of America. If you've noticed, those opposing Ms Sheehan in Texas are using signs that says "We Support Our Troops." They're not only foolish, but stupid as well, but there's no cure for stupid.

Has anyone here heard of the 'Back-Door Draft'. If you don't re-enlist they put a stop-loss on you and you lose your bonus. So you might as well re-enlist because their going to get you anyway. They also threaten to send you to the Front if they have to stop-loss you if you don't re-enlist. If you support the war and the troops you need to enlist. I can understand the people who disagree with the war not enlisting but why aren't the people who support the war or voted for bush enlisting?

I wrote


Thomas writes


Let me understand you. You are equating Bush with Hitler? Or are you simply making analogous comparison?

Either way let's see about that 'stab-in-the-back legend. Are you saying your grandfather disapproved of Hitler only and approved the mission and process in which the troops were engaged? I can accept that.

Are you saying your grandfather approved of the mission but disapproved of the process and the leader? I can accept that.

But if you are saying your grandfather approved of neither the leader, the mission, nor the process by which the mission was accomplished, then I would really like to see how he rationalized that he was supporting the German troops.

I would also like to see you draw a comparison between the German WWII initiative and the U.S. and allies stated mission in Iraq.

To BBB, since she has made the point that my statement is illogical and therefore I must assume the opposite of what I said she thinks is logical, I would like for her to explain the logic of how one supports the troops by saying terrible things about their commander-in-chief, condemning any purpose or mission in which they believe and/or are in engaged, and demanding they tuck tail and run and doing it all on national television in full view of the enemy.

Oh, let me see if I can predict what she would say.



When the commander-in-chief is a terrible man with no idea how badly he is wasting the lives of the troops, or he knows and just doesn't care, opposing him is analagous to supporting the troops. They remain troops no matter who the commander-in-chief is; he is NOT the armed forces, just a puppet leader.



Some soldiers believe in the mission, some do not. It is not wrong to condemn a bad purpose. For example, the vast majority of Liberals supported the war in Afghanistan. But not the war in Iraq, because it is a misguided and idiotic war which is getting many innocents killed for no good reason. Any fool can see this, and pointing this out is analagous to supporting the troops.



If you saw someone driving down a busy one-way street the wrong way, would you point it out and ask them to turn around, or would you recommend that they 'stay the course' until things really get bad? Pointing out that we chose the wrong path, and that a reversal is neccessary, is analagous to supporting the troops; it is their lives that those who point this out are attempting to save.

Of course, the major problem with all of this is the Right-wing complete inability to admit error, mistakes, or to take blame. That's the real problem here; we can't admit that we were wrong.

Cycloptichorn

No. I am contending that support for soldiers does not necessarily imply support for the mission the commander in chief assigned to them. Nor does it imply support for the commander in chief himself. I am using my grandfather as a rather obvious case in point.


My grandfather cared a lot for the individual soldiers who made up "the troups", and he supported them -- especially the fifty or so he was personally responsible for as the commander of his company. At the same time he hated both Hitler and the war he had started, and he took some measures, albeit cautious ones, to subvert the worst aspects of both. I am making no comparison between Hitler's and Bush's specific initiatives, except to argue that it's possible to oppose the mission, oppose the person who assigned it, and to support the people who happen to have to carry out the mission. "Stab in the back legend" means any contention or insinuation that opposing the commander in chief and his campaign is disloyal to the soldiers who have to execute the campaign.

"Of course, the major problem with all of this is the Right-wing complete inability to admit error, mistakes, or to take blame. That's the real problem here; we can't admit that we were wrong."

Bushco has never admitted he made a mistake, and never will.

The other problem is they vote for War, then they won't fight it. What to them is supporting the war. Why don't they support the war where it counts. At the Front

Someone called our troops "insurgents" here the other day and not one person from the left saw fit to correct him. I suppose you see that as "supporting" the troops LOL.

By the way, c.i.....that name-calling ... saying Bush supporters are stupid didn't work so well in the last election.

Keep it up, though. You're doing our work for us

Thomas writes


That is somewhat different than all the armchair quarterbacks calling the shots from the Left over here don't you think? I can't speak for what is in your heart, but it seems that many tilting left of center agree that you can support the troops while condemning their leader and everything they are doing. But how supported would you feel if you believed in your job, but everything you did was criticized, frequently in graphic term, if terrible things were being constantly said of your leaders, and you heard the constant drum beat that you should not be doing your job at all. Especially how would you feel if this was being done in front of your enemy who delighted in every word uttered or written?

I'm sorry but I will never believe you can condemn their leaders, their mission, their purpose, and their process and say you are supporting the troops.

Did you ever have a friend whose boss at work sucked? Did your supporting your friend require your supporting the boss too?

Thomas writes


No, and I said as much in my initial response to you.