Bushie's Loose Lips Endangers Troops

FreeDuck wrote:

TTH wrote:

It is called respect for a title, a position. It doesn't matter whether you or I like the person or not or even who it is. I would never say "tony" when referring to the Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But a person who holds a title can sometimes inspire such extreme disrespect that it becomes common acceptable to refer to them in less than respectful terms. For example: Saddam. If Bush is disrespected I dare say he's earned it.

I disagree about the title.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

RIECKHOFF:
One of the things that did happen today that concerned me was that during Bush?'s press conference, he actually showed a graphic that showed 24 urban military outposts in downtown Baghdad. I would argue that showing that to the world, and potentially to our enemy, might compromise morale, might actually compromise operational security. Not many people have picked up on this.

Pfrt. Like Parados, I have no sympathy with Bush but think this is a non-issue. Its hardly a secret where the "urban military outposts in downtown Baghdad" are. This is not a conventional war where the enemy cant see how the other side's troops are arranged behind the front line; it's an occupation, and anyone walking the streets of Bagdad can map these outposts for themselves, as I'm sure the "enemy" has long done. Tempest in a teapot, or rather, an attempt to create one.

0 Replies

nimh, I agree with Rieckhoff. But the map aside I think Bushie's surge plan is reckless and will be costly in American lives. Sleeping our troops in police stations in the neighborhoods where they're most hated is new and stupid. One such patrol base was attacked yesterday. 9 dead 20 wounded American troops.

0 Replies

So, what I gather is that you are saying President Bush is a dictator.

Also, have you considered speaking to any of "the troops" that have actually been to Iraq or Afghanistan to hear what they have to say?
Since they are the ones directly involved and impacted by this invasion
their opinion should matter.

0 Replies

TTH, sure I've talked to many Iraq/Afghanistan vets and marched against the war with them. Paul Rieckhoff and John Soltz are two activist vets I follow in their writings and tv appearences. Both have formed vet groups that are not scared to tell the truth about both the Presidunce and his unjust, unneeded war as one past CIC called it. "Jon Soltz"

Four years, tens of thousands of my fellow troops dead and wounded, a decimated military, increasing violence, a deteriorating political situation, and Osama bin Laden smiling and eating lamb chops somewhere in Pakistan - that is the legacy of this misguided war in Iraq.

Here's my story. Almost four years ago, link

0 Replies

blueflame1
Your link doesn't even make sense to me. Jon Soltz bio shows he was not active for this invasion, I understand he is a vet. Also, that is one opinion if that site is even legit.
I don't have time to check it out.

Ask current active soldiers about how they feel since they are the ones impacted. I form my opinion based on many different factors: tv news, videos, vets, active duty, reserve, books etc. Not just one source.

0 Replies

TTH , you can pretend that many troops are not against Bushie and his war. That seems to be your choice. I know many Iraq war vets and have marched and demonstrated against the war with them. Pretending is what Bushies do best imo. Remember how they pretended there were WMD? "And Jon Soltz was an army captain who served in Iraq during the occupation, from May to September of 2003." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/veterans_9-16.html

0 Replies

I am not pretending. I just like to hear different opinions from a variety of people. I am not changing my opinion and I am not out to change yours so
basically we can agree to disagree on this subject.

0 Replies

TTH, " Jon Soltz bio shows he was not active for this invasion". You aint pretending? But conveniently misleading? He served from May to September of 2003 in Iraq. It's safe to say he was active at the time of the invasion. Yet you say he was not.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

TTH, " Jon Soltz bio shows he was not active for this invasion". You aint pretending? But conveniently misleading? He served from May to September of 2003 in Iraq. It's safe to say he was active at the time of the invasion. Yet you say he was not.

I am not trying to be misleading. He is not actively involved, right now this minute, in this invasion. What occurred 4 years ago is different. His viewpoint is just another one to take into consideration when making an opinion. That is all.

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:
TTH, " Jon Soltz bio shows he was not active for this invasion". You aint pretending? But conveniently misleading? He served from May to September of 2003 in Iraq. It's safe to say he was active at the time of the invasion. Yet you say he was not.

I am not trying to be misleading. He is not actively involved, right now this minute, in this invasion. What occurred 4 years ago is different.

Well, I gotta agree with Blueflame here. First you say that "Jon Soltz bio shows he was not active for this invasion". Thats apparently simply not true - he did serve in this invasion. Then, instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, you change your story to that "He is not actively involved, right now this minute, in this invasion." Which is something completely different. Not quite honest, that.

0 Replies

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for April 24 STEWART: Joining us now is the chairman of VoteVets.org, Jon Soltz, who served in Iraq from May to September of 2003.

Thanks for being with us, Jon.

JON SOLTZ, VOTEVETS.ORG: Oh, thanks so much. My pleasure.

STEWART: Want to know what you do?-what you thought as Tillman?'s family was just giving this heartbreaking testimony on Capitol Hill about having been lied to, and accusing politicians of being concerned with their images than telling the truth. Well, the politicians of all stripes were spinning their sides on this budget battle. What did you think about that?

SOLTZ: Well, the first thing I thought was, it really broke my heart. April 2004 was a very difficult month for me. I had just come home from Iraq. It was a very hard time in the war in Iraq. The Sadr army had just sort of revolted. My unit, 1st Armored Division, had been extended four months. We had contractors burned at the stake in Fallujah.

And now you have them in Afghanistan, you have the situation with Pat Tillman. And I?'ll never forget where I was when he died. And to see his parents go through this pain, and his brother, and you hear the stories of Jessica Lynch. And the president is our commander in chief. He owes that family an apology. And the fact that they haven?'t gotten it in the last three years is absolutely horrific to the people who serve in the armed forces.

And if the president wants to support the troops, he can start by apologizing to Pat Tillman?'s family.

STEWART: I?'m curious what you think about the idea of the politicians talking so much, posturing, name calling, as all this was going on, over the budget, and the money needed to get to the troops.

SOLTZ: Well, I think it?'s ironic that they come hand in hand. Pat Tillman?'s death was used for political purposes. He?'s an individual who?'s a hero, who served in the Army to kill or to be part of, you know, the military defeat of Osama bin Laden, or to apprehend the man who attacked this country. He didn?'t agree with Iraq.

Now we have this budget battle, and the president wants to stand with the generals and say he listens to the generals on the?-in the field. And what you have is a vice president who?'s emboldened our enemies, and a president who?'s emboldened our enemies. Iran is stronger. Al Qaeda?'s reconstituting in Afghanistan.

So I think that it?'s ironic that here you have them who tried to use one family for their political purposes, and they keep their rhetoric moving in this direction.

So I think the American public?'s smarter than that. The president?'s in a box. Seventy percent of the American public think he?'s not a good commander in chief. Seventy percent of the American public thinks that he?'s, you know, failing our troops in the field and undermining them on the ground.

So I think it?'s just ironic the two issues happen on the same day. The budget battle?'s big, it?'s important. We?'ve got to hold accountable the Iraqi government. We?'ve got to get out of Iraq so we can continue the war on terror and protect America. And this is a president who?'s committed to partisan political debate and not reality of securing the country.

STEWART: Now, did the president get your attention, Jon, when he says he has done what antiwar voters wanted him to do in the midterm elections?

SOLTZ: Well, I don?'t know this is about antiwar or prowar. This is about protecting America. This is about keeping an Army that?'s strong and that can protect us. Ninety percent of our military is allocated to this mess in Iraq. And you?'ve got bin Laden, who?'s sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, something?-or somewhere there, eating lamb chops and having a good old time while al Qaeda?'s reconstituting.

So this is about redefining the war on terror. This is about accountability, responsible withdrawal from Iraq. This isn?'t about being antiwar, this is about protecting America. It?'s about keeping our National Guard and Reserve so they can deal with situations that (INAUDIBLE) Katrina.

The president?'s off base. And he?'s a limited man in his ability to be commander in chief, and he continues to show those limitations when he engages in this type of rhetoric.

STEWART: Let?'s talk about accountability before I let you go. Vice President Cheney today accused Majority Leader Reid of cutting off funding. Can it be argued the White House is trying to blame the Democrats for something the president is actually threatening to do himself, if he vetoes this bill?

SOLTZ: The president is punting the football. He?-if he wanted to win this war, he would do something that he hasn?'t done the entire war, which is ask the American country to sacrifice. So, look, the bill that went to the president has got $450 million extra for traumatic brain injury. It?'s got $350 million more dollars for post-traumatic stress disorder. It?'s got another $25 million to pick up their mess that they made over at Walter Reed because they failed as leaders.

I don?'t know what to say about the vice president other than he?'s totally unqualified to talk about these issues. He?'s never served in the military, he doesn?'t understand the sacrifice. And it really?-it?'s on the president to sign this bill, which to hold accountable the Iraqi government, get a responsible withdrawal, and give the troops what they need. If they veto it, they?'re vetoing support for the troops.

STEWART: Jon Soltz, the chairman of VoteVets.org, thanks for being with us tonight.

SOLTZ: Oh, thank you so much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18308435/

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

Also, have you considered speaking to any of "the troops" that have actually been to Iraq or Afghanistan to hear what they have to say?
Since they are the ones directly involved and impacted by this invasion
their opinion should matter.

Well, you might look at the opinion of the eleven men and women who went to fight in this Iraq war and, after they came home, decided to run for Congress last year. 10 of those 11 House hopefuls ran as Democrats, like Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth - overwhelmingly on an anti-war platform.

Quote:

Veterans running for Congress

The Intelligencer

A generation ago, three of every four members of Congress had served in the military. Today, barely one in four has ?- a statistic Patrick Murphy aims to change.

Murphy, an Army lawyer who served in Iraq for seven months and now practices with Cozen O'Connor in Philadelphia, is one of at least 11 Iraq and Afghanistan war vets running for Congress across the country, 10 of whom are Democrats. He's one of three candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for the 8th Congressional District, a seat now held by Republican Michael Fitzpatrick for the representation of Bucks and parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia counties.

A new political group, Band of Brothers, which supports Democratic veteran candidates, says 56 military veterans are running for Congress this year as Democrats. On Wednesday, Murphy joined many of them in Washington for a rally on the Capitol steps.

They share a dislike for the war in Iraq but differ on how to handle it. Some, like Tammy Duckworth, running for Illinois' 6th District, say the United States should have put more resources into pursuing Osama Bin Laden, rather than invading Iraq. Still, she doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal.

"It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists," Duckworth says on her campaign Web site. She lost both her legs and shattered her right arm after a rocket-propelled grenade struck the cockpit of the Black Hawk helicopter she was co-piloting north of Baghdad on Nov. 12, 2004.

Other Democrats, including Murphy, say they would pressure President Bush for a quick end to the war.

"I would demand that the president actually give us a plan to bring the troops home this year," Murphy said.

That would mean all troops, except for a strategic strike force based in Kuwait that would be available to help the new Iraqi government, he said. [..]

Murphy said his conscience led him to enter the race after he returned from his deployment overseas.

"I was a witness to our failing foreign policy in Iraq, and when I came home, I saw it wasn't just Iraq," he said. "This administration has not looked out for average American families, with its tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent, and making it harder for folks like myself to go to college, when they cut educational benefits."

Murphy, 32, credits his military training with honing leadership skills that he says will help him make the tough decisions needed in Congress.

His father served in the Navy and his uncle is in the Army, he said. [..]

He graduated from law school in 1999 and began his active duty service in the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps. He spent five months in Bosnia in 2002 and was sent to Baghdad in June 2003. [..]

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

TTH wrote:
Also, have you considered speaking to any of "the troops" that have actually been to Iraq or Afghanistan to hear what they have to say?
Since they are the ones directly involved and impacted by this invasion
their opinion should matter.

Well, you might look at the opinion of the eleven men and women who went to fight in this Iraq war and, after they came home, decided to run for Congress last year. 10 of those 11 House hopefuls ran as Democrats, like Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth - overwhelmingly on an anti-war platform.

Quote:
Veterans running for Congress

The Intelligencer

A generation ago, three of every four members of Congress had served in the military. Today, barely one in four has ?- a statistic Patrick Murphy aims to change.

Murphy, an Army lawyer who served in Iraq for seven months and now practices with Cozen O'Connor in Philadelphia, is one of at least 11 Iraq and Afghanistan war vets running for Congress across the country, 10 of whom are Democrats. He's one of three candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for the 8th Congressional District, a seat now held by Republican Michael Fitzpatrick for the representation of Bucks and parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia counties.

A new political group, Band of Brothers, which supports Democratic veteran candidates, says 56 military veterans are running for Congress this year as Democrats. On Wednesday, Murphy joined many of them in Washington for a rally on the Capitol steps.

They share a dislike for the war in Iraq but differ on how to handle it. Some, like Tammy Duckworth, running for Illinois' 6th District, say the United States should have put more resources into pursuing Osama Bin Laden, rather than invading Iraq. Still, she doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal.

"It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists," Duckworth says on her campaign Web site. She lost both her legs and shattered her right arm after a rocket-propelled grenade struck the cockpit of the Black Hawk helicopter she was co-piloting north of Baghdad on Nov. 12, 2004.

Other Democrats, including Murphy, say they would pressure President Bush for a quick end to the war.

"I would demand that the president actually give us a plan to bring the troops home this year," Murphy said.

That would mean all troops, except for a strategic strike force based in Kuwait that would be available to help the new Iraqi government, he said. [..]

Murphy said his conscience led him to enter the race after he returned from his deployment overseas.

"I was a witness to our failing foreign policy in Iraq, and when I came home, I saw it wasn't just Iraq," he said. "This administration has not looked out for average American families, with its tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent, and making it harder for folks like myself to go to college, when they cut educational benefits."

Murphy, 32, credits his military training with honing leadership skills that he says will help him make the tough decisions needed in Congress.

His father served in the Navy and his uncle is in the Army, he said. [..]

He graduated from law school in 1999 and began his active duty service in the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps. He spent five months in Bosnia in 2002 and was sent to Baghdad in June 2003. [..]

So,those 11 people represent ALL of the Iraq war vets and their views?

0 Replies

Political Affairs Magazine - Troops Say, "Bring Us Home!"A recent survey of US troops in Iraq shows that 72 percent believe the US should withdraw from the country within the next year.
www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2926/1/155 - 28k

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Political Affairs Magazine - Troops Say, "Bring Us Home!"A recent survey of US troops in Iraq shows that 72 percent believe the US should withdraw from the country within the next year.
www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2926/1/155 - 28k

And the same poll conducted three years after Pearl Harbor would have shown the exact same thing.

If you were the military expert you claim to be,you would know that soldiers always want to be home,instead of in the field or in combat.
There is nothing new or unique in that poll.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

nimh wrote:
TTH wrote:
Also, have you considered speaking to any of "the troops" that have actually been to Iraq or Afghanistan to hear what they have to say?
Since they are the ones directly involved and impacted by this invasion
their opinion should matter.

Well, you might look at the opinion of the eleven men and women who went to fight in this Iraq war and, after they came home, decided to run for Congress last year. 10 of those 11 House hopefuls ran as Democrats, like Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth - overwhelmingly on an anti-war platform.

Quote:
Veterans running for Congress

The Intelligencer

A generation ago, three of every four members of Congress had served in the military. Today, barely one in four has ?- a statistic Patrick Murphy aims to change.

Murphy, an Army lawyer who served in Iraq for seven months and now practices with Cozen O'Connor in Philadelphia, is one of at least 11 Iraq and Afghanistan war vets running for Congress across the country, 10 of whom are Democrats. He's one of three candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for the 8th Congressional District, a seat now held by Republican Michael Fitzpatrick for the representation of Bucks and parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia counties.

A new political group, Band of Brothers, which supports Democratic veteran candidates, says 56 military veterans are running for Congress this year as Democrats. On Wednesday, Murphy joined many of them in Washington for a rally on the Capitol steps.

They share a dislike for the war in Iraq but differ on how to handle it. Some, like Tammy Duckworth, running for Illinois' 6th District, say the United States should have put more resources into pursuing Osama Bin Laden, rather than invading Iraq. Still, she doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal.

"It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists," Duckworth says on her campaign Web site. She lost both her legs and shattered her right arm after a rocket-propelled grenade struck the cockpit of the Black Hawk helicopter she was co-piloting north of Baghdad on Nov. 12, 2004.

Other Democrats, including Murphy, say they would pressure President Bush for a quick end to the war.

"I would demand that the president actually give us a plan to bring the troops home this year," Murphy said.

That would mean all troops, except for a strategic strike force based in Kuwait that would be available to help the new Iraqi government, he said. [..]

Murphy said his conscience led him to enter the race after he returned from his deployment overseas.

"I was a witness to our failing foreign policy in Iraq, and when I came home, I saw it wasn't just Iraq," he said. "This administration has not looked out for average American families, with its tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent, and making it harder for folks like myself to go to college, when they cut educational benefits."

Murphy, 32, credits his military training with honing leadership skills that he says will help him make the tough decisions needed in Congress.

His father served in the Navy and his uncle is in the Army, he said. [..]

He graduated from law school in 1999 and began his active duty service in the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps. He spent five months in Bosnia in 2002 and was sent to Baghdad in June 2003. [..]

So,those 11 people represent ALL of the Iraq war vets and their views?

Umm nooo... why, did I say so? No, I didnt think so..

0 Replies

Put Bush's 'puppy dog' terror theory to sleep

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By RICHARD CLARKE

Wednesday, April 25th 2007, 4:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the President think terrorists are puppy dogs? He keeps saying that terrorists will "follow us home" like lost dogs. This will only happen, however, he says, if we "lose" in Iraq.

The puppy dog theory is the corollary to earlier sloganeering that proved the President had never studied logic: "We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities."

Remarkably, in his attempt to embrace the failed Iraqi adventure even more than the President, Sen. John McCain is now parroting the line. "We lose this war and come home, they'll follow us home," he says.

How is this odd terrorist puppy dog behavior supposed to work? The President must believe that terrorists are playing by some odd rules of chivalry. Would this be the "only one slaughter ground at a time" rule of terrorism?

Of course, nothing about our being "over there" in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.

Some 100,000 Iraqis, probably more, have been killed since our invasion. They have parents, children, cousins and fellow tribal clan members who have pledged revenge no matter how long it takes. For many, that revenge is focused on America.

At the same time, investing time, energy and resources in Iraq takes our eye off two far more urgent tasks at hand: one, guarding the homeland against terrorism much better than the pork-dispensing Department of Homeland Security currently does the job; and two, systematically dismantling Al Qaeda all over the world, from Canada to Asia to Africa. On both these fronts, the Bush administration's focus is sorely lacking.

Yet in the fantasyland of illogic in which the President dwells, shaped by slogans devised by spin doctors, America can "win" in Iraq. Then, we are to believe, the terrorists will be so demoralized that they will recant their beliefs and cease their terrorist ways.

In the real world, by choosing unnecessarily to go into Iraq, Bush not only diverted efforts from delivering a death blow to Al Qaeda, he gave that movement both a second chance and the best recruiting tool possible.

U.S. military raids in Iraq have uncovered evidence that Iraqis are planning attacks in America, perhaps to be carried out by terrorists with European Union passports that require no U.S. visas. But such attacks here over the next several years are likely now no matter what happens next in Iraq - and that is because of what Bush has already done, not because of any future course we choose in Iraq.

But we can be sure that when the next attacks come in the U.S., if Bush is down on the ranch cutting trees, he and whatever few followers he retains by then will blame his successor. You can almost hear them now: If only hissuccessor had left enough U.S. troops in the Iraqi shooting gallery to satisfy the blood lust of the enemy, as Bush did, then they wouldn't have come here.

The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.

Clarke served as chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He is now chairman of Good Harbor Consulting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Replies

nimh,
To avoid a ridiculously long post,I am going to skip most of the post I am goint to quote.

You said...

Quote:

Umm nooo... why, did I say so? No, I didnt think so..

But,lets look at what you said...

TTH said this...

Quote:

Also, have you considered speaking to any of "the troops" that have actually been to Iraq or Afghanistan to hear what they have to say?
Since they are the ones directly involved and impacted by this invasion
their opinion should matter.

And your response was...

Quote:

Well, you might look at the opinion of the eleven men and women who went to fight in this Iraq war and, after they came home, decided to run for Congress last year. 10 of those 11 House hopefuls ran as Democrats, like Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth - overwhelmingly on an anti-war platform.

You seem to be implying that their opinion was all that matters,since they are the only ones that ran for office.
Your statement can be taken that no other vets opinion,especially those who support the war,matters in this discussion.

If that wasnt your implication,then I apologize.

0 Replies

Quote:

The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.

So,even Clarke agrees that terrorists will attack us here if we lose overseas.

0 Replies

Bushie's Loose Lips Endangers Troops

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know