Bushie's Loose Lips Endangers Troops

I disagree about the title.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.


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

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

You said...


But,lets look at what you said...


TTH said this...




And your response was...



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.

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