Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The body armor arguement is crazy. The shortage of this equipment and others is due to the drastic military cuts of the 90’s. kerry could have still tried to write something to support the troops without trying to get rid of the tax breaks for all. Instead, he followed his own distorted view that these were for the wealthy and refused to take that part out. Bush also could have tried for a bill that would support the troops, without anything added to it. They both failed in doing this.
Mr. Murphy should have become a truck driver then. When we sign up to become a soldier, we know we are not going to be paid well. We know others doing alot less will be paid alot more, but pride forces us to do it.
Loss of benefits started in the mid 90’s and continues through today. To place the blame for this solely on this administration is wrong. They deserve some, but not all.
Protesting a war we are actively involved in, demoralizes our troops and makes them vulnerable. That is not supporting our troops.
A party can spin it anyway they want for political gain, but it still does not make it right. That is what is sickening!

kctim, though the military cuts of the 90s can be blamed for some of the problems in the military today, it certainly isn’t why the administration made the logistical error of not securing all the necessary equipment (e.g. body armor) before rushing to war.

kctim-

Protesting a war we are actively involved in, demoralizes our troops and makes them vulnerable. That is not supporting our troops.

In my mind, this is an immature view of war. It posits that what makes a war worth fighting is not the cause, not the victories over enemies and the progress made, but popularity. Morale is important, but I think the better way to improve morale is to start winning. When the victories are there, then doubts will vanish on both sides of the Atlantic.

This war in particular has earned much of the criticism made about it. It is a war we can no longer justify on the original premises. It is a war that has gone from an easy victory to a drawn out guerrilla campaign replete with brutal urban warfare. What’s more, many of the people we’re supposedly doing this for resent entirely our presence, even to the point of taking up arms against us. Given the dubious beginnings of this war and the truly problematic nature of its current conduct, I don’t see all that much to be happy about.

We have supported our troops at all junctures of this. Much of the protest of his war concerns issues of extended tours of duty, excessive casualties, negligence from the Bush administration concerning equipment for our troops, lack of planning for post invasion administration of Iraq and preserving law and order, insufficient troop numbers to ensure control of the country.

It’s Bush who’s let our troops down. He’s used them to fulfill a foreign policy dream of some of his advisors, but he chose the wrong time and the wrong manner in which to do so. He had us go in unprepared to do the job right, and we have reaped the cost ever since. The cost for this month? 76 dead.

kctim,

kerry could have still tried to write something to support the troops without trying to get rid of the tax breaks for all.

Protesting a war we are actively involved in, demoralizes our troops and makes them vulnerable. That is not supporting our troops.

Don’t put words into Walker’s mouth. I don’t know where he stands on this issue, but the original post didn’t actually protest the war itself - it was pointing out a particular, well-documented case in which the execution of the war was clearly wanting.

Nader supporters may want to pull the army out ASAP. That is not the Democratic platform, and I personally would not support a candidate that proposed anything so obviously destabilizing to the Middle East. Kerry’s position on what we should do next in Iraq is pretty darn close to Bush’s. The disagreement is over who will be executing it. And the Democratic position is that based on Bush’s performance so far, supporting Bush is undercutting our troops, not supporting them.

Furthermore, criticism of our government, my friend, is the only way to keep it accountable. When parents of soldiers are forced to pass a hat to buy their kids body armor, I’d like to see that publicized, rather than ignored. How else is it going to get fixed?

JB: I totally agree with your post. This administration is at fault for the poor logistical planning. The 90’s are why we do not have the proper equipment. This administration knew that and should be held accountable for not ensuring we were properly prepared.

SD: I am with you in thinking this war is wrong. I did not mention anything that says I support the war or what Bush has done with Iraq so far.
In my mind, believing that protests have no impact on the troops is very narrowminded.

WW: Refusing to vote for a bill that would have aided our troops because he believes in the “myth” that it was a tax cut for the wealthy is wrong. The loan vs. grant part could have been debated and probably compromised on in some way. That should have been a seperate issue altogether.

WC: Walkers last paragraph mentioned how Bush was worse than the war protesters. I respect his opinion on that, but stated my opposition to the war protesters actually support our troops reference. Thats all.
You may believe kerry can be a leader. I seriously doubt he will be capable of doing anything worth a damn. I can see where Bush has failed and needs to do better on Iraq. But, since I am not a partisan lacky for either party, I can also see where kerry lacks and just how bad he will be on domestic issues.
Lastly, criticism of our government is a must. But there is a proper way of doing it. Prior to the war was fine, but since then it has nothing to do with the war, it is all just attacks against the Republican party to try and gain political power.
Parents are “passing a hat” to buy armor only because of the extreme dismantling of the military that occurred in the 90’s. Granted, they should never have been sent there without the proper equipment, but if that equipment wouldn’t have been taken away in the first place, it wouldn’t be a problem.

I stated that both sides are to blame. I do not ignore one sides accomplishments/failures just to make the other side look better/worse. All of you should be more open minded.

Parents are “passing a hat” to buy armor only because of the extreme dismantling of the military that occurred in the 90’s. Granted, they should never have been sent there without the proper equipment, but if that equipment wouldn’t have been taken away in the first place, it wouldn’t be a problem.

If you blame the lack of body armor on the ’90s, you’ve gotta give equal credit for the quick successes by our troops in taking Afghanistan and Iraq to the ’90s.

The Military was reduced in the wake of the end of the Cold War. In an era where Reagans budget excesses had saddled us with a heavy debt load and interest rates were high, we could not keep up the high cost of a military of that size. Just ask Cheney, he and the rest of his crew were instrumental in making those cuts.

Besides, it wasn’t that extreme. We maintained military installations worldwide along with a large number of troops deployed. Our military industrial complex hasn’t exactly been starving. It’s just been a long time since we deployed so many troops, and Bush, despite NIEs telling him there was a potential for chaos didn’t spend the few hundred million at teh beginning of the war it would take to get all the armor. So, responsibility still falls to bush.

CJOZ: Yes I do give credit to the troops who toughed out the extreme cuts in the 90’s. They make up the majority of our armed forces of today.

SD: If it makes you feel better by spinning everything so that Bush is the reason for every bad thing in the world, that is fine by me. I am just trying to be non partisan by stating the facts: Both sides of the isle are to blame for this issue.
Besides, it wasn’t that extreme? You have got to be kidding me. Due to these cuts, our gas masks filters were outdated, we could not practice with live ammo, many of our training exercises were halted because of lack of funds, it was the mid-90’s but we were still driving vehicles from the early 70s with 150,000 plus on them, we worked 18 hours days to make up for lost manpower, we lost our dependent dental and most of our dependent medical benifits.
I know Cheney was involved in this also, which is why I do not place all the blame on clinton.

kctim said I am just trying to be non partisan by stating the facts: Both sides of the isle are to blame for this issue.

I agree. I think you’re being quite fair. And I’m not just saying that because you agreed with me. ;)

KCTim, I can’t imagine the cuts were that extreme if we managed to take out Afghanistan and Iraq with a couple hundred fatalities.

Hell, if we can roll over two nations with less loss of life than a nightclub fire, I’d say we can probably afford to cut even more.

ceejayoz, training fundamentals and military tactics aren’t effected by cuts in funding. It also helps when we have a lot of high quality people who care about their work. And what technology has survived goes a long way toward military advantage.

Parents are “passing a hat” to buy armor only because of the extreme dismantling of the military that occurred in the 90’s.

In Gulf I the military was short of handheld GPS devices: they were relatively new, and planners just hadn’t caught up with the need. So they bought up a huge number of non-milspec GPS devices intended for the consumer market: not perfect, but way better than nothing.

Ok, the army built down in the 1990s. It couldn’t figure out there was a shortage and buy up more body armor before the stories come out in Newsweek? I mean, if people are buying it before the go overseas, that means the stuff exists, right? or if procurement is too complicated, they can’t remimburse individuals for body-armor purchases - it’s gotta come out of someone’s $20k/yr military salary? why isn’t this a problem that got solved?

Blame Clinton if you want, but my theory is: It didn’t get solved because solving it would be admitting a problem, which would be almost like admitting a mistake. It would mean admitting that Iraq wasn’t the bed of roses that W wanted it to be.

I’m spinning nothing. Just because it hurts Bush doesn’t mean it’s been spun. There’s a huge amount of information out there about the mistakes made leading up to and during this war, from both sides of the aisle.

Go to PBS’s frontline site if you want a taste of it. It’s not pretty what they did. There were a lot of people who wanted us in Iraq and wanted to do Iraq in their way, light on soldiers, light on supplies, light on funds. What you see on the news is how it’s all turned out. When you got a president who so thoroughly screws things up, any criticism is going to sound partisan, even when it comes from centrists and republicans. As for the cuts, historically they are not that much different from other post war cuts. It’s simply what happens. Also, you should ask, who got more attention, big defense contractors who pay political contributions, or the grunts. I think you guys should make a bit of a stink about it, make it a liability for whoever ignores you. Otherwise, the cuts are going to hit the grunts first.

WC: Why isn’t this a problem that got solved?
I agree with you, this problem should have been solved way before it was brought up. But it wouldnt have been a problem if the cuts weren’t so extreme. I never blamed clinton for all of this. I have stated over and over again that both sides are to blame. You are so quick to blame one side in order to make your side look better, that you cannot admit that both are at fault.

SD: If it is the truth and it hurts Bush, so be it.

“What you see on the news is how it’s all turned out?”
Believe it or not, the news, mainly reports the bad stuff for headlines. Headlines sell. To say everything Bush has done has turned out bad is wrong. Talk to some troops, there are a lot of good things happening also.

Cuts will always hurt the bottom first. Its not newsworthy enough to make a headline. But these big defense contractors do not only support the GOP. I hope you can see that.

Both sides are to blame for equipment failures, there is no way around it.

To my Fellow Americans : As our President continuously denies that he will reinstate a draft, then tell me this why are there two bills simultaneously being passed in the House and Senate that will be the next step in a Draft. I Love America and I support our Troops to the Max. I support them because they are doing there job but this war is not about terrorism it is about money and power. Our Friends and Family are dieing everyday and we are not even hearing the half of it. The US
Is spread all over the Globe and is maxed out. I recently spent 3 hours on a flight sitting next to a brigadier general who told me when asked, “Yes if we have another theater of war open then we would need to implement the draft. As I am typing this the nightly news is downplaying a draft saying it is a hoax. REMEMBER George Bush Senior “READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES” Remember the new Taxes.
These politicians do not care about us and they lie lie lie. When will Americans Stand Up and Take control of there country again??????

Regardless of my political views you should take the time and read this info and pass it on to as many people as you know, especially IF YOU HAVE SON’S OR DAUGHTER’S BETWEEN 18 AND 20 YEARS OLD BY JUNE 2005 (they may change it to age 34). When you read these two bills you will see that it will not matter if your children are in college, have medical problems, married, single, etc., etc., etc. “THEY WILL BE DRAFTED”!! They need our children to continue this 8-10 year war (per President Bush). Wakeup everyone and quit listening to O’Reilly, CNN, NBC, CBS, etc., they can’t tell the truth they will lose their jobs!

Attached are two Bills:
Senate Bill - S.89
House of Representatives – HR163
Go to – www.senate.gov and click “legislation and records” and type in Bill #
Go to – www.house.gov and do the same.

Both read the same but they must go through both branches of government to become law.
www.sss.gov - read the first paragraph marked Notice then look to the left and click on “What happens in a Draft”.

Kevin,
Regarding the draft bills you cite, discussing them opens up a whole new can of worms, I’m not sure I’m ready for at the moment. Briefly though, it is worth knowing that these bills are sponsored by liberal Democrats, most of whom find the Iraq war to be abhorrent, so I believe the conventional wisdom is they are unlikely to pass. I suspect they amount to a political statement about the wrongness of committing ourselves to so many military adventures that we are required to abuse our voluntary forces with stop loss orders and lack of preparedness to carry them out. One might see it as a forcing of the issue. “There aren’t enough forces willing to do George’s bidding comfortably, so let’s see what kind of response there would be to mandatory service for just about anybody given the nature of the conflicts we are in.” I’m not sure though how it would play out if they actually passed. I’m not particularly comfortable with the gambit, if that’s what it is.

I am with Walker on this.

Liberal democrats sponsored the bill, probably in the hopes of inciting panic and it seems to have worked with some people. Republicans control both houses, so there is no chance of these bills passing. Look at who is sponsoring the bill.

The military professionals don’t want a draft. President Bush has never advocated one. As long as you don’t let Charlie Rangel and his friends control the process, our sons and daughters are not at risk of being drafted. Vote against the sponsors of the bill if you live in their districts.

Regarding the draft bill being sponsored in Congress by liberal Democrats as a ploy to expose the issue of our forces being stretched thin, I wrote:
“I’m not particularly comfortable with the gambit, if that’s what it is.”

Jack replied:
“I am with Walker on this.”

I suspect Jack that you are actually not just uncomfortable with the gambit, but decidedly opposed to what you see as a cynical ploy on the part of these Democrats to “create a panic” as you say. While your objection has merit, and ultimately I might agree with you that creating bills that you know won’t pass just to make a point isn’t the ideal way of going about things, I am not without sympathy for the position that there really is a problem with a lack of volunteer troops to carry out the tasks that our Commander in Chief has gotten us into. If I were in one of those Congressmen’s district I wouldn’t vote against them, though, but that’s immaterial, as you can be sure they all come from super safe districts (or else are retiring).

Regrading the body armor and other ground force equipment required to protect our troops, I would like to remind people that this problem was first introduced prior to the first Iraq War. As early as 1978, the military realized that our ground forces did not have the type of weapons needed for future conflicts. Although the nineties made great leaps in producing new equipment, the failure of Bush to call for these items to be provided to our troops in Afgan and Iraq is another feather in his every growing crown of dishonor.

Weapons such as the M-29 rifle, full bogy armor that works, and small direct fire power units that are “still in development” has allowed many of our troops open to attack unnecessarily. Unlike his father who allowed certain advance systems to be deployeed, Bush has kept out of service the very equipment the Army and Marines have asked for in their reports over the last 20 years.

The body armor issue should tell the whole world that George Bush was in hurry to go to war. Why did he send the soldiers to battle without the body armor they needed for protection. Now he is spinning that Mr Kerry did not vote for the $87billion. Today I read the reasons why Mr Kerry voted for and against this fund I feel very proud of this guy. George Bush played politics of tax cut for his rich friends. Why did he not understand that the cut was an issue everybody will not agree with. Until now I have been a Bush supporter but look I am so annoyed right now because of the the kind of deciet it this administration. The security of this country does not depend only on the military. A viable economy and and a reduced deficit for the generation to come is a form of security.

Back to $87billilon dollrs, what was it used for. I have just read that many overblown contracts was awarded to Halliburton(DICK CHENNEY). Please people should take out time and read . It is important that we get the facts. My party has become o party of lies manipulation, overspending, and big government.

CHU

CHU,

Welcome aboard - for this election cycle anyway. I think if Bush loses you will get a better Republican party, and reasonable voices like John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and Olympia Snowe will come to the fore.

We Democrats need a viable and sensible counterpoint. One party government is a disaster in either direction.

Walker

I am the wife of a retired Navy Chief and the mother of a Sgt. in the Army. When my children were in school, no-one said I was not supporting my child when I found fault in the way the school was operating. I pointed out the problems and worked with the school/teachers to solve the problems. My son is now in the Army and spent a year in Baghdad and will most likely be going back. There are many things that are going wrong. If I remain quiet and do nothing to change the situation that would be turning my back on my child. I am very proud of my son, but not because I believe in the war. I am proud of him because he is doing his best to make a bad situation better.
I do believe we should have a draft. If we are going to war, everyone in this country should have a stake in it. If it is important enough for my son to be sent, then it should be important enough for everyone’s son/daughter to go. The way we treat our military should always be the way we want our own children treated.
The military lacks so many things that would help our soldiers and make their life easier. People who are willing to send my son to war are not willing to give up their tax beaks so there is enough money to support the military. My son was one of the lucky ones that got issued a vest, but he constantly complained that he couldn’t get parts to repair the equipment. It was not only the big bucks items that they lacked. They also lacked some things that were not high cost items. When my son went to Baghdad, I had to send things like bug spray. Why would our country send soldiers to a dessert with bugs and diseases for which they have no immunity and not give them protection? After he had been there six months, we sent him an air mattress. He had been sleeping on an army cot with no padding. That may be fine when they are on the move, but not for months at a time. Our country seems to think that military service is a calling from God and that being poor and suffering is part of the job.
When these soldiers signed up for the military, they knew they could be in danger, but they also thought they could get out at the end of their hitch. While my son is career Army and most likely will stay in, even if he wanted to get out, he would not have that option. So much for an all volunteer military.

I am looking for parents/family members in the New York area, that have sent and will send body-armor and other equipment to soldiers in Iraq because of the “Humvee risk”.

I am working for European television and would like to report about the “Humvee problem” next week, as Kerry’s speech yesterday brought that problem to a wider attention.

Please contact me as asap with any information on families sending body-armor. Thank you!

The people who should be held accountable for the equipment short falls are the Senators and Congressman and woman that have been around since 1990.Yes the President provides the Leadership,however the above mentioned members of both houses are in bed with the Military Industrial Complex also. Everyone should contact their respective Senators and Congressman to remind them they will be coming up for reelection again.