Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The problem with spinning or using 9/11 is that the United States is now justifying it’s horribly wrong actions with an event that is NOT related.

“Rendering the Geneva Convention quaint”, the legal justifications and photo proof of torture, 1700+ US deaths and untold # of wounded, and the false reasons for going to war… are these how we want to honor and remember those who died on 9/11? Equally so, by spinning 9/11 for Iraq while ignoring Bin Laden and his Saudi financial supporters, aren’t we further demeaning their sacrifices?

What about the fact that the one who was in charge on 9/11, the one who has been shown to ignore the threats from Bin Laden prior to 9/11, uses it only as a political leverage without ever once apologizing for anything he might have failed to do in preventing 9/11? It’s like the Captain of the Titanic blaming problems on the navigator. Who cares how it happened, YOU were at the wheel!

That horrible day should be always remembered, but only for the memories of those who died and the way it brought us together as a country (at least for a short time.) Anyone who repeatedly who uses it like a political charge card or a get-out-of-jail-free card should be strung up in a public square for the people they truly are.

William,

So apparently when the Right does it it’s called spin and when you do it it’s called “venting”? Because it seems to me that what you are doing here is nothing more than spin as well…

There is too much here to respond to in the time that I have so I’ll pick one…

Guys, statistically, about 50% of the country feels this way now. So when you feel like spinning 9/11 now, as an excuse for torture or unneeded war, think of 1500 people spinning in their graves - good people, American people, people that would feel just like I do, if they were still alive.

By your own words 50% of the country feels the way you do. Apparently the other 50% are just “spinning” when they disagree?

And specific to the military… Typically it has always been closer to 60% (or higher) of enlisted men and women are in favor of Republican values and leadership. With that in mind, to say that those 1500 heroic Americans that gave their lives would all “feel the way you do” is just plain wrong.

WHERE on earth do you get the figure 1500??? Try 6000!!! The DOD is pulling the same crap they pulled in ‘Nam. If you were wounded in Iraq and died in Bahrain, or wherever, YOU ARE NOT COUNTED! It’s like the 100% grated cheese in the grocery stores…if you read the label CAREFULLY, it isn’t 100% CHEESE, it’s just 100% GRATED! And it actually contains a lot of “cellulose”, which is SAWDUST! So the trained-dog media are saying “killed in Iraq”, NOT “Killed as a result of the Iraq war”….BIG DIFFERENCE! And HOW ABOUT some better publicity for this issue, BTW! We should be demanding that the Pentagon use a little honesty here too!!!

It’s the OIL stupid, the OIL!

brad,
the 3000ish people that william was refering to were not in the military, they worked at the world trade center, which is of coarse in New York City, which is much more than 60% democrat, so…
well I’ll just leave it at that.

capn mike-
I just heard about that yesterday, and I wish there was some link someone could point me to, so I can read about it.
anyone?

Capn Mike,
Likewise. I’ve seen nothing to support the claim. Links?

I don’t care what party anyone is ties to, I want people who were in charge of preventing 9/11-type attacks… those who feel asleep at the wheel mush be made to answer to that! (They tried to play stupid and say “Hey, who could’ve ever seen something like 9/11 happening?” Well, pretty much all of their intelligence pointed to this weakness long before the planes took off.)

There are DEMS and REPS and any flavor in between, who were paid very well to protect, who can only point fingers and shift blame. We need to help them put their fingers where they belong!

Of the 3000 people murdered in the WTC, Do you think statistically they would have an equal 50/50 split as the rest of us who were virtually unaffected? Or, do you believe they would have a higher propensity to want all terrorists to be tortured prior to having their heads cut off and fed to pigs?

Why did the people on the roof of the WTC jump? Because they were being cooked, literally, ever toasted a marsh mellow?

“nearly four years post 9/11, bin Ladin is still running free, a hero to millions”

He is running, for his life. I wouldn’t call that really being free. Should he still be our #1 priority? Absolutely! Even though killing him would only make him a martyr and somebody just like him will take his place, we have made a mistake in not pursuing him harder.
But to constantly harp about him like he is sitting on a beach sipping a cool one and enjoying the good life while we do nothing is in itself just “spin.”
There is no way to prove that we are doing NOTHING to capture him and evoking his name in this manner is only about getting votes.

“Don’t you think we’re a little tired of 9/11 being used as a catch-all innoculation of criticism of all kinds? Don’t you think we’re tired of hearing how things are getting better, its just not in the news”

Don’t you think others are tired of NOT seeing it in the news? and that we are tired of the left totally ignoring anything positive all in order to just promote their agenda and try to take back power?

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/

“by asking the government to not only spread democracy but actually practice it? maybe not have poor people from Cleveland wait for hours to vote? maybe have some sort of a trial before locking people up for years?”

Funny how your “democracy” as you call it, only concerns you when it occurrs in blue areas. I too waited an hour and half to vote, big deal, its called being in a line and waiting your turn.

“Guys, statistically, about 50% of the country feels this way now. So when you feel like spinning 9/11 now, as an excuse for torture or unneeded war, think of 1500 people spinning in their graves - good people, American people, people that would feel just like I do, if they were still alive.”

And 50% believe the opposite. We should also think of the 1500 people spinning in their graves because they cannot understand why half the country chooses to disagree with everything their country does and chooses to ignore any good that has come about simply because of which political party the President is affiliated with.

Yes, all of this spinning is bad and it is dividing this country even further. But how can you expect the otherside to accept the truth when you yourself will not?

1500 hundred reasons not to spin 9/11? Yes.
But there are 3000 reasons not to forget it and Jack laid out some very reasonable and acceptable links as to why we should not.

Their spin is wrong, our spin is right. Your spin is right, my spin is wrong.
Face it, spin is spin, no matter who is doing it.

Every time I hear 9/11 and Sadaam mentioned in the same sentence, I just want to scream. Those of us in NYC, PA and DC who lived through 9/11 voted against Bush & Co. I can’t speak for others here in NYC but GW makes me feel LESS safe. I agree that we should do more than just prosecute those involved in 9/11, but we should at least do that much. GW is not paying enough attention to the original bad guys. What has GW done to keep something like 9/11 from occuring again? I give more credit to Giuliani and Bloomberg and the people of NYC for any improvement in security here, and GW hasn’t delivered on the promised $$$ after 9/11.

Can anyone give any evidence that we are safer? Because there is a superficial presence at airports and the cockpit is locked?

Finally, If anyone thought about therapy for the terrorists, as Rove said, it was probably someone who said that unless we deal with the underlying causes of 9/11 we will see more. Our presence in the Middle East and our relationship with Israel, as well as our support of repressive regimes was the cause. As far as I can see those policies have not been re-examined.

—-
Or, do you believe they would have a higher propensity to want all terrorists to be tortured prior to having their heads cut off and fed to pigs?
—-
Who could say that they would be wrong to want this? If any of my family were killed in the 9/11 attacks, I think I would probably do anything in power to seek revenge.

My problem with how things are proceeding - we completely forgot about Bin Laden. Does anyone truly believe the most powerful, richest country in the world can not find this man? He’s probably the only 6’6” man in that neck of the woods. Kind of like making excuses for missing Magic Johnson in the airport. I know there’s a lot of people there…. but COME ON!!?!?!?

I think Bush said it best: “I don’t know where Bin Laden is. To tell you the truth, I don’t really worry about it that much anymore.”

man oh man oh man…

I have to apologize to everyone for my slack typing today. Just read over my post above, and I am chagrinned.

OK, it’s Friday and I haven’t started drinking yet… good enough excuse?

the 3000ish people that william was refering to were not in the military, they worked at the world trade center, which is of coarse in New York City, which is much more than 60% democrat, so… well I’ll just leave it at that.

If the 1500 people was in reference to those lost in 9/11 and not the troops in Iraq then I stand corrected.

However, my point was as kctim stated. Spin is Spin. I very much doubt that everybody that died in in the WTC attacks would agree with the things that were written in this article. No doubt some would, but to make gross generalizations like this is nothing more than partisan bickering… While it can be amusing, it accomplishes very little.

So apparently when the Right does it it’s called spin and when you do it it’s called “venting”? Because it seems to me that what you are doing here is nothing more than spin as well…

To simplify my argument, Brad, I’d like to all of us to just don’t bring up 9/11 at all, unless there’s really a clear reason to bring it in. Really clear, like say, an “operational connection.” An attack is a reason to go after those responsible - fine, I can see that. But if 9/11 is why you had to quit your job as a waiter and write country music - fine, good luck to you, and mazeltov if your song goes platinum, but if doesn’t work out don’t write me an essay on why 9/11’s the reason you’re bankrupt. Just leave it alone.

And don’t use 9/11 to excuse the war in Iraq that - more and more clearly - was not a logical response to 9/11 at all. If you want to be cynical Bush was just surfing a wave of popularity and early success in Afghanistan to push the country into doing something that nothing he wanted to do all along for completely different reasons. If you want to be nice, Bush was jumping at shadows.

We all screw up, and passing the buck is human. But it just ain’t right to have the president of the US pass the buck to 1500+ dead Democrats.

And right, 1500 = 3000 WTC casualties / 2 political parties. Kudos to those that got it right.

Why do you think we forgot about Bin laden ?

It’s obvious he’s in Iran. They have been practically saying that for the last month. What do you want to do? Attack Iran?

What do you think is going to happen when all of these babies, (who’s terrorist moms fly into the USA (usually Michigan) and had their American Citizen baby and then brought them back to Arabia, to be indoctrinated and trained for 20 years) come back here as US citizens ?

—-
…the left totally ignoring anything positive all in order to just promote their agenda and try to take back power?
—-

Get out of my head and stop peaking! How do you conservative folks always manage to see our true liberals ways so easily???

Oh, please… do honestly believe this crap? If you do, then why do you spend so much time blogging with us power-hungry, dogmatic ‘freedom hating’ liberals?

The 9/11 catastrophe is often used as the popular “reason” for the Iraq war and, our inability to actually capture those responsible for 9/11 is referred to as a failure and/or misdirected effort of the war.

A strong case could be made for the fact that with the exception of Osama and a few other “top” bad guys we have already or, are in the process of, bringing most of those folks to justice.

In any event I repeatedly hear that the real reson for the war is OIL. This opinion rings clearly through virtually every thread even remotely connected to the Iraqi conflict.

This begs the question; if you were in charge and oil was your motive, would you have not already taken complete charge of the oil and begun recovering it for your own use? Should not ten of thousands of barrels of oil be on it’s way every day to the good old USA. It’s not like those guys need much of it right now. Why don’t we just dole out what they need and get the rest moving homeward.

Even if OIL was not your motive, would you not say to yourself; WOW, look at that oil going to waste, why don’t we take some of it for ourselves.

Surely we are not afraid of world opinion. We have invaded a country and been accused of everything from tresspassing to outright murder of men, women and children.

Spin 9/11 all you want, I prefer to think of it as an enemy attack that demands the retribution we are now engaged in but, let’s get the OIL.

Capn Mike’s 6,000 is comming from Brian Harring .

It took a while, but this article has moved all the way up to ConspiracyPlanet.com

“How do you conservative folks always manage to see our true liberals ways so easily?”

Not sure how conservatives do it but I see it because its in plain sight.
Please show me some positive things coming out of the left and not just a bunch of bitching, whining, crying, spinning or doom and gloom predictions.
I would be glad to see them.

“Oh, please… do honestly believe this crap?”

tony my man, seeing is believing.

“If you do, then why do you spend so much time blogging with us power-hungry, dogmatic ‘freedom hating’ liberals?”

I actually read and post in all 3 blogs here, for fun and informative reasons. I love to learn.

Now get out of my head, I don’t THINK that all libs are power hungry, dogmatic freedom haters.

JUST A LITTLE FUN INFO FOR ALL YOU Rove AND Bush HATERS OUT THERE:
‘American Dad’ has a really GREAT Rove as satan parody out there, really classic.
AND
‘Family Guy’ has a GREAT Bush acting like a kid parody also.
Great stuff!
They may be cartoons, but loosen up some. In the end, we all could use a good laugh every now and again.

—-
Spin 9/11 all you want, I prefer to think of it as an enemy attack that demands the retribution we are now engaged in but, let’s get the OIL.
—-
Do you remember Bush’s most clear message to the Iraqi soldiers and others? “Do not destroy the oil fields! If you do, you will be hunted down and prosecuted under international law.” hmmm… Nothing about ‘Hey, leave those WMDs alone. Anyone caught trying to take those anywhere will be shot.’

Seems like a true motive to me, a true oil man to the heart. It also seems - since no one sent to protect these WMDs that were so dangerous - that we knew before hand none would be there.

As far as retribution for 9/11 - by far and away a Saudi-driven attack - I do NOT think our President walking around his ranch holding hands with the enemy is being tough enough to be called retribution.

kctim

“loosen up some”

…from a guy who missed that post dripping with sarcasm…??? It’s Friday, there’s not a thing you could say or do to wreck my mood.

O’Conner’s stepping down…

ppphhhhhhhhhhhh….. (sound of deflating morale)

The oil. it’s all for the oil.

Ever take an economics course?

Attacking Iraq and getting the oil flowing again will do what to the world’s oil supply ? Increase the world’s supply or decrease the world’s supply ?

When supply increases/demand what happens to price ? Does price increase or decrease when supply goes up ?

Are you paying attention? It’s sorta like saying supply over demand equals price

Currently, Prices have skyrocketed due to increased demand from China and probably the US too. Prices go up when demand increases.
(I gave you that one, hehe)

Now, pay attention, here is the kicker. American oil suppliers sell their oil for the going rate. That rate goes down when Iraqi oil is added to the world’s supply(remember increased supply/demand). So, American oil companies are making less per barrel of oil, because we attacked Iraq. And they have to wait longer to get their oil refined in Saudi refineries.

Final Exam: Did Bush attack Iraq to make money for his oil buddies ?

Extra credit: Gas is at outragious prices right now, what would it be if the Iraq oil wasn’t on the market?

—-
But if 9/11 is why you had to quit your job as a waiter and write country music - fine, good luck to you, and mazeltov if your song goes platinum
—-
Excellent… to bad Johnny Cash is dead, he could’ve made a really cool cover of that song…

William,

If you’re so tired, get some sleep this weekend and remember what we’re all celebrating…

Tony,
For an interesting article on the Bush administration’s pre-invasion plans for the Iraqi oil industry, see this article. In short, the neo-cons wanted direct US control for US oil companies, and the oil companies, fearing privatization down the road, favored Iraqi state ownership of the oil. Supposedly, the Big Oil won.

But it’s not necessarily about ownership of the oil. It’s about ensuring US access to the oil.

Links…contact www.bushflash.com

—-
Ever take an economics course?
—-
You assume that it’s the Iraqi oil everyone is after - which I believe it is - but…

Many American oil fields can not affordable produce oil when prices are below $50 per barrel. Iraq war = price spike… over $50 per barrel. Ca-ching!

It’s not the oil, it’s the access from the oil fields to international shipping ports - look at the maps… Afg. and Iraq are pretty sweet territories in the oil world. (Ever wonder why the three main US military bases set up in Afg. pretty much follow the major pipeline there?)

It’s about having control of the oil as the demand worldwide goes through the roof. Even with Iraq oil fields in full production, the supply will not even marginally keep up with demand. That markets is going out of site, grab all you can.

That’s economics in the real world.

phx8

“But it’s not necessarily about ownership of the oil. It’s about ensuring US access to the oil”…

I posted my last comment and saw yours… YUP…. uh huh.

I like the new format introduced by James. If you answer all the questions correctly, is there a prize?

The format should be part of the “no student left behind” program. I got all the answers correct but that’s to be expected because of the teaching to the test principle being used.

1500 hundred reasons not to spin 9/11? Yes. But there are 3000 reasons not to forget it and Jack laid out some very reasonable and acceptable links as to why we should not.

According to the polls, almost all of us supported going into Afghanistan. Most of us supported going into Iraq, back when it was a “slam dunk” that there were WMD - until we found out there were none, and that the war had been so botched that the closest things there were to WMD had been left out for looters. And many of us thought it was an honest mistake, till we saw the DSMs and other evidence that Iraq was a plan from day 1.

So now bin Laden’s in Iran, most likely, who are working on nukes, most likely, and our chances of getting him are nil, most likely. We had a chance to get him, now it’s gone. Instead we decided to spread democracy in Iraq…in Iraq, “because of 9/11”. And if you don’t think that makes sense, well, that means you’re forgetting 9/11 and “offering therapy”.

Kinda like we had a chance to stand together as a country for a while, until Bush kept pushing us further and further to the right, and further and further from honesty and reality. But fine, go ahead and believe that everything I say is just because Bush is in the wrong party. Not all Republicans would have gone into Iraq with OBL still free, I don’t think, and not all Republicans would refuse to stand up and take the heat for making mistakes. But believing that I’m just trying to get votes (for who? Supreme court?), sure, I guess that’s the best way to keep on with “never explain, never apologize”.

Their spin is wrong, our spin is right. Your spin is right, my spin is wrong. Face it, spin is spin, no matter who is doing it.

Right…saying “stop using 9/11 as a reason for war unless you can justify it with some actual facts”, and using 9/11 as an “muscular” way to slam liberals for “offering therapy” instead of “preparing for war”…it’s all the same thing, isn’t it.

I’m gone for the weekend, so don’t expect me to do any more math for you guys. Have a great 4th. When the fireworks go off, think of Baghdad, where they see them all the time, or think of 7/4/01, when you didn’t worry about such things, or think about “those who died and the way it brought us together as a country” (thanks tony). And apologies to those living and dead who were offended —- but this has definitely been a therapeutic post for me :-)

James

The final exam answer #1 – no

#2 - We have to take into account all the factors. Saddam was willing to sell all the oil he was allowed to sell. Had we just left Saddam alone, the price of oil (and gas) would probably be lower today.

If the war were about the price of oil, there would have been no reason to fight the war. The war was about oil only because oil wealth is what made Saddam more dangerous than similarly nasty despots such as Robert Mugabe or Aleksander Lukaszenko.

William

Thanks for the compliment.

We have to mention 9/11. Whether or not Bush made a good choice on valid information, we can’t understand the Iraq war without reference to 9/11 and the aftermath. If not for 9/11, I don’t think we would have invaded Iraq. Again, we can argue about justifications, but that doesn’t subtract from the fact that 9/11 was one of the compelling causes.

Finally about bin Laden. I would like to have him dead and would not be upset to learn he had been tortured. But I am not sure this would good. If we actually caught the old fart, Amnesty would be on us like ugly on a monkey. We would have to give him special care for his kidney disease. He would certainly be living better in captivity than he is now. And what about the death penalty? Beyond that, we would clear the way for more able leadership in his terror organization. It is less immediately satisfying, but I prefer that he slowly die of kidney disease while running from one rat hole to another. Maybe we only learn of his death some time later. I want him to go with not a bang, but a whimper. I want him to die in obscurity. I will forgo the ephemeral pleasure I would get from having him sent to hell a little earlier. The devil can wait and so can we.

(Ever wonder why the three main US military bases set up in Afg. pretty much follow the major pipeline there?)

Yes, Tony, to protect it. The difference between you and I is why are they protecting it ?

Does America get enough of its oil from itslef, the Saudis and nigeria, mexico, south america ?
I think the answer is yes

Much of the protection and securing of oil, believe it or not, tough guy, is for our allies. Our economies are so intertwined with Japan and South Korea and parts of Europe, that if they go down we do too.

Ever seen the vast oil fields in Japan and S. Korea? There ain’t any.

At least we have Texas and the gulf…and Anwar.

The largest untapped oil reserves may be???? where ?? any guesses ??? any body??

The Gobi

Gobi?? where’s that ??

Shit now they want to buy the gulf oil too ?

We better start figuring how to make batteries out of sand. Or how to kill a billion chinese. This oil stuff ain’t working.

To Jack’
Why is it that when Amnesty International points out that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator,a point the Bush administration uses for its “Iraqi Freedom” battle cry you don’t have a problem with them?
As soon as they point the finger at the Bush administration all of you sheep begin blatting about how they’re a weak liberal bunch of whiners.
I know that hypocrisy is a must if you wish to support this administation but this one is a little too obvious.

Because of a lack of balance. In the time it takes for these guys to send their faxes complaining about the fact that the U.S. has disrespected its prisoners at Guantanamo, hundreds or thousands have died in places like Zimbabwe or Congo. Saddam was a dictator in fact. Bush is only that in your (and Amnesty’s) imagination. Use your imagination for once. Put yourself in the position of someone who opposed Saddam as much and as openly as you oppose Bush. Yeah. You wouldn’t dare do that. So even you don’t believe what you are saying.

To adapt a saying, more people have died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than at the Guantanamo detention center. I guess Amnesty doesn’t have a math requirement.

—-
Why is it that when Amnesty International points out that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator,a point the Bush administration uses for its “Iraqi Freedom” battle cry you don’t have a problem with them?
As soon as they point the finger at the Bush administration all of you sheep begin blatting about how they’re a weak liberal bunch of whiners.
I know that hypocrisy is a must if you wish to support this administration but this one is a little too obvious.
—-
Do you remember AARP. During the debate over the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - they were the Raps golden group of support. But as soon as they disagree with Bush (Social Sec.) then they are a divisive, reactionary group of malcontents…

I don’t think they take criticism very well…

I’m just sick of this “we Republicans would be saving the world if it weren’t for you liberals” crap. It’s offensive to suggest that Democrats don’t want justice, that we’re soft, that we’re traitors, etc., etc. It’s certainly easier than recognizing that there are non-partisan reasons why things are not going Bush’s way.

It’s certainly easier than backpedalling after a whole terms worth of you fellows beating the shit out of us for criticizing your CINC’s screwups.

But it’s not better, and it won’t solve anything. You know, honestly, I don’t think many of those three thousand people, regardless of party, would see much wrong in us going after the real culprits of their murder. They were the threat we could all agree needed ass-whooping. What’s wrong with us Democrats finding fault with Bush opening the can on an country that has nothing to do with that shit?

Time is of the essence, people. While Bush has had us locked down in Iraq, sitting ducks for Baathists and terrorists, Bin Laden has reconstituted his network, and made it less centralized. Which means, we’ve lost the opportunity to make Bin Laden’s capture or death mean the most. For that, I believed Bush deserved a ticket back to Crawford. He wasted his big chance to be real leader, and do 9/11’s victims real justice, and all for a neocon pipe dream. Oh, no, I’m not bitter. I just hope Bush hasn’t immobilized us right out of intercepting the next terrorist attack. That would just complete the cosmic joke of this administration so damn appropriately.

William Cohen — well put, and damn right!
You too, Stephen.

You too, Stephen.>>”

I’ll second that emotion!

“William Cohen — well put, and damn right!
You too, Stephen.”

I second that emotion!

my post should have included both. Don’t know what happened. so here it is again. sorry for the repeat.

Bush has to mention 9/11 because that’s the just about the only thing he handled right. His response to 9/11 and the taking out of the Talibann (whom I consider responsible for the 9/11 attacks, incidentally) with the Afghan War should have been his legacy, allowing him to go down as one of the most admired Presidents ever. In typical Bush fashion, we had to watch horrified as he overreached and ruined everything. When you look at what he’s done with the economy, education, the military, Iraq, workers’ rights, immigration, unity, truth, diplomacy, the deficit, civil rights…of course he has to mention 9/11. I really don’t blame him, he has nothing else.

What I find despicable is his inability to admit and confirm he has been wrong about WMD, about anything, and to apologize for it. It’s beginning to be more pitiful than infuriating.

jimmie-
What Clinton did was wrong, but it was something that could have stayed in the Clinton family, for all many of us cared. What Clinton did was dishonest and embarassing, and I can say a personal disappointment for those who supported him and denied the charges.

But it’s relativism of the worst degree to say that Clinton’s actions justify, rationalize or provide cover for Bush’s errors.

Stephen,

You are wasting your breath arguing with someone who thinks Clinton is possibly guilty of murders and kept the justic department from investigating them. I even heard a conservative Fox News talking-head ridiculing those silly few who still make such completely preposterous allegations regarding Bill and his wife, not realizing it was precisely those kind of vile allegations that allowed Clinton to use the blind hatred of his enemies to his advantage.

Anybody who cannot see the difference between the lies that led up to Lewinsky affair and the lies that led up to the Iraq war does not deserve to be spoken to intelligently.

Save your breath buddy.

The reason Bush said he wasn’t concerned about Bin Laden’s whereabouts is because he doesn’t want to find him.Bin Laden is an ex-CIA operative

David,
you do have some good arguments, but your partisanship does bleed into them. There were no lies leading into the Iraq war. Every single intelligence report from every previous US administration and every other civilized country suggested strongly that Saddam had WMD, not to mention the fact that he had employed them on his own people in years past. And WMD’s were only one reason for the conflict, not THE reason. Violation of UN resolutions, harboring terrorist groups, inciting suicide bombers, etc. were more then enough reason to depose Mr. Hussein. The left continues to find every reason why we can’t win this war and constantly overlook the many very good people of Iraq and the middle east who, despite your extreme lack of confidence, are signing up daily to protect THEIR country from these thugs in the face of their own demise. These are the people that need our 100% support, and these are the people that will eventually win this battle. The “Eeyore” (oh, why even try) attitude will not win this war. Training, equiping, and supporting the good people of Iraq will breed the confidence in them to take back their country, and it is happening.

jimmie-
Why not spin it back on Bush? That’s who you’re trying to defend with the comment. You’re trying to say that we have a double standard for lying. My response was to say that what we had was not a double standard about lying, which we both think is bad, but instead different levels of relevance to our lives. Bill Clinton getting blown in the oval office is not the most dignified behavior I could expect out of the office, but it doesn’t rise to the level of reckless disregard for American’s lives.

The Republicans went after Clinton for anything and everything. Vince Foster was a throwaway joke, murder briefly implied, then no charge, no investigation ever made. As for Waco, what did Clinton have to gain from the inferno there? I’ve seen the reports. It was a damn smoke grenade. The government caused the fire, but it was most likely accidental. Of course, nothing is an accident with some Republicans. Everything has to be arranged. Clinton has to be a Mayberry Keyser Soze, manipulating and covering everything up so that nothing ever comes of any investigation.

Maybe there was blind faith on the part of the Democrats for Bill Clinton. But that’s what you get when you get the kind of blind hatred the Republicans had for Clinton. God knows how much political capital they threw away trying to get Clinton. In the end, they wasted our nation’s focus on a problem that would mean next to nothing once those buildings fell in New York. A non-conspiratorial case could be made that our government could have responded sooner and better to terrorism and the other problems we had, if Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky hadn’t been made national obsessions.

As for Bush, I don’t need your pity, because I base my belief that he lied to us on fairly solid evidence, and I’m proud to oppose him because of that. He is human, but that’s an enormously broad standard to justify

1)going to war on charges that were not supported by the body of available evidence;

2)not seeking out decisive corroborative evidence for Terrorist and WMD presence, instead relying on reports of low reliability;

3)failing to plan for non-ideal outcomes in the military campaign, including a lack of public uprising, the disappearance of the army into the population, and the utter collapse of the government;

4)failing to invade in heavy enough force to take and hold territory in a secure manner, preventing the uprising by never letting the lawlessness or disorder come about that would embolden the resistance;

5)failing to maintain good relations with nations we might have to ask for help later, and letting subordinates repeatedly insert their feet in their mouths to boot;

6)maintaining a divisive stonewall of denial about anything being wrong with the case for war or its progress (or regress, if you will).

Maybe he didn’t lie when he gave us his case. But he certainly lied to us when he started telling us things were going better than they really were, and as he’s told us the insurgents were on their last legs time and time again.

The extent of this dishonesty, over time, in the face of obvious contradictory evidence, the energy they’ve put into their complete denial of there being anything wrong in this war, is part of what inspires such distrust from me. What do honest people have to fear from the truth? Whether they were honest, and have turned to dishonesty out of a misguided sense of the necessity of their primacy in this war against terror, or whether they never believed they had to square with us, or with any evidence out there to rightfully wage their war, they no longer act in harmony with the reality of the situation they and us are in, and that I believe is fundamentally more dangerous than lies about blowjobs. This is country’s defense on the line, not merely the president’s marital virtue.

Get your priorities straight.

“David,
you do have some good arguments, but your partisanship does bleed into them. There were no lies leading into the Iraq war. Every single intelligence report from every previous US administration and every other civilized country suggested strongly that Saddam had WMD, not to mention the fact that he had employed them on his own people in years past. And WMD’s were only one reason for the conflict, not THE reason. Violation of UN resolutions, harboring terrorist groups, inciting suicide bombers, etc. were more then enough reason to depose Mr. Hussein. The left continues to find every reason why we can’t win this war and constantly overlook the many very good people of Iraq and the middle east who, despite your extreme lack of confidence, are signing up daily to protect THEIR country from these thugs in the face of their own demise. These are the people that need our 100% support, and these are the people that will eventually win this battle. The “Eeyore” (oh, why even try) attitude will not win this war. Training, equiping, and supporting the good people of Iraq will breed the confidence in them to take back their country, and it is happening.”

Jay,

I’m not bipartisan. I’m a populist-leaning Democrat. No need to hide it.

There were lies leading into the Iraq war, and these have been extensively documented. Such lies include Bush telling the public he had not authorized military force, when in fact we now know he had. He claimed Iraq had massive stockpiles of weapons. They did not. He claimed Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda. Using the same ‘intelligence sources,” the 9/11 Commission revelead this to be untrue. I could go on and on and on.

Your quote about “every single intelligence source…civilized country” is as misleading and malinformed as Bush’s repeated and vague sourcing of “various intelligence sources” to justify all his lies. I think the phrase “intelligence sources” ought to be banned from public discourse. People cite “intelligence sources” as if that absolves them from responsibility for telling the truth. It would be nice to go back to the days when wars were based on facts and actual events (aatack on Pearl Harbor, secession, British invasion) instead of “intelligence sources.”

The fact is Bush listened to only those intelligence sources which backed up what he already had in mind. It is simply not true that every intelligence source available to him asserted that Saddam had WMD. In an academic setting a year ago, I was priviledged to meet personally some CIA members who had resigned in disgust that Bush was ignoring evidence from within the CIA that he was wrong. Not to mention the U.N. inspectors who said there were no weapons and were subsequently proved right…but who were ignored by Bush. So which “intelligence sources” proved to be more civilized and more reputable?

You rightly note that previous administrations looked at the same evidence, however those administrations had the presence of mind to also look at the counterevidence. Those administrations were also proved right.

And please do not cite Saddam’s use of WMD without giving context. International multicorps based in the US and elsewhere supplied chemical weapons to Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War to use against his enemies during wartime. Iraqis who fought with Iran during the war were treated like the enemy. That’s what happens during wartime. So do not pretend like Saddam was running through the country gassing his people willy-nilly, because that was not the case. We back Iraq during that war, and he used those weapons with the backing, knowledge and consent of the American government. Don’t try to act holier-than-Iraq some 15-20 years later. Who’s going to go to war against us for our role in helping those people get killed?

The reasons you give for ousting Saddam were not the reasons given by this administration, and rightly so, because those reasons do not justify a unique war. U.N. violations, inciting violence, and harboring terrorists groups does not make Saddam a unique case. There were 40+ countries with greater weapons capability, countries with closer ties to terrorism (including some U.S. allies), and a least a dozen countries in violation of U.N. sanctions at the time we invaded Iraq. Besides the fact that it is patently hypocritcal to go to war against a coutnry for defying the U.N. BY the U.N., why not going after the countries who we know actually HAVE weapons instead of those who do according to “intelligence sources”? Or the countries whose people are being starved to death by their own government?

Well, because we don’t have long-term economic and political interests in THOSE countries. And there you have the real reason for this war.

I don’t fault myself for having no confidence in a government of draft-doging chickenhawks who are allergic to the truth and are now pretending to be warriors while botching a war so badly I may never get out of it. I think all the people of Iraq are good people and that they want America to get its businesses and its bombs out of the country sooner rather than later.

We cannot train, quip and support the people of Iraq with spiraling deficits, a dwindling military, and a growing lack of confidence in an incompetent and dishonest adminstration. Bush can change that by controlling spending in his incredibly bloated government, stop making tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans, and making a committment to tell the truth about past, present and future.

I’d advise you not to hold your breath and wait for that to happen.

Hey CPO?

My husband is a Retired Master Chief, and even he gets it. Every American deserves to be protected, which includes the right of dissent and to have differing opinions.

Do these opinions mean they don’t support the troops? Look again. Everyone I know, no matter their opinion of the war supports the troops. And as a CPO you should know the difference and be able to explain the difference to your team.

CPO:

And, I should add that in spite of your post, you DON’T speak for everyone in the military, for which I am grateful.

There are those in the military who understand the dissent and can separate that issue from support of the troops.

CPO-
We’re fighting a war. Against what enemy, Bush and his people seem to have some confusion.

We are not fighting terrorists in Iraq because they were there first, We’re fighting them now because we went there and broke the effective though tyrannical barrier that kept them from getting in there, without a government to slide on in and keep things secure in the aftermath.

People have likely pumped you up about this being the central war in the war on terrorism. I say Bullshit. The central war was Afghanistan, and it wasn’t over when Bush left it to do Iraq. Strategically, Iraq is blind corner. Bad thing about that is that it both gave the enemy the chance to recover, and a chance to take the initiative, which they’ve done with a vengeance. That’s why Americans are dying every day, and we’re having a hell of a time preventing it.

Bush won’t admit he put his foot in a beartrap. He keeps on reeling off these arbitrary goals, then blames us Democrats when reaching those goals does nothing. He tells us our complaining is ruining everything. He neglects to recall his strategic mistakes, instead scapegoating people who have no decision making power. He’s playing the victim and making you a victim in the process. In his hands, your morale has become dependent on approval of the way he got us into this war, of his fighting of it.

Never mind that you guys have a purpose he could be working towards, raising your morale the good old-fashioned way: giving you the tools, strategies and support you need to succeed.

I don’t hate you, and I don’t pity you, but I sure hope you realize that you’re in the shit you are now because of bad leadership, not the dissent that ranks among the freedoms you protect.

Hey CPO, if yours is the typical standard of intelligence and literacy amongst CPO’s in the US Navy, then God help the US Navy! Incidentally, correct me if i’m wrong, but I didn’t think the US Navy was engaged in battle in Iraq? Anyway, given the nature of Naval Warfare these days, it’s probably, at least relatively, the safest military service to be in, apart from those behind the front lines or deskbound. So take a chill pill man.

The insurgency in Iraq is developing strength. Many of the Iraqis who are being trained by US forces are either deserting, infiltrating, or taking their orders from religious leaders. It seems to be widely assumed by Americans, that if only enough Iraqis are trained to professional standards, then you guys can leave. I hope you are right. I think however, it is more likely that the regime which unfolds in Iraq will not be to America’s taste. In that scenario, you will be left with the Hobson’s choice of staying in an attempt to turn things around more to your liking, or getting the hell out, in the same way as the US retreated from Vietnam. Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad. I think you guys are headed for the bonfire of the vanities. And I take no pleasure in saying that. God bless America!

Hey Paul in Euroland:

“correct me if i’m wrong, but I didn’t think the US Navy was engaged in battle in Iraq”

Ever heard of SEALS?

This is supposed to be about the post, not the poster, perhaps you are describing your own Navy?

womanmarine
ROGER THAT—- I get that most people support us, how ever I to need to let off some steam too.
And as I just got done collecting some of my best friends personal property to send home to there wifes. I am upset and just needed to VENT.

Stephen Daugherty
I do pity you, my moral depends on the guys next to me as well as my life, but you and ever body else has the right to your opion. I do not agree with all thats going down, BUT I will do my duty to my country to the best of my abilty.

Paul in Euroland

not in Iraq, speaking of standard of intelligence ——Duuuuh

Womanmarine, fair point, about the post I mean. The point I was making was that CPO was simply ranting childishing. There is little honour in fighting a war for your country, if the war you are fighting is the wrong one. Remember all of those kids coming back from Vietnam, who were spat on at home? Or perhaps you are not old enough to remember that? Colin Powell, who endured Vietnam, posited a doctrine for military ops. The critical point of that doctrine was that there should be an exit strategy. He is also reputed to have told Bush, that if you break it, it’s yours! How right he was - except it’s not Bush’s, it’s America’s, it’s fighing sons and daughters, and their families. Coming from a country with a long and even recent history of rebellion against a more powerful country, I know the passions that can be unleashed. Although not a Muslim country, mine is well versed in the romanticism of the patriotic martyr. Bush went into Iraq for his own reasons, not because of 9/11. He sowed the wind, but the people of America will reap the whirlwind.

CPO:

I can’t imagine how it must be for you over there. I won’t even try. Only you who are there can know.

Venting is fine, just please don’t vent about/at the folks who do support you.

My thoughts and prayers are with you and everyone over there constantly. I don’t think it is ever out of my thoughts.

Keep your head down!

To CPO,

GOD love you and bless you for your service to your country.

Who gives a damn who lied about what, we are in a war and you guys are fighting it so people have the right to post stuff on this board.

I respect and admire the fact that at this point, as you said THE IMPORTANT THING IS YOUR COUNTRY not whether you do or don’t agree with everything about the war.

Paul in Euroland

not in Iraq, speaking of standard of intelligence ——Duuuuh
Posted by: CPO USN UDT TEAM 5 at July 2, 2005 05:11 PM

????????? i’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere!!!

Paul in Euroland:

There is EVERY honor in fighting for your country in any war. It is not the soldier’s dishonor if the war is the wrong one.

I remember Viet Nam very well. Many people learned from that and learned to separate dissent over the war from respect for the soldiers. We do learn.

I would suggest that you read the rest of the blogs here to get a better understanding.

womanmarine, let me put it like this. If you go to a faraway place, to fight a war, and end up being killed or maimed, only for it to traspire that the war was not really about defending your own country, which in fact was under no threat from the country attacked, I think that the honour of your fellow citizens would be little comfort for your sacrifice.
As for learning, how true. The Government will not allow the media to see the toll of young americans being carried home and interred as they did during the Vietnam war. These images were amongst the most powerful in bringing the realisation to Americans that they weren’t winning, and that the price was too high.

that P was me!!

Paul in Euroland

First I am not at liberty to disclose my location in this or any public format. but I am not in Iraq. I am in another country not my own.
And we just lost several BROTHERS IN ARMS HERE.
GOD HELP YOU COUNTRY IF IT EVER NEED TO BE DEFENDED GUESS YOU WOULD NOT SHOW UP TO HELP IF ASKED?
got to go eggs&bacon awaits. the chows not to bad here, but hot as hell!

CPO-
Maybe the better way to put it, is that he’s trying to make it look as if you guys aren’t winning because you’re hearing bad things from home. That, I assume, would not be something you want to hear, because it says that you’re slacking because you’re dispirited. Or, they put it that your asskicking of the insurgents isn’t doing the job because they see some pundit or politician on TV saying there’s problems with the war. I don’t figure it’s either of these things. I figure, they’re just not putting people like you in the right place with the right number of men to keep the boot on the neck of the insurgents. You’re welcome to go back through my posts on this site to find what my views on the matter are. Fact is, I want you guys to win, and I want the terrorists defeated. I’m just pissed off we’re the ones who have dug ourselves into a whole here, and not the terrorists.

Wow, David Kelsey, how is that glass? Half empty. America has persevered through much tougher times and we’ll get through this. Don’t equate the good people of Iraq with the insurgency, by saying that you’re “sure all of the people of Iraq are good people”, because they’re not. I have a cousin there and he tells me most of the civilians he comes across are extremely grateful and are hoping the insurgency will be defeated. Iraqi police recruits are being killed daily yet they keep coming to sign up. Those are the people that we can not turn our back on. Those are the people that want to live a peaceful life of liberty free from oppression. I might also remind you that all prominent Democrats were also “convinced” that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons and publicly stated so (if you want I will provide dates and quotes). And don’t tell me that Bush hid the “counterevidence” (whatever that is) from the Dems. Yes, we did provide support for Iraq during the Iran conflict, that doesn’t mean that we endorsed all use of that support. And secondly, we supported Iraq because Iran had crossed their border and in essence was invading Iraq. David, this conflict is more than 911. This blight on the history of man began at when RFK was assasinated followed by the 1972 Munich Olympic games (That’s as far back as I recall).
Innocent people died then and are still dying at the hands of those with a radical interpretation of the Islamic religion. They are filled with hatred and fantasies of martyrdom, they do not represent the majority of people in the middle east and they must be stopped. This blight is responsible for shooting school children in the back as they ran for their lives (Breslan, Russia), and you suggest we’re the bad guys. Rethink this.

Stephen,

I don’t know if your above post was referring to me. In most of what you say, I readily agree with you. I would like to see America win this one, because this is not just about America, but about all of the western world and the common values we share. My concern is that another front has been given to the extremists to use as propaganda with the gullible and ignorant in the Islamic world. There was no justification for attacking Iraq. There are many criminal regimes around the world. Now that the US is committed to Iraq, there are no obvious alternatives. You are riding the tigers back and you can’t get off, but you sure as hell can’t stay on. That is the dreadful scenario that faces the US. Despite the US’s huge military power, it cannot defeat an insurgency which your own military estimates at approx 16,000. And know this, in order for 16,000 insurgents to operate, they need at least the tacit support of many more. There are a lot of possible outcomes to this adventure in Iraq, and not many of them are palatable.

Jay,

I have no doubt America will survive. It’s called “term limits” and praise God for them!

We have more in common than you think: my first cousin Maurice is in Iraq now, doing his second tour there since 2003. His assessment of the situation is notably less optimistic than your cousin’s, but maybe that’s because he’s largely politically apathetic. His assessment, which I agree, is that the Iraqi people did not like Saddam and do not want to be occupied by America. I somehow find that more believable than they are “grateful” we’ve destroyed their country’s infrastructure. But I don’t know your cousin, I just trust mine.

You seem to imply pessimism cannot win this war, but blindly plowing optimistically ahead without assesing the practical matters will not work either. Throwing about words like “democracy” and “liberty” sounds very nice, but the practical facts are simply this: we cannot win the war with no money, no allies, and no bodies. Now you start explaning to me how we are going to gain those when Bush insists on tax cuts and cowboy diplomacy all the while abusing the public trust. This war has actually increased and inflamed anti-American hatred

Again, I don’t understand what you mean when you make blanket statements like such-and-such was convinced Saddam had WMD. We all knew he once had them, do you mean “all” prominent Democrats were convinced he still had them? Because that’s not true. And if you mean, by saying that, that “all” prominent Democrats thought Saddam having WMD justified pre-emptive war, that’s also not true. It’s no secret that the Clinton administration considered using force against Iraq, but I think I already explained that Clinton’s administration was smart enough to weigh their reservations as well, and have subsequently been proven correct in having done so.

Th point being that wars should be based on fact, not speculation.

I won’t tell you Bush ignored counterevidence (which is defined as evidence that did not fit his preconceived notions, in other words, evidence that showed Saddam did NOT have WMD) from the Dems. I will tell you he ignored counterevidence from the CIA and the UN. Because he did. This is not secret information, I believe several CIA members have joined Colin Powell in being outspoken about this fact.

I also don’t understand what you mean when you try to gloss over our aid of Iraq during the 80s, which has directly led to this conflict. What did we think he was going to do with the weapons with which we help supply him? Plant daises? We gave him weapons to use against his enemies. That is precisely what he did. That may be wrong, but it absolutely is not illegal. Trying to drag those incidents up 10-15 years later as a justification for war is a real stretch. Whatever the reasons for supporting Iraq, at least lets be honest with ourselves about our role in creating the monster we call Saddam. Don’t rationalize, just tell the truth.

I don’t know why you’re trying to convince me that there are Islamic extremists who are dangerous and violence. I’m well aware of their existence. Unlike you, I’m not convinced the majority of the middle east does not share their anti-American extremism, which is all the more reason why we should not have put an underfunded and undermanned military there in the first place. This is precisely the reason Bush I wisely refused to invade Iraq and depose Iran after the Gulf War, to the dismay of screaming neocons everywhere.

Winning this war will take money and manpower. We don’t have it. Bush’s policies are not helping us get it. I commend him for wanting to finish what he started, but he’s doing it the wrong way. I look forward to the day when he is no longer in office, so maybe somebody competent can come in and handle this thing properly. I’d prefer a Democrat, but anybody but Bush will do, and hopefully those people will reject cowboy diplomacy in favor of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations for conquering the terrorist threat.

Notably, not one of those recommendations has anything to do with war.

first of all,There is no excuse for not fully supporting all of our troops in Iraq and elsewhere.I salute you,cpo,and everyone else out there fighting with you,and I respect you immensly for whatever you have gone thru over there,including the whole ordeal of bringing home your friend’s personal effects.My dad was on a Destroyer in the Korean war,and I lived thru the sixties and saw war on tv every night.As for this democrat,I fully respect you and I’m ashamed for anyone in America who tries to bash any of you.

Since I have a really open mind,although I voted for Kerry,I believe Sen.John McCain when he said we would be fighting these terrorists here or in Afgahnistan.If we had all of our troups in Afgahnistan,the terrorists would have gone there.

But let me tell you why I voted for Kerry.Because when they had the debates he was clearly smarter.I felt he could have gone into other countries and regained alliances with other strong countries and could have helped us win the war or at least helped us get closer to it.It was cheesy how France wouldn’t go tho just because they liked trading with Saddam for oil.

A lot of people were saying they didn’t think Kerry could do it.I have since found out he may have exaggerated some things and voted against things that would help the war.But what we really needed in the democratic party was a better leader than Kerry, or Clinton.And I just have to ask why we don’t seem to be making much progress in Iraq.From some of the things I have heard,I just don’t trust Bush.I liked his dad tho.He could have got this mess cleaned up no problem.

Now there’s some other points I want to make here.As far as all the people who are saying that what Clinton did wasn’t as bad as what Bush has done.Well that depends on who is doing the deciding.

If you talk to a democratic voter,and I’m stressing voter,that is the way they see it.But if you talk to a republican voter,what they see happening to America is all the stuff they hear about in church,such as sodom and gamorrah,that God is somehow going to punish us all for these sins,especially a president getting blown in the whitehouse.This plays to all of their fears,that God is going to rain down fire.They see gay people as horrible sinners who should be cast down into hell.They think the whole country is going to go to hell if we except any liberals.

And if you read the Bible,you can see why they are thinking these things.Read the first 2 chapters of Judges.I was surprised when a friend told me to read it.Because it talks about how God gave the Israelites all these beautiful places,but they had to conquer each place and kill everybody.Then next thing you know,they would fall back into sin.Then he would punish them in some way.

I hear people talking all the time about how it says in the Quran to kill everyone they oppose. What it really says is that if anyone tries to take their religion away,they can do whatever it takes to keep it from happening,including fighting to the death.But it says not to attack anyone who isn’t armed,or helpless women and children.What these Muslim extremists have done is to stretch these passages to justify the killing of innocent unarmed people.

But when you look in the bible it says to go and conquer anyone who is in the Israelite’s way,kill everyone,and take the land for themselves.

The last thing I want to do is to say what the muslims are doing is right.None of us democrats have any tolerance for them,and it is disgraceful to say any American does.The problem is BUSH did it wrong.

I believe Saddam had to go.We all thought he had wmd’s.I believe even Bush did.Maybe Saddam got rid of the weapons.He certainly had plenty of time.

David, I respect your passion but I disagree completely with your assesment of the conflict. To suggest we entered the war undermanned and underfunded is to say that our military leaders don’t know what they are doing, because they are the ones that prepared for this conflict, not Bush. I, for one, trust their judgement on what armor and manpower was needed alot more then I trust yours. Secondly, anti-American attitudes have always been, and will always be, and never use that as a barometer of our actions. In 200 years America has surpassed every nation on this planet when it comes to liberty, freedom, civil rights, GNP, and any other measure of a healthy productive society. Every single valuable tool of today’s world was invented by an American. Electricity, telephone, flight, automobile, the computer, etc. Why is that millions of illegal immigrants are flocking to this, one the youngest nations in the world. Jealousy, not imperialism, is mostly behind the hatred. Our goal in Iraq is to set the stage for a healthy productive society for Iraqi’s and when that is accomplished, the world will again see the nobility of Amercia. It’s a shame that there are people in this country today that can’t even see that.

That’sjust it,we’re LOSING our great U.S.A. and our freedoms.And Bush is embarrassing us.We’re not “anti-american”,we’re anti-Bush.

So when do you think we’re going to get out of there,anyway?

Jay:

“To suggest we entered the war undermanned and underfunded is to say that our military leaders don’t know what they are doing, because they are the ones that prepared for this conflict”

Don’t ever think that command in the military is void of politics. And the higher in the chain of command, the more politics. I know for a fact that, just like any corporate entity, the desire to make things look good on paper for the “approval” of higher-ups is just as rampant in the military as anywhere.

You bet those commanders know what they’re doing, they know who their boss is and what he wants.

I have the upmost respect for the military;however I wouldn’t be so sure they really know what our “leader” wants.All the top people in his cabinet are ex-oil executives.I wonder…

To all sorry,
I made some statements here in the heat of the moment,sorry for any insult, I am very tired and would like to apologize. We have been humping the mountains (C.S.R) for a the last few days. To all who expressed support for us over here…THANKS FOR SHOWING YOUR RESPECT AND SUPPORT…. It has become harder to listen and read about how we are being portrayed more and more by the media as the bad guys. I especially have become worried because I remember Vietnam, standing in the airport with my Mother waiting for my Father to arrive…and seeing some …peace..demonstrators spit on him and call him names…disgracing him for serving his country….well again sorry, I have showed these postings to others so they can see most of America still supports the milatily ever if they may not agree with the Government. THANKS AGAIN.

I made some statements here in the heat of the moment,sorry for any insult, I am very tired and would like to apologize. We have been humping the mountains (C.S.R) for a the last few days. To all who expressed support for us over here…THANKS FOR SHOWING YOUR RESPECT AND SUPPORT…. It has become harder to listen and read about how we are being portrayed more and more by the media as the bad guys. I especially have become worried because I remember Vietnam, standing in the airport with my Mother waiting for my Father to arrive…and seeing some …peace..demonstrators spit on him and call him names…disgracing him for serving his country….well again sorry, I have showed these postings to others so they can see most of America still supports the military ever if they may not agree with the Government. THANKS AGAIN.
sorry for the spelling in first post
CPO USN UDT TEAM 5