Does Morale Matter?

Vietnam taught the left a very important lesson: The average American may disagree with a police action or war, but they will always support the men and women in the U.S. Military who are a part of it.

The left has learned they must shout "We support the troops, NOT THE WAR" at every given opportunity if they wish for their anti-war/anti-Republican message to be taken seriously by the masses.
What the left hasn't learned, or even care to learn, is how the troops themselves, view their actions.

What message is the left sending to the troops, when the actions of a few U.S. soldiers at Abu-Ghraib are headlines, for much too long, but the actions of Msgt. Terri Bly, Msgt. Jeffery White and the thousands of other troops who do these things on a daily basis, are ignored by the left and its media?

Rumormillnews

What message is the left sending to the troops when only the negative aspects of certain operations are highlighted and all the successes are ignored?

What message is the left sending to the troops by telling them what they are doing is wrong and that they are dying for nothing?

USAID

Two mothers, Cindy Sheehan and Marie Carman. Whose story do you know? Read and you’ll understand why you asked yourself, “Whose Marie Carman?”

Military City

The lefts message of understanding our enemies and finding out why they fight makes total sense. Sadly, they choose not to respect or honor our own soldiers with the same type of understanding.

Posted by Tim H. at August 31, 2005 4:26 PM
Comments
Comment #76673

Tim,

“The lefts message of understanding our enemies and finding out why they fight makes total sense. Sadly, they choose not to respect or honor our own soldiers with the same type of understanding.”

How much more respect could you pay to a soldier than not wanting them to die for no apparent reason?

And because our leaders don’t want to know what motivates those that oppose our soldiers, more will die than nescessary.


Posted by: Rocky at August 31, 2005 4:54 PM
Comment #76675

Tim,

Perhaps you should scroll down and read the other topics in this column before posting a new one. If you had done so, you would have discovered that the 4th topic below this one, entitled “Celebrate Good Times…Come On!”, has EXACTLY the same premise.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 31, 2005 5:02 PM
Comment #76681

ElliottBay,

I did bother to read it, tyvm.
It is not the AWFULS, the propaganda or the biased media that concerns me.
It is the affect these things are having on our troops morale that worries me. It is something hardly spoken of and is often danced around when brought up.
It is not about what the left is saying, it is about who they are harming.

Posted by: Tim Huff at August 31, 2005 5:14 PM
Comment #76682

Tim,

This seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to shut up the protesters.

First, to address your comments about the media, please spare me the Left Wing Media B.S. It’s simply not true. There is no conspiracy to cover only bad news — sadly, the current state of all media is: that which sells gets coverage. And bad news sells. You cannot sit there and tell me it’s a conspiracy, however, when Fox News is covering Natalee Holloway instead of “all the good stuff going on in Iraq.”

As for the general topic of dissent, it’s really quite simple. The public has both a RIGHT and a RESPONSIBILITY to voice their dissent in a Democracy. Otherwise, there is no Democracy. Now I understand it may have an adverse effect on troop morale, but isn’t that a necessary evil? Isn’t that a “cost” that must be factored in as part of the decision to go to war?

Now let me ask you the following questions. I hope you will respond to each one.

1. Do you believe we should not voice our dissent in a Democracy?

2. If you believe we should be able to voice our dissent, then what are the limits (if any) to this dissent?

3. If we implement this limit or constraint on dissent, how do you feel that would impact our functioning Democracy? Positively or adversely?

4. Do you believe it would be hypocritical to encourage the stifling of dissent in our own Democracy in order to achieve the objective of spreading Democracy in the Middle East?

5. If we should be allowed to voice our dissent but not do it in a way that diminishes troop morale, do you have a reasonable suggestion of how we might do this? (And please don’t say “at the voting booths”… I don’t think anyone would agree that winning an election equals 4 years of carte blanche policy-making)


I’d appreciate if you answered these questions to shed light on where you stand on other aspects of the issue. Because I think you’ll find when you consider the whole of the issue, your stance can’t help but be logically inconsistent.

Posted by: Andrew L. at August 31, 2005 5:18 PM
Comment #76683

OK. Show me the evidence that opposition to the war is harmful to morale. Show me the evidence that one single US service person has actually been harmed. I presume you have facts to back up your assertion?

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 31, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #76684

“How much more respect could you pay to a soldier than not wanting them to die for no apparent reason?” I don’t see that as respect.
The fact is that the soldier is there because he/she volenteered to be there. I know a lot of them didn’t join to go to war and I will concede that some of them are truly against the war(although I work as a contractor on a military base and I’ve only seen one GI who claimed to be against the war.)
The majority of the GIs I have seen totally support this war and several that I’ve met are anxious to go or to return to Iraq.
Would it not be more respectful to the soldier to honor his choice to be the soldier and to do his job? It seems to me that the left likes to put roadblocks in his way by telling him/her that their mission is not worth doing.

Posted by: tomd at August 31, 2005 5:25 PM
Comment #76687

Tim-
What you suggest is the wartime version of Social Promotion in schools. Are we supposed to give Bush good grades in Iraq just because he’s gotten some things done?

His gains so far have fallen below his own goals. To compliment him for these things would be to reward relative incompetence because it’s better than the absolute kind.

His incompetence has been what offended me, rather than his politics. I care about the soldiers, and I lament the day they were ever put under a CINC so unworthy of them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2005 5:27 PM
Comment #76701

Stephen Daugherty,
I care about the soldiers, and I lament the day they were ever put under a CINC so unworthy of them.

So do I, and I’m sure glad Clinton’s out of office.

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 31, 2005 6:05 PM
Comment #76704

tomd,

“It seems to me that the left likes to put roadblocks in his way by telling him/her that their mission is not worth doing.”

I never said that. The words I used were unnescessary, and no apparent reason.
We lost more than 50,000 troops in VietNam. How many of those were unnescessary?
How many were lost due to faulty tactics?
How many were ill prepared to fight the enemy we faced there?
How many are ill prepared to fight the enemy we now face in Iraq?
How do you fight an enemy in a country where everyone, except us, looks the same?
You can’t just tell our guys to go out and shoot only those that have explosives strapped to their bodies.
Our strateagery in Iraq has failed us, and even though we have lost relitively few soldiers, how many have died needlessly?

Yeah, these guys knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

Posted by: Rocky at August 31, 2005 6:19 PM
Comment #76707

Once again we hear the cry that to dissent in time of war is harmful and possibly immoral. Remember, folks: This is America, the home of the free and the land of the brave. While the soldiers fight to protect us from enemies, the dissenters struggle to protect us from our government. It’s an important job, and if no one does it you can guarantee it won’t be done.

P.S. — I think it’s a safe bet that when the National Guardsmen signed up they had no idea they were going to be fighting on foreign soil.

Posted by: Alejo at August 31, 2005 6:25 PM
Comment #76711

No.

I will be this first to say it loudly.

No. No. No.

I am a loyal American. I do not support this war. I do not support the troops.

I did not support the reasons that were given, and I do not support the half-hearted attempts of justification today.

While we WERE justified to respond in Afghanistan as a result of 9/11, we had no right to attack Iran.

We were wrong on the first day; we compile our errors every day that we remain.

We have killed tens of thousands.

I do not support the war.

I do not support the administration that put us in this war.

I cannot support the troops that fight this war.

Will the world, when they judge us for our actions, say “…Boy, that Bush was a buffoon, but those American troops sure were nice guys!” ??

Remember, it was not Hitler tried in Nurnberg, it was the leaders, it was the soldiers.

Are you saying that the German people, once they found out the atrocities their government were committing should have continued supporting their troops?

You may say? ?But not my Johnny? or ?Not my Timmy? He would NEVER do that!? But they do. They kill. They have killed. They have tortured. And they will never be the same because of it.

We are wrong.

We need to admit that.

Posted by: Vincent at August 31, 2005 6:33 PM
Comment #76716

Sorry, the posting above should have said ‘Iraq’ not ‘Iran’.

My appologies. We haven’t invaded Iran… yet.

Posted by: Vincent at August 31, 2005 6:49 PM
Comment #76722

I blame the media. If the troups are demoralized by protests it is because the reasoned arguments many (but not all) of the protesters have cannot fit into 30 second sound bites. The media goes out of their way to make us look much more divided than we really are. This is not because the media has a left bias or a right bias; it is because the media is childish. It wants blood and gore and arguments and sadness because those seem exciting” and it does not want to waste time on reasoned arguments because those seem boring.

Posted by: Erika at August 31, 2005 7:20 PM
Comment #76726

I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. … There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.

—Rep Tom Delay (R-TX), discussing Clinton’s committment of troops to Bosnia, from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740

Posted by: William Cohen at August 31, 2005 7:55 PM
Comment #76736

Tim, no one can harm your morale if you do not regard them as significant. If the morale of the troops is up, it is because they themselves prop it up along with those back home who are important to them. If there morale is down, it is due to the same sources.

Since when does is a person’s morale affected by those they don’t know and whose opinions they don’t respect. And if others opinions are respected and those opinions lower morale, then perhaps one should listen to those whose opinions they respect.

Human behavior: Psychology 103.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 8:22 PM
Comment #76741

Erika-
The Republicans are arguing two things at once: The Soldiers believe in this war, and are reenlisting in record numbers because of that, and The soldiers are demoralized by the media and we are losing because of that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2005 8:31 PM
Comment #76743

New topic:
Where is the Govenor?…. The gas prices are soaring out of control. How about finding the CEO’s and bringing them up on charges. They crucified Stewart for a few thousand but let the Oil companies go wild. What’s a bigger crime?

Posted by: Thomas Deane at August 31, 2005 8:33 PM
Comment #76746

Talk about dissent.

In our democracy, people have a right to voice their opinion. They have the right to speak, but not the right to be heard or acknowledged.

The left doesnt seem to get this second part. They want to speak and criticize and be applauded. Sorry. My free speech is also sacred. My opinion is that much of what the left says is detrimental. When Cindy Sheehan says that this country is not worth dying for, it is her opinion. Mine is that she is wrong. When Michael Moore thinks it is okay to ridicule of the president, maybe I think it all right to ridicule Michael Moore.

So this is the bottom line: if the police come and prevent you from speaking, that is an infringement of your rights. If your boss, teacher or other authority uses her power to punish you for your beliefs, that is wrong. I will help you object to that. If your fellow citizens ridicule, contradict or disparage your opinion,or just plain ignore you that is their right of free speech. And I am on their side.

Posted by: jack at August 31, 2005 8:43 PM
Comment #76765

Im sorry Tim. You are dealing with cowards. These were of the same mentality as those who ran to Canada in the 60s.

I am totally overwhelmed when I read the words of the left. They have so much anger & hate in their hearts, that no subject can be dealt with unless they spew their venom.

What does it mean to support the troops? Does it mean you support the military? That cant be true because every democrat in office tries to cut the militarys budget. Does it mean you support the troops because they are the greatest military power on earth? That cant be true because the belief of the liberal left is we should NOT be the greatest military power. I will go further by saying Clintons Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, believed it was dangerous for the US to be the worlds only superpower. Does it mean you support the humanitarian efforts of the troops? Of all reasons, you would think this one would touch a hearts cord in a liberal, but no, they never talk about any good that is done. What does it mean to support the troops? I believe to the left, it is just lip service. No different than an umpire saying, Play ball. The umpire just says words. He doesnt care who wins & he doesnt care who loses. I support you troops! I cant tell you why I support you, but I support you. Oh, by the way, I am against what you are trained to do; I am against liberating a country & giving the Iraqis the opportunity for freedom they have only dreamed about. I am against bringing down a dictator. I am against protecting our own people, because I would rather hate & be angry.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 31, 2005 9:51 PM
Comment #76766

jack, pretty damned hard to argue against that logical and rational position. I enjoy finding vocal Republicans I can respect. Thanks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 9:52 PM
Comment #76779

“So this is the bottom line: if the police come and prevent you from speaking, that is an infringement of your rights. If your boss, teacher or other authority uses her power to punish you for your beliefs, that is wrong. I will help you object to that. If your fellow citizens ridicule, contradict or disparage your opinion,or just plain ignore you that is their right of free speech. And I am on their side.”

Jack, there is a difference between ridiculing, contradicting and objecting to my opinion AND telling me not to voice that opinion at all.

I have no issues at all with people on the Right voicing their differing opinions on why the war was justified, etc. In fact I encourage it, as this discourse is the very basis of Democracy.

But when they use the this vague notion of “troop morale” to tell us to keep our opinions to ourselves, I consider that an attempt to suppress speech. And it is undemocratic and wrong.

I wish you would distinguish between disagreement and suppression, because they are two very different things.

Posted by: Andrew L. at August 31, 2005 10:29 PM
Comment #76787

Don’t let this “Support the Troops” nonsense deceive you. The Republicans are just trying to lay the blame for losing Iraq on someone else!!! They know Iraq is lost so they are trying to con the public on who’s failure it really was. This article I found was very informative:

________________________________________________
The war is lost; time to blame the liberals

By John Steinberg | RAW STORY COLUMNIST

There is an old saying: success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. But the saying is slightly off: if the screw-up is sufficiently costly, blame must be placed, and the baby will likely end up on a completely inappropriate doorstep.

Advertisement

We all make mistakes, but it takes a specific kind of defect to make truly epic blunders the kind that come not from the original wrong turn, but from a refusal to admit the mistake and a dogged insistence on rejecting opportunities to recover. The congenital inability to admit mistakes compounds them, and leads to illogical, implausible histrionics in order to blame anyone but the fools who created the problem in the first place. Remember Dubyas classic deer-in-the headlights turn when asked at a press conference to name a single mistake he had made? Expect many re-enactments over the coming months, because the Quagmire Formerly Known as Iraq is about to be put up for adoption.

The good news is that it is finally dawning on a number of the neocons and the neoconned that Iraq is a snafu of epic proportions, which is rapidly bringing us to the end of a road I feared would take another decade to traverse. President Pangloss continues to insist that failure is not an option, but fewer and fewer rubes line up to drink his carnys elixir. In fact, this time he is right but only because calling failure an option implies that there are other possible outcomes. A certainty is not an option, and a bad outcome in Iraq is fast approaching as high a level of certainty as can be found in the reality-based community. (Pre-emptive note to the dense: applauding the acknowledgement of the failure is not the same thing as cheering the failure itself. I didnt tell your favorite emperor to promenade in his birthday suit.)

The bad news is that all the delusional energy that these ostrich hawks had devoted to holding their heads beneath the sand is now going to be dedicated to a new, equally dysfunctional task blaming the military, blaming the CIA, but first and foremost blaming the liberals. As Vietnam repeats with eerie precision, and our military might is again worn down by an enemy our generals dont understand and our foot soldiers cant distinguish from the people we are supposedly protecting, the baffled will again seek their favorite scapegoats those who committed the capital offense of being right from the beginning.

The canard that we would have won in Vietnam if America had not been shackled by the bleeding hearts at home has been a right wing touchstone for thirty years. In 1969, Richard Nixon delivered his Vietnamization speech, in which he said: let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that. In the circles that are again wreaking global havoc, this view remains a virtual shibboleth. The idea that there might be unwinnable wars, and wars not worth fighting, is simply incomprehensible to them. (Incredibly, Tom Delay has claimed that, had George W. Bush been President back then, we would have won the Vietnam war (yes, the very one his foot soldiers are convinced John Kerry lost). Even if you wish to argue that a more hawkish approach could have changed the outcome in our first quagmire especially if you believe that such a claim about someone who had the opportunity to serve that very cause and moved heaven and earth to avoid it should bring you a wave of nausea.)

That kind of nonsense is coming our way again. Expect increasing numbers of deranged chickenhawks to mobilize vast armies of verbal warriors to lay their orphan at our feet.

The process has already begun. Among the first to put finger to wind and, sensing a rout, begin the scapegoating was Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson is, for reasons that continue to elude me, considered one of the intellectual leaders of the right. (The paucity of competition may have something to do with itland of the blind and all.) In this, at least, Hanson shows that he is indeed a leader in a June 30th column, he claimed that the only legitimate parallel between Vietnam and Iraq is that showing weakness emboldens enemies. Jane Fonda and Abbie Hoffman lost Vietnam; the facts that we tried to prop up a corrupt, repressive government, faced an enemy indistinguishable from our putative allies, and had no damned idea what we were doing somehow pale by comparison. Hanson merely echoes the senior myope on this subject, Henry Kissinger, who recently asserted that the tragedy of Vietnam was the divisions that occurred in the United States that made it, in the end, impossible to achieve an outcome that was compatible with the sacrifices that had been made.

For both if these men, the idea that the very values that we claim distinguish us from our enemies are treasonous weaknesses is an irony utterly lost in translation. Yet the idea that American bloggers somehow embolden desperate Iraqis who go weeks without electricity is elevated to a level of certainty to which reality can only aspire.

Elected wingnuts have joined in as well. Senator Inhofe (R, 15th century) has blamed us for the shortfall in recruiting, as if the 1800-plus dead American soldiers existed in some Tinkerbell dimension, and would still be alive if we would only shut our eyes and believe a little harder or, of course, if we didnt insist on making the truth available to the teenagers Inhofe would prefer to mislead into harms way.

And, of course, there was this from the power behind the throne: Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals. If Karl Rove says it, you can take to the bank the certainty that almost every Republican in Washington will be saying it, and saying it soon.

If the laying of blame served no further purpose, I would gladly accept their displaced rage in exchange for an end to the slaughter. But blaming the hate America first crowd has a darker purpose. Stigmatizing us will soon become their highest calling because we were right, and they will have to negate us, and the truth we continue to speak, in order to re-consecrate their vision of empire through wars of choice. It will take time, but they will again bury truth under a mudslide of strident fabrication. They will not rest until the lessons of Quagmire II have been erased and America is ready to jingo its way into Quagmire III twenty or thirty years hence. And that is why we must deny paternity of their stillborn dream of empire.

Posted by: Aldous at August 31, 2005 10:48 PM
Comment #76796

Is this the same John Steinberg that wrote:

It’s the Stupidity, Stupid

October 7, 2004
By John Steinberg

I can’t say it wasn’t fun to read the Republican hand-wringing over George Bush’s pathetic “performance” in the first Presidential debate. But the pundits seem to have missed the fundamental story here…”

His concluding statement was, “Kerry has to be careful about how he plays this, of course. He can’t call Bush a moron. He was able to walk a fine line in the first debate, challenging without condescension or ridicule. He can’t move far from that line.

The rest of us, however, need to pressure the media to stop ignoring the intellectually challenged elephant in the room - the fact that our President is dumber than a fencepost.”

Dumb like a fox. He beat your boy.

Perplexed


Posted by: Perplexed at August 31, 2005 11:07 PM
Comment #76797

This is not a very credible scource.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 31, 2005 11:08 PM
Comment #76820
Im sorry Tim. You are dealing with cowards. These were of the same mentality as those who ran to Canada in the 60s.

I am totally overwhelmed when I read the words of the left. They have so much anger & hate in their hearts, that no subject can be dealt with unless they spew their venom.

Ahh…..the irony!

Posted by: Burt at September 1, 2005 1:26 AM
Comment #76821

Tim,

Did you even bother to read the articles that you linked to? Well, I did.

The last line from the last article:

�Ben died for us. He died for me. He died for you. That�s something anyone can respect, even if they disagree with the war.�

I guess you must disagree with that pinko commie bastard who claims one can respect the soldier and the sacrifice even if they disagree with the war.

I also noticed that the first two soldiers that you talk about were both in Afghanistan. You might be aware that virtually no one was against the war in Afghanistan nor are they now. So, I guess that doesn’t really support your argument much, but what the hey.

And finally, you’ve been asked for some evidence that the troops morale is actually being affected. I heard an interesting report on the radio today asking that very question. The answer was that the troops hear very little of that kind of news from the states. Most of them are working 12-18 hour days under extremely difficult circumstances, see very little TV, and don’t get to read daily newspapers. Bottom line is they have a little bit more to worry about than Cindy Sheehan.

Posted by: Burt at September 1, 2005 1:38 AM
Comment #76855

Like the difference between erotica and outright pornography, there is dissent and then there dissent that is almost seditiously demoralizing and damaging…more malicious than constructive, giving so much fodder for the Islamofascists’ propaganda outlets that the likelihood of affecting rational thought is lost. Durbin’s cheap shot hyperbole. Sheehan’s “America’s not worth dying for”..just 2 examples. This is WW2, Tokyo Rose stuff! I know,Times have changed.

Posted by: Cyberguy222777 at September 1, 2005 5:35 AM
Comment #76877

Andrew
“Now let me ask you the following questions. I hope you will respond to each one.”

1. No.
2. No limits.
3. I don’t want it limited.
4. Of course it would.
5. Yes. Think about how the actions or words may affect troop morale, if so, then figure out a better, more respectful of getting your message to them.

“your stance can’t help but be logically inconsistent”

My “stance” isn’t about our rights. Its about how the lefts delivery affects the troops morale.
Does the left believe their message is more important than the troops?

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 9:36 AM
Comment #76882

Stephen Daugherty
“His incompetence has been what offended me, rather than his politics”

I made no mention of the President, but you did.
Why is bashing the President or concentrating on his failures, more important than understanding and respecting our troops?
Is it because showing the troops doing anything positive will also be showing Bush in a positive light and that isn’t good for elections?

“To compliment him for these things would be to reward relative incompetence because it’s better than the absolute kind”

Once again, you are fixated on Bush while I am talking about our troops.
Bush’s “incompetence” has nothing to do with the hard work and great deeds done by our troops, each and every day.
Why is it so hard to seperate the two?

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 9:54 AM
Comment #76883

Rocky
“How much more respect could you pay to a soldier than not wanting them to die for no apparent reason?”

Is it not possible to convey that message without making the troops feel the opposite is true?

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 9:56 AM
Comment #76889

Alejo
“Once again we hear the cry that to dissent in time of war is harmful and possibly immoral”

You are hearing wrong then Alejo.
Do you believe it is possible to voice your dissent in a way that does not make the troops feel as if you don’t support them?

David
“Since when is a person’s morale affected by those they don’t know and whose opinions they don’t respect”

As soon as they step onto a battlefield. Tech today enables the troops to see and hear just about everything going on back home.
It demoralizes you when you hear Americans saying your friends have died for nothing or that this country isn’t worth dying for.
Troop morale is one of the single most important determining factors when in combat.

To know that Americans support and respect the sacrifice you are making helps you live to see another day.

Soldier Behavior: Desert Storm, 1991

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 10:17 AM
Comment #76892

Tim,

I remember reading recently that the final tally of votes from the military identically mirrored the closeness of the final Presidential popular results. Which leads me to wonder now whether an equal number of Bush supporters in uniform now regret their vote? And, whether voting for the right guy after all, has affected the morale of Kerry supporters?

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 1, 2005 10:25 AM
Comment #76894

Burt
“So, I guess that doesn’t really support your argument much, but what the hey”

Yes, I read all of the stories and I believe they support my position.
Troop morale is affected when only the negatives are yelled about.
If you support the troops, it should not matter if they are in Afghan or Iraq, they are still doing the job they volunteered to do.

You disagree with the war? Fine.
You support the troops? Fine, do it in a way that doesn’t make them ask questions like “Why does the left hate us so much?”

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 10:28 AM
Comment #76899

Tim Huff:

And what way, exactly, could my dissent be voiced without damaging troop morale? You state that it’s possible to do this but you don’t say how. The impression I get (not from you but in general from the Right) is that any sort of dissent, since it will be picked up by the news outlets and broadcast to the troops, is unacceptable.

I was against this war from the beginning, for the exact reasons that the tide of public opinion is turning, but never once did that mean I wanted an American soldier to die or be maimed. It’s sort of like … I’m also against drilling in ANWAR, but I don’t hold that against the guy working at my local Shell station. Although I’ve never told him my views on Alaskan drilling I have a pretty strong suspicion that he would not take it personally, nor would it affect his job performance in any noticeable way.
Here’s how I see it: This is an all-volunteer armed force of folks who joined and trained to be soldiers. They learned how to defend themselves, how to function under pressure, and how to protect our country. They’re fulfilling that promise they made when they signed the bottom line, and they’re as aware by now as we all are that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat to our country and that there is NOT a connection to 9/11. If anything is affecting their morale it’s the knowledge that the promises made to them by George Bush turned out to be false.

Posted by: Alejo at September 1, 2005 10:37 AM
Comment #76922

Alejo
“And what way, exactly, could my dissent be voiced without damaging troop morale? You state that it’s possible to do this but you don’t say how”

How about having a pro-troop rally without any bullcrap politics?
Why can’t there be a protest without the words Bush, murderer, treason, blood for oil, America is the real terrorist etc…?
Why does a political point HAVE to be made in order to be supporting the troops?

ElliotBay and Burt
Troop morale in Iraq has many reports, pro and con, all over the web.
The ONLY way to truely know what is important and affects morale is to talk with the soldiers themselves or to have been in combat yourself.
If you believe the negativity towards them at home does not have any affect on the troops overall morale, you are wrong.

What would happen if we told all those helping in the Gulf right now that what they were doing was wrong, dishonorable and everybody who died trying to help somebody else, did so for nothing?
How would those people feel if the national media coverage consisted only of looters while totally disregarding everything good being done?
You may say apples to oranges. Ones a natural disaster and ones an un-just war but I say bull.
Cause at the heart of both are volunteers, doing what they believe is right and they deserve to be seperated from the politics.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 11:34 AM
Comment #76925

Tim,

“You support the troops? Fine, do it in a way that doesn’t make them ask questions like “Why does the left hate us so much?”“

What amazes me most about this whole line of comments, is that the only people that are saying that the left hates the troops, are those from the right.

I wonder why that is?

Could it be that the right feels that anything that doesn’t match up to their agenda is traitorus hatespeak?

Just who hates whom here?

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 11:50 AM
Comment #76936

O.K
I’ll admit it, I hate the Far left. Plain and simple, No games, No play on words, No rhetoric. I Think just short of our enemy, they are the most damaging element to the troops. It’s been explained over and over as to why but, they either don’t care, don’t get it, or don’t want to get it.
That’s my opinion and I sticking to it!

Posted by: Kevin at September 1, 2005 12:20 PM
Comment #76941

Tim you don’t know what you are talking about. Having spent 3.5 years in the Army I can tell you, the military takes their responsibility for morale very, very seriously. They manage it very well these days. If you think our troops have nothing to do with their time but lie about the barracks or rec room listening to Sheehan, you are sadly uninformed.

And like I said, our GI’s could care less about folks they don’t know saying their efforts are wasted. They do care about what their families and friends think, what their bunkies think, and what their chain of command and Commanders think, mostly.

Enlist for a couple years, then we can have a more rational conversation about this based on common experience.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 12:43 PM
Comment #76942

Rocky
“I wonder why that is?”

You wonder because you don’t see that it is not only the “right” that says this, many of the troops share those same sentiments.
That is where I believe the left goes wrong, they fail to distinuish between the politics and the soldiers.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 12:44 PM
Comment #76943

Kevin,

“O.K
I’ll admit it, I hate the Far left. Plain and simple, No games, No play on words, No rhetoric. I Think just short of our enemy, they are the most damaging element to the troops. It’s been explained over and over as to why but, they either don’t care, don’t get it, or don’t want to get it.”

If you aren’t the only one that truely feels this way, America is a far greater danger to itself than from all of the terrorist cabals on the rest of the planet.

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #76945

Rocky
I’m not, so if the terrorist are less of a danger, go live with ‘em. Believe me, you wont be missed.

Posted by: Kevin at September 1, 2005 12:49 PM
Comment #76946

Tim:

That is where I believe the left goes wrong, they fail to distinuish between the politics and the soldiers.

Oddly enough, I would argue that that is where the Right goes wrong. I have no trouble whatsoever distinguishing between the reasons for the war and the people fighting in it, yet every time I say I oppose the war I’m told I oppose the people fighting it. Who has trouble distinguishing? I’d say it’s those who take impersonal comments personally.
For example: If I say I hate Chevrolets (I don’t, but for the sake of argument let’s say I do) and you happen to own one, does that mean I hate you?

Posted by: Alejo at September 1, 2005 12:52 PM
Comment #76948

David
“Enlist for a couple years, then we can have a more rational conversation about this based on common experience”

I gave 10 years of my life to the military, I am more than capable to having a rational conversation based on common experience with you.
Saying the negative sentiments of Americans, the ones our troops believe they are fighting for, has no impact on their morale simply because they are strangers, is naive.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #76949

Kevin,

“I’m not, so if the terrorist are less of a danger, go live with ‘em. Believe me, you wont be missed.”

Ahh, and here I thought you liked me.

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 12:56 PM
Comment #76951

Rocky
I don’t know you, but I don’t like your view on this.

Posted by: Kevin at September 1, 2005 1:00 PM
Comment #76955

Kevin,

You don’t know my veiw.

I wasn’t for going into Iraq, but if we were going to do it, I was for 500,000 troops during the invasion. I was for the Iraqis rising up and helping us in thier cause.

As you can see, neither of those things happened. I don’t blame the troops for the ineptitude of their leaders.
Somehow I don’t see that as “Hating the Troops”.

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 1:12 PM
Comment #76959

Rocky,
I wasn’t talking about that view I was talking about this one: “If you aren’t the only one that truely feels this way, America is a far greater danger to itself than from all of the terrorist cabals on the rest of the planet.”

I’m sure you took it to the extreme to get your point across, eveyone in here does, but it was a slam on my view. So hence the fact that I don’t like your view.


Posted by: Kevin at September 1, 2005 1:21 PM
Comment #76961

It doesn’t help morale at home when President Bush says we’re winning in Iraq, and we obviously aren’t. It doesn’t help when he praises a constitution that’s obviously flawed and contrary to American values.

How about a little less cheerleading and a little more action from our leaders. A firm commitment to secure Iraq would do wonders for troop morale. Triple the number of troops in Iraq. Lock down the borders. Hell, just secure the road from Baghdad to the airport.

If President Bush had a plan for winning, both the troops and the folks at home would rally. Losing sucks. It’s no wonder that morale is declining.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 1, 2005 1:25 PM
Comment #76965

Kevin,

“I’m sure you took it to the extreme to get your point across, eveyone in here does, but it was a slam on my view. So hence the fact that I don’t like your view.”

If the right harbors such hatred for the left as you expressed, then yes, I am afraid for my country.
If we are so polorized at home, that either side can’t give a little, we have nothing to give the rest of the world.
What disturbs me the most is that there are sides at all.

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 1:31 PM
Comment #76971

Rocky,
I’m not without the same hatred for the far right also, they can be just as dangerous.

Careful with assumptions.

Posted by: Kevin at September 1, 2005 1:44 PM
Comment #76982

I truly believe that all the rhretoric of the right whining about the left, and the left whining about the right, only exacerbates the divide in our country, or minimially is a waste of time. Why is everything so black and white to these people?

Quite frankly, the world would be a better place if this author spent time volunteering instead of wasting time on the article posted.


Ron

Posted by: Ron at September 1, 2005 2:11 PM
Comment #76988

Pundit
I agree there is a list of contributing factors for low morale, but shouldn’t we all take into account how our actions and words may affect morale?
I really believe it is only the far left who does not support our troops and are deserving of being called un-patriotic and un-American.
I also believe the majority of the left do support our troops, but fail to place them above their hatred for the war and Republicans.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 2:21 PM
Comment #77012

Tim,

“I really believe it is only the far left who does not support our troops and are deserving of being called un-patriotic and un-American.
I also believe the majority of the left do support our troops, but fail to place them above their hatred for the war and Republicans.”

I was just waiting for someone to mention the un word.
This is an interesting dichotomy.
The hatred appearantly runs both ways.
The very freedoms that the right claims that our troops are fighting for, are to be denied those citizens of this country that have a differing opinion.
So everything that the right does is, well…, right, and everybody else is wrong.

So much for the First Ammendment.

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 3:14 PM
Comment #77030

“The hatred appearantly runs both ways”

Yes it does Rocky.
In fact, the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at a dead soldiers funeral, pisses me off just as much as those FAR left asses protesting in front of Walter Reed.
BOTH are UN-Patriotic and UN-American acts by cowards and sadly, BOTH have the right to protest in this manner.
So why are my un comments more offensive than their actions?
Do I not have the same right to call them UN-whatever as they do when they call our troops traitors?

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 4:01 PM
Comment #77048

Tim,

“Do I not have the same right to call them UN-whatever as they do when they call our troops traitors?”

I would like to think that I am pretty well informed, and I have never seen our troops called traitors, not even when I marched against the VietNam war.

Do you have that right?
Of course.

Discretion would dictate, however, that the level of vitriol could be lowered on all sides.

Just because you can say something, doesn’t mean that you should.

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 4:27 PM
Comment #77052
Do I not have the same right to call them UN-whatever as they do when they call our troops traitors?
Of course you do, Tim — thanks to the First Amendment, which also protects our right to tell you we believe you’re wrong. But I don’t think you’re so much wrong, now that I’ve read all your responses, as I think maybe you didn’t explain yourself as fully as you could have. I think that if you had explained to begin with that you were talking about very specific protesters doing very specific things, rather than making it seem like you were talking about ALL of us who believe the war is wrong, you wouldn’t have inflamed so many people. And perhaps if you had mentioned your feelings about the Westboro Wackos up front you wouldn’t have appeared so partisan. Perhaps the nature of this blog lends itself partisan divides, but I think we could have much more useful conversations if we could get past that and talk about ideas instead of making it into an us against them fistfight. None of us are un-American, even the a**holes who protest at soldier funerals, because all of us are Americans simply by living here. That’s what makes America great, is that there is no “Members’ Handbook” you have to follow. You can be an a**hole and still be an American. Posted by: Alejo at September 1, 2005 4:36 PM
Comment #77081

Rocky
I hope you noticed I said “FAR” left.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1595260_comment.php

and from the other side

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050827/OPINION01/508270326/1014/NEWS01

“Just because you can say something, doesn’t mean that you should”

Exactly!

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 5:49 PM
Comment #77082

Rocky
I hope you noticed I said “FAR” left.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1595260_comment.php

and from the other side

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050827/OPINION01/508270326/1014/NEWS01

“Just because you can say something, doesn’t mean that you should”

Exactly!

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 5:50 PM
Comment #77089

Alejo
“as I think maybe you didn’t explain yourself as fully as you could have”

Yeah, I see that now. My first post and I was worried about the length and cut a bunch out. Even forgot to do the links right, thanks WB Editor.

“You can be an a**hole and still be an American”

According to my wife, I’ve perfected both.

I’ll have to disagree on the un-American part, I really believe you can either love it or leave it.

Also, thanks for the feedback, I’ll be more careful with what I cut next time.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 1, 2005 6:01 PM
Comment #77091

I can’t believe this thread is still continuing. Tim, when do you plan on posting some evidence that troop morale is being affected in any way? Until then, I don’t any of your comments are worthy of a response.

Posted by: Burt at September 1, 2005 6:05 PM
Comment #77097

Tim,

“I hope you noticed I said “FAR” left.”

Look I don’t approve of what I read on that site, but can we prove that these folks are even Americans or if they are writing from America?

The internet can be a boon or a bane, depending on what your message is, and it is impossible to tell where that message comes from.

Sorry, if this was in print somewhere and could be vetted I would be more inclined to belive it.

Fred Phelps, on the other hand is a well documented wacko. I don’t waste my time worrying about a guy like that.

He is a waste of perfectly good gravity.

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 6:23 PM
Comment #77133

Jack-
Everybody wants their opinion approved of and considered. You can call it detrimental, but the only thing that’s detrimental here is the enshrinement of groupthink in the GOP. Because you guys have the power, we who do not agree with you have little option for recourse besides strident protest, and attempts to turn public opinion against those policies that we think and which we can largely prove are working against America’s interests.

Perplexed-
You believe you have us figured out, don’t you? The question is, whether you have your own people figured out. How many of your legislative and executive leaders actually saw combat, before they sent our soldiers in? Almost none. And it shows. They pay for billion dollar weapons that never make it to the battlefield, while putting pork into the budget that deprives our soldiers of armor, maintenance of their vehicles, and other needed items. They pay contractors to do the work soldiers once did, putting our armed forces at the mercy of a supply train that cannot be ordered to keep its work up under combat conditions, and which has to be protected itself by mercenaries who aren’t under our control either. Guess what? That last part was Dick Cheney’s idea.

So were much of the military budget cuts. During the days of the Bush Administration, Cheney oversaw the drawdown of American forces after the Cold War, and made many of the cuts you blame the Democrats for. Hell, he made the same cuts he criticized Kerry for making in the Campaign!

I support the troops, and you can try to qualify that in your words, but I won’t, I trust that people know that my words are better indicators of what I believe than yours are.

To me, support for the troops, and support for the politicians are two different things. The politicians get to stay nice and safe in Washington while they make decisions that will end soldier’s lives. Who do you think needs the support?

A leader should be able to defend their policies on more than just the grounds of supporting the troops. It’s a circular argument, which doesn’t tell you why the particular policy is worth supporting. It just says if you don’t support it, you’ll make the poor soldiers cry.

Well, I think after having people shoot at them, launch mortal shells, explode booby traps and Themselves at our troops, our troops can handle the criticism of this administration’s policies. Hell, they might even agree with that criticism out of personal experience.

I think our soldiers will take whatever orders which come down their way and make the best of them. I just wish the people making those orders weren’t such fools and charlatans about the whole thing. Our soldiers deserve better leadership.

They deserve better support than they’re getting. Take that as you will.

Tim Huff-
I already understand and respect our troops. That’s why I oppose this president and his policies. You tell me I’m bashing him. I’m telling you he deserves to be bashed.

Our soldiers are doing a fine job, and the credit should belong to them not Bush as to what’s getting done right. The president is not out there daily dealing with the leaders of the communities, driving around getting attacked, defending Iraqis and whatnot. He’s in Washington, sending them on faulty evidence to fight a war with insufficient manpower, equipmment, and supplies.

All this support the troops stuff is a smokescreen from the Bush Administration for exactly what theyr’e not doing. They’re blaming us for the issues and problems that they have the power to fix, if only they would open themselves up to a little political vulnerability.

But they won’t do that. Changing course would admit that the previous course was wrong, opening the president up to so many questions about this policy that he would have to answer or take a hit in his reputation for. What he doesn’t realize is that his reputation among most Americans is already at the bottom of the barrel. I will defend the troops against any who say that they aren’t doing the best job possible. But I won’t defend the man who has betrayed their interests and those of the American people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2005 8:11 PM
Comment #77182

Tim Huff said: “I really believe it is only the far left who does not support our troops and are deserving of being called un-patriotic and un-American.”

So what do you do with your cognitive dissonance over Pat Buchannan, as Republican as they come, Tim.

Your entitled to your beliefs, but when you speak them in public, some of them just don’t make sense. Only the far left who does not support our troops because they are opposed to staying there or are calling for an end to it now. Pat Buchannan makes cannon fodder out of that belief, and he has millions of Republican followers.

I am sorry, did I just let a Republican secret out of the bag?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2005 12:44 AM
Comment #77275

Stephen:

I dont believe I have figured the left out, I know I have figured them out.

You said, How many of your legislative and executive leaders actually saw combat, before they sent our soldiers in?

This statement is moot. Over the history of mankind, how many leaders, kings, dictators, or emperors saw combat? FDR was handicapped & yet he led us into war. Bill Clinton led us into conflicts & yet he was a draft dodger. This statement is ridiculous & is unworthy of your intellect.

Supplying the front line forces is called logistics and there is nothing wrong with using civilian contractors to do the work. It frees up the military to do their job, which is combat. We do not have the only military in history that has been supplied by civilians. It is a cost savings & allows the free market to bid on the job. The ratio of support troops to combat during WWII was 1.7 to 1, during Vietnam it was 1.8 to 1, during the Gulf War it was 1.4 to 1, & I have not been able to find a ratio for the Iraq war, but I would expect it to be lower than the Gulf War. To maintain a support force equal to that of WWII or Vietnam would require a larger military. In order to do that, the draft would have to be reinstituted. We have no need for the draft; we have an all-volunteer military. Plus the fact, although some would like to see a draft (Rangel), it would be used against the president by the left. Most troops enlist to be trained for combat & not as support clerks. Secondly, it is a cost savings to use civilian contractors because you get more bang for the buck. I am a firm believer that if cities & states hired contractors to complete the work, they would get more work done per dollar spent. If a contractor is paying his employees, he expects work to be done. On the other hand, how many times have you seen a group of city or state employees leaning on their shovels & watching as one does the work?

There is a difference between cutting funds to the military & re-allocating funds that are already budgeted. You are making a false premise when you say the president or vice-president cut funding. Under Clinton & Gore actual funds were cut & the military was downsized by cutting equipment or the production of equipment.

You told Tim: Our soldiers are doing a fine job, and the credit should belong to them not Bush as to what’s getting done right.

I would like an answer to a question that has been ignored by all of you on the left. What do you mean by saying, I support the troops? How do you blame the president for what is going wrong & yet credit the troops for what is going right? Isnt the president the Commander in Chief in both instances? Again I say, you are blinded by hatred & anger & are not qualified to discuss this topic. Your hatred for this president has clouded your ability to discuss intelligently.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at September 2, 2005 9:55 AM
Comment #77278

David
As the issue was about the left and how they say they support our troops, I was only pointing out that I believe it is only the FAR left part of the left wing that truely does not support our troops and that most Democrats do support our troops but are willing to place politics before them.

So far, I have heard that ALL morale problems are Bush’s fault and that US soldiers don’t care about having the support of Americans because they are complete strangers.
I expected those answers and both are only excuses. Excuses used because people feel their agenda has a higher priority.

My beliefs don’t make sense? Fair enough, I will work on that, thank you for the advice.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 2, 2005 9:56 AM
Comment #77299

“Our soldiers are doing a fine job, and the credit should belong to them not Bush as to what’s getting done right”

Then why won’t the left recognize that credit?
Because if they did, some of that light may leak onto Bush and we know there is no way you will let that happen.
It seems as if the left believes the soldiers opinions of them are secondary to making Bush look bad.
You are willing to sacrifice their support in order to make your point.

Posted by: Tim Huff at September 2, 2005 11:05 AM
Comment #77343

Perplexed,

“How do you blame the president for what is going wrong & yet credit the troops for what is going right? Isn?t the president the Commander in Chief in both instances? Again I say, you are blinded by hatred & anger & are not qualified to discuss this topic. Your hatred for this president has clouded your ability to discuss intelligently.”

This is priceless.

Let’s talk about planning first.
Rumsfeld’s remark, “As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want”
This statement seems to imply that there was a sense of urgency, if we hadn’t invaded the day we did we never could have pulled it off.

From the same news conference,
“It’s essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money,” Rumsfeld said. “It’s a matter of production and the capability of doing it.”
Well, that was a flat out lie. The company producing the armour was able to supply 50% more, they just hadn’t been asked to step up production.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, had been itching for this since they were in the Ford administration and had discredited Nixon’s CIA reports on “hidden WMDs” (does this sound at all familiar?), in the Soviet Union.

There was no urgency to invade Iraq. The statement that Saddam was suporting terrorists is a cannard. 95% of the countries in the Middle East support terrorists, including our “staunch” allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

I have posted this before but you guys don’t seem to get this.

Bush1.0 put together a coalition of countries that placed 500,000 men and women, ready to push Saddam out of Kuwait, a country smaller than New Jersey. All those men and women just to take back Kuwait. And they did it in less than six months.

Bush2.0 put together a coalition of countries that placed 200,000 men and women, to not only invade, but to completely subdue Iraq, a country the size of California, and two years later we still haven’t secured the country.
Hell, two years later and we still haven’t secured Baghdad.

How long did it take to “take” Baghdad?

Where were those “Hearts and Minds” we were pronmised?

The fighting men and women of America have done much with little planning and very little logistical support. For that, they deserve our support and gratitude.
The leaders that put them in that situation don’t get a pass on this.
Sorry pal, facts are facts.

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 12:23 PM
Comment #77373

Rocky:

You still have failed to answer the question, what do you mean by, I support the troops.

If you say you support the troops because they have done much with little planning and very little logistical support. Then I ask you first, what is it they have done? That is not a hard question. Secondly you base their achievements (whatever they are, you can not say)as done in spite of the president, on false information:

You conveniently failed to include the things that were said between your quotes:

Rumsfeld said armored military vehicles have been brought to the region “from all over the world, from where they’re not needed to a place they’re needed.”
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said about 450 armored Humvees are being produced each month. This is up from August 2003 when only 15 per month were made.
That’s about the time commanders in Iraq started asking for them because of the increased use of roadside bombs by insurgents.

1. When the commanders asked for the armored vehicles, they got them.
2. They did not ask for them until the enemy started using roadside bombs.
3. The media had coached the soldier that asked this question.
4.An army always goes to war with what they have. Have you ever seen an army go to war with the things they dont have. DUH!
5. You said The company producing the armour was able to supply 50% more, they just hadn’t been asked to step up production:

they were able to increase production from 15 a month to 450 per month, but not until asked & the government did not increase the production until the commanders in the field asked for the vehicles.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, had been itching for this since they were in the Ford administration and had discredited Nixon’s CIA reports on “hidden WMDs” (does this sound at all familiar?), in the Soviet Union.

Reference & facts please?

There was no urgency to invade Iraq. The statement that Saddam was suporting terrorists is a cannard. 95% of the countries in the Middle East support terrorists, including our “staunch” allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Reference & facts please:

Driving the Iraqis back across the border of Kuwait cannot be compared to invading & conquering a country.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at September 2, 2005 1:35 PM
Comment #77382

Perplexed,

“Driving the Iraqi’s back across the border of Kuwait cannot be compared to invading & conquering a country.”

At last, the light begins to shine.

That was exactly my point and you still don’t get it.

Please compare the numbers 500,000 for Bush1.0 for the Gulf War and 200,000 for Bush2.0 and our invasion. There seems to be a vast difference between the two that even you should be able to see.

“Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, had been itching for this since they were in the Ford administration and had discredited Nixon’s CIA reports on “hidden WMDs” (does this sound at all familiar?), in the Soviet Union.

Reference & facts please?”

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-26.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

“There was no urgency to invade Iraq. The statement that Saddam was suporting terrorists is a cannard. 95% of the countries in the Middle East support terrorists, including our “staunch” allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Reference & facts please:”

Does the fact that 75% of the Sept. 11th hijackers were upper middle class Saudis, or that bin Laden is from a rich Saudi family ring a bell? Where the hell do you think the money is coming from?

Why aren’t we allowed into Pakistan to hunt for Al Quaeda?

That Syria supports Hesbola, does that mean anything?

Do we even need to talk about Iran?

How about Yemen?

Do you read or do any research at all?

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 2:18 PM
Comment #77384

Perplexed,

“1. When the commanders asked for the armored vehicles, they got them.
2. They did not ask for them until the enemy started using roadside bombs.
3. The media had coached the soldier that asked this question.
4.An army always goes to war with what they have. Have you ever seen an army go to war with the things they don?t have. DUH!
5. You said ?The company producing the armour was able to supply 50% more, they just hadn’t been asked to step up production?:

they were able to increase production from 15 a month to 450 per month, but not until asked & the government did not increase the production until the commanders in the field asked for the vehicles.”

Why didn’t the “Commander in Chief” and the Secretary of Defence plan for those contingencies?
Why didn’t they demand that these things were included in the build-up to the invasion?

“3. The media had coached the soldier that asked this question.”

SO WHAT?

We are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on this war and you would think that those in command would have thought of that.

Do you think that Eisenhower went onto Normandy without thinking about every possible senario?

No, we attempted to do this on the cheap and now it has bit us on the ass.

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 2:28 PM
Comment #77397

Rocky:

So you expect me to believe left, liberal, web sites as gospel?

CommonDreams.org is a “must” in my life and work’
Bill Moyers.

Not to mention the rest of the list of liberals procaiming this site.

BBC: “At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists.

Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world.

These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended.

Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful

Together they created today’s nightmare vision of an organised terror network.

A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

The rise of the politics of fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neo-conservative movement that dominates Washington.

Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together.”

I gues I am suposed to fall for your conspiracy theories? I don’t think so.

As for the rest of your post, I say you are motivated by conspiracy theories.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at September 2, 2005 2:57 PM
Comment #77402

Perplexed,

I don’t know why I even bother.

Whan the space ship comes so that we all can have a roll of quarters ready.

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 3:05 PM
Comment #77404

Damned internet connection!

When the space ship comes let us know so that we all can have a roll of quarters ready.

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 3:07 PM
Comment #77453

Perplexed,

” gues I am suposed to fall for your conspiracy theories? I don’t think so.

As for the rest of your post, I say you are motivated by conspiracy theories.”

And with those comments I should feel dismissed?

Where is your evidence to the contrary?

You ask for my proof, where is yours?

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 4:47 PM
Comment #77523

Rocky,
“3. The media had coached the soldier that asked this question.”

SO WHAT?


But I thought the Libeiral media only reported news not try to makes it by telling others what to say. O, my bad , that aint the way liberials do things.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 2, 2005 7:05 PM
Comment #77536

Ron,

Please tell me the difference between coaching someone, and asking someone to ask a question.

Beside that, was the question valid?
Was this just a grip and grin photo-op?
Why were the reporters present not allowed to ask the questions themselves?

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 7:19 PM
Comment #77569

I didn’t take time to read all of this , but somewhere near the beginnig I read how the libs learned something from the vietnam experience. Hate to say it, but he’s right. They have perfected the art of “TOTAL STUPITY”. We’re for the troops, but not the war. They’re the only fools that believe that makes since. Your hate for Bush is not healthy. Some of you should see a Doc. Your physco babble is never going to stop. You think Bush is a morron. He’s a hell of alot smarter than you. And Kerry,and the Clintons, and look who’s the minority in the country. you think that was a fluke. Keep it up, and keep loseing at the election box..It’s fun to wacth you guy’s, and the fact that you’ll never get it…….

Posted by: John at September 2, 2005 8:17 PM
Comment #77581

John,

“You think Bush is a morron. He’s a hell of alot smarter than you. And Kerry,and the Clintons, and look who’s the minority in the country.”

I never doubted his intelligence only his wisdom.

While you are painting all on your left with such a broad brush you might check on your facts a little better.

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 8:36 PM
Comment #77591

Are you suffering from Liberal Intellectual Elitism? Join us over at the republican dummy party. I used to not be able to say “winner” & now I are one. They say people, who smile a lot, live longer. I guess that leaves you out Rocky. I honestly feel sorry for you people, you have nothing to live for, except the hope of winning the next election.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at September 2, 2005 9:22 PM
Comment #77594

Perplexed,

“I guess that leaves you out Rocky. I honestly feel sorry for you people, you have nothing to live for, except the hope of winning the next election.”

Well, I guess that you just don’t know me very well do you?

I’ll ask the question again.

You asked me for proof, I cited my sources.

I asked for proof of your information and you blew me off.

Where is your proof that these are just conspiracies?

BTW, I’m not holding my breath.

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 9:35 PM
Comment #77596

I don’t think it would matter what I said or presented. In fact it would be a waste of my time. You have pre-conceived ideas that could not be changed.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at September 2, 2005 9:38 PM
Comment #77605

Perplexed,

Why am I not surprised?

The feeling is mutual.

Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 10:29 PM
Comment #77629

This is a response to the first post only. I didn’t read the rest. No offense, everybody else. :)

Since I live in Lawton/Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, a city so enmired in the military that we changed our name from Lawton to Lawton slash Ft. Sill I think that I’m qualified to respond to this post.

The soldiers themselves do not support the war. Ft. Sill is an artillery post, one of the largest in the US. These men enlisted to protect our freedom, not to protect the freedom of Bush and America’s oil companies to screw us. So when our troops hear us spout that we support our troops and not the war, they know that, in the next election, we will be voting for someone who has their best interests in mind. (i.e. War as the last resort, not the first one.)

Posted by: Rose at September 3, 2005 12:10 AM
Comment #77741
I don’t think it would matter what I said or presented. In fact it would be a waste of my time. You have pre-conceived ideas that could not be changed.

LOL! The last refuge of a poor argument. :)

Rocky, there’s an old internet saying. You’ve been there, you’ve done that, now get the t-shirt. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at September 3, 2005 2:46 PM
Comment #77745

AP,

“Rocky, there’s an old internet saying. You’ve been there, you’ve done that, now get the t-shirt. :)”

Seems like I have a closet full already.

Thanks AP.


Posted by: Rocky at September 3, 2005 3:05 PM
Comment #77752

AP,

Oh, and I have the hats to go with them.

Posted by: Rocky at September 3, 2005 3:15 PM
Comment #77803

Rocky,
I don’t pretend to to know all the facts. Just a portion of what the government lets us know. Both left and right. As far as Bush, he didn’t get to where he is by being stupid. That goes for Clinton also. When I refer to libs., I don’t mean the far right. I do have some respect for dems. Like Sell Miller and the Governer of N.M. Not to mention J.F.K. I do believe the far right and the far left are not good for our all of us. As far as injoying myself, I’m plenty happy and it’s seems to me, your the unhappy one. I’m not worried, will win again…..John

Posted by: john at September 3, 2005 5:29 PM
Comment #77806

John,

My intention was not to beat you up. So don’t take it that way.

There have been too many posts that have been flame bait insted of fodder for discussion.

In reality, the only thing that pisses me off is stupidity. I can live with ignorance, because those folks don’t know any better, but stupidity gets me every time.
That and it’s 105F here in Phoenix, and I have been working outside and I am just a bit cranky.

Posted by: Rocky at September 3, 2005 5:40 PM
Comment #78132

How come no one on this blog has talked about Katrina, what can be done NOW, what you expect to see done to help these people, etc. Seems to me that this Blog has been missing the boat for over a week now.

Posted by: Linda Haenchen at September 5, 2005 10:51 AM
Post a comment