Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=6c9699d16922cff7b57a7cc148aa5f6b&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
We are united with our veterans all the way on this!!! I hope they have plenty of cameras. Anyone who defaces our Vietnam war memorial or spits on a veteran MUST be immediately arrested. I wish for the charge of treason!
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=85fe91ead0f64a6302ead8ae420da8c6&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
This is baloney.
I fought in Gulf War I. Sent twice.
There was a reason we didn't go any farther. There was a reason Colin Powell chose NOT to invade Iraq.
I will always support the troops in following their orders, because the field is no place for a mil per to decide whether he or she believes in the engagement.
But, contrary to this web site, the base I work on now is filled with troops have served in Iraq, often multiple tours, and they don't want to go back.
If THEY no longer support this policy, and the American people no longer support this policy, the best thing you can do is make sure that honor and dignity are a part of the redeployment.
The Commander-in-Chief told his troops that the mission was accomplished on May 1, 2003. The Commander-in-Chief got a hero's welcome.
It's time for our troops to get their well-deserved hero's welcome too.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=c10e927ca659d25357e65b3873a1c525&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....-and-brave.html
THESE soldiers that just died. Their families say they BEGGED to go back Jan...so maybe YOU do not speak for them, or do you claim to know more about what these kids saw and believed than their families did?
Faultline, The veterans have already said, they will be peaceful but NO ONE will be defacing the Vietnam Memorial Wall.
They will not tolerate their brother and sisters still in uniform to be treated as the Vietnam War heroes were treated.
The line in the sand is drawn.
For the record...there will also be younger veterans that have BEEN in Iraq standing besides the older generation to protect that wall.
The ilk of Fonda and company will not cross that line.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=118d6f164c66b6d99ca783ae8b648b50&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Sorry Spree but this is one vet who welcomes these protests as a way of engaging the nation in an honest discussion of this war.
Greg, of THAT I never had a doubt.
Thank god for the other vets that ARE willing to take the trip and to protect the wall from the hatred of those that spit at Joshua Sparling and that called the soldier from here:
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....rt-1-and-2.html
a baby killer.
I do not say ALLLLLL the protesters are like these examples, but enough of them are that some of our Veterans feel the need to go and protect the Vietnam Memorial Wall.
After all, these same protesters spray painted the capitol building and I have no doubt that they wouldn't hesitate to deface the Wall.
Honest discussion??? You live in a fantasy world...an HONEST discussion would \"discuss\" the good and the bad, the ugly as well as the pretty, the death of the enemy in equal time as the death of our soldiers... we haven't got anyone thats wants FULLhonesty Greg, not if any of the truth does not match their \"ideology\".
I show the deaths of our soldiers inmy latest piece...how often do THEY speak of the deaths of the enemy?
IF YOU BELIEVE WE HAVE SEEN ANY HONEST DISCUSSION, THEN YOU ARE MORE NAIVE THAN I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT.
.
Again...
It's a free country. You can get as pissed as you want to about the so-called \"war protesters.\"
The fact is, the nation no longer supports the war POLICIES of this President.
No one blames the troops. The troops are not at issue here. But if you, as representatives of the military, continue to take your anger out on those who not longer support the policies of this war, it is now obvious (since the November election) that you will end up on the losing end.
There never was a debate. We all trusted the President.
But I guarantee you, any \"debate\" is OVER -- except for maybe how we got there in the first place, and how we're going to get out.
Send all your military friends to Iraq so mine don't have to go. I salute them. But the nation wants out, and again, you could do yourselves a lot more good to start advocating for a dignified redeployment.
Or not.
I don't care. I just know what the message of The Thumpin' in November was. Ignore it at your peril.
But my point is, if you continue to make \"war protesters\" the ones you vent your anger on, you will make the vast majority of the nation angry back at you.
First of all I do not speak FOR the soldiers, they have mouths and are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves...I simply give them a forum to do so.
I write this blog AS one of those American people in the NATION, and I do support the president AND our troops 100%, so you do NOT speak for me or the hundreds of thousands of others that have a basic understanding of the ramifications of withdrawal before stabilizations.
Again...YOU do not speak for the \"nation\" as I do not speak for the nation.
And for the record.... on exit polls after Novembers election...corruption in Congress was the NUMBER ONE reason given for the vote....Iraq ranked NUMBER 4...maybe you should read the news more before spouting the \"partyline\" about what the vote meant in November.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11...lls-corruption/
http://www.nypost.com/seven/1108...editorials_.htm
Unless every single American voter is spoken too, neither of us can say for sure what \"all\" of America wants.
BTW, YOUR friends do NOT have to go to Iraq and fight because they do not HAVE to volunteer... leave that to those that believe in the mission and those that keep on reenlisting, despite your claims about what the \"nation\" wants.
One last little note here: Perhaps you should ask yourself why you would defend criminals (vandalism IS a crime) and your litttle friends, the protesters DID spray paint the capitol building....last I heard....THATS illegal.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/...protesters.html
So,I would have to ask myself, why you would support criminal behavior by supporting those that did this.
Hence this heroic action by our veterans to protect the Vietnam Memorial Wall.
Spee: Methinks thou doth protest too much...
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=1da11b64b505169db0b8b6b9e56a3012&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Greg, I'm going to ask two questions that I've been refraining from asking: What branch of service and what job category?
Again, spree...
Blah-blah-blah all you want. I'm simply trying to help you face reality. If you don't care to face reality, there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
I guess if you honestly believe that the nation still supports the policies of this Commander-in-Chief, then you gotta do what you gotta do.
But I'm just saying that what you feel you gotta do is to tell the American people to fuck off, on behalf of the military.
And I don't think that's going to end up being very helpful to our military.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=7e5f6c38d19002953f9ad9e365141ff1&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you would defend criminals (vandalism IS a crime) and your litttle friends, the protesters DID spray paint the capitol building....last I heard....THATS illegal.
...u go girl!...good thought provoking post.. ty for the link and have a sweet Sunday!..![\"\"](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/smileys/content.gif\")
Jan, I'm rather curious as to why you're more than ready to take spree on for HER postings, but won't address MINE when I AM a veteran. Perhaps it is YOU who isn't facing the reality that a great MANY of us who served are behind what we're doing, and most of us did our time BEFORE the first Gulf War.
Perhaps you are in a little nest of discontents where you are, and are not seeing the big picture. I talk to veterans and the general public at large in more than just my own circle in the work that I do, most of us are highly, HIGHLY pissed at the lack of support, and respect, for our commander in chief AND for our troops. But then again, maybe it's a southern thang that we would rather fight on enemy soil than to have enemies coming here onto ours...
The problem I am seeing in all the anti-war type people is they refuse to deal with the ramifications of what would happen should we withdraw all forces before Iraq is stabilized.
That isn't a subject they want to deal with because they know it will be as bad if not worse than what the Cambodia Killing Fields looked like....we all know who historians blame for that.
Whether people agree on why we are there, the cold hard reality is....we ARE there.
To leave before establishing some stability, we will once again be abandoning innocent men, women and children that trusted us to keep our word and complete our mission.
Not having been in the military, I may be wrong here, but my family HAS always been in the military, my father, mother, brother, uncle and all of them always made it clear that in the eyes of the military a mission is not over until it is \"completed\".
Well said Hawk.
thankee
and I'll say it again: when is it over? when the last one draws his last gasping dying breath.
Hawk, I personally feel that any soldier who says they would rather engage the enemy on someone else's soil than on our own soil is a coward.
I'm not afraid to engage ANY enemy at ANY time on our soil.
We can agree to disagree.
But first ask yourself how you would like to have someone else's war going down on American soil rather than on that nation's OWN soil?
imo, we would have, in fact, an ENORMOUS ADVANTAGE if we were fighting these people on our own soil. They wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell against our military.
As far as the \"ramifications\" of leaving Iraq...
Again, I fought in Gulf War I. There was a reason we didn't go into Iraq -- because Colin Powell and Commander-in-Chief GHW Bush told us we would fail to accomplish the mission.
If you are going to listen to the \"ramifications\" from the very people who told you the mission was accomplished on May 1, 2003...
You are being played for a fool.
Will it be a disaster when we leave? Yeah, that's why we didn't go in in Gulf War I.
Can we stop it from being a disaster if we escalate our military presence?
Probably not.
But is the solution to that scenario -- potential disaster -- one in which our combat troops become street fighters in the middle of a civil war?!!?
What was Bush's plan BEFORE he invaded Iraq, in case he turned out to be wrong?
If he didn't have one (which appears obvious to most of us) why the heck are you still believing a word he tells you about the \"ramifications\"?
And how does the idea that Iraq is going to explode even further become the responsibilty of our military?
The exact same people who were actually CORRECT before the invasion are telling us NOW that only a political and diplomatic solution will work. We're going to ignore them AGAIN, and trust Bush AGAIN?
Sorry, not this vet.
Again, fight the \"anti-war\" citizens as long and hard as you want. But you ignore at your peril that they are now the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans are already GONE.
So, if you are anger at all the people who are now against Bush's policy to escalate the war, you will be angry at the majority of Americans.
And they will soon begin to display the same anger towards you that you display towards them.
And, imo, that hurts -- not helps -- our military.
But, hey, if you think the military escalation will succeed over any other option, and if you think this is what our combat units do -- step into civil wars in other nations -- then you keep insulting the cizitens who DON'T think it will succeed, and who DON'T think the purpose of combat troops is to step into civil wars.
And we'll see how that affects the broad support the troops currently enjoy from the American public.
I'm a fool, eh? I said when THEY said \"mission accomplished\" that we still had a long way to go.
It's cowardice to take the fight to the enemy rather than waiting for them to bring it here? Better to bury the enemy in their own country than them to come here and bury us as we take a defensive posture.
\"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.\" This is a quote of General George S. Patton.
Was he a coward as well?
Another quote by him: \"Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.\"
Your own cynism shows a lack of resolve to complete something so elemental as stopping an enemy who has a desire to eliminate our way of life. I'm guessing you are NOT a student of either warfare NOR Islamic studies.
One more quote by Patton: \"We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.\"
Step aside, Jan, you're in the way.
Kinda makes you wonder at the audacity of some that will claim to be speaking for the \"majority\"....maybe the \"majority\" of political pundits that seem to change their minds as the polls change.
Makes me glad that we do only have ONE commander-in-chief and that he is the ONLY politician that does NOT have a future election to worry about, so he can stand on principle for what he WAS VOTED INTO OFFICE TWICE to do and he is doing it.
The rest of the political game players still have to play politics and listen to polls and change their minds every other week... Bush doesn't have to.
Posting a comment I found from Caro's blog, which features this Calling all Eagles post:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cf...logID=228748758
This is bullshit! Cindy Sheehan had nothing to do with her son until he died doing what he loved. The damn protesters need to step back and take a look at them selfs. It doesn't matter if people are for the war or against it. Protesters should be shot. I would love to take a few stabs at Cindy Sheehan. She is a discrase to the American people! As you know my husband is over in Iraq right now fighting so people like her can protest. This pisses me off! So I believe there should be people their to stop those fucktards. If I didn't have kids and a house to run while my husband is away I'd go just to beat the shit out of her. Great blog!!
Posted by hazel on Sunday, February 11, 2007 at 3:55 AM
The only cowards I’ve seen on these comments are those leftists who “claim” that they are vets but are too gutless to say what branch of military they served in or what their rank was. Obviously they are frauds just trying to stir up trouble. The only “majority” they represent are their down and out coward comrades. Just more fun and games by the “hate America” crowd. They don’t deserve any discourse. Spree, they are less than the dung you scrape off your shoes!
I told spree earlier as we were discussing this very thing that I think that most of them are probably the ones who signed up for the college funds rather than the pull of true patriotic duty.
Personally, if the Graham-Rudman legislation hadn't changed certain standards, i.e. weight standards, I would have made a career out of the army. THAT was MY intention.
LOLOLOL Faultline!!!! I am SO glad you are one of the wonderful bloggers that will holding down the fort here atWake up America during my move.
LOL...well said.
I was on a Destroyer in the Gulf, shooting off Tomahawk missiles.
If you're obsessed with \"checking me out\" we were the last ship in the Gulf after the war, because we were sent back to sit like sitting ducks challenging Saddam about the no-fly zone, and we aimed the biggest, fattest bullets in our military's arsenal at him for four long days, eventually backing him down.
I find that the only people who feel some kind of need to challenge those of us who have a different point of view on Iraq are those who side (and have sided) with these current leaders -- who have been WRONG every single step of the way on Iraq.
This will be my last post.
Here is my message:
You can shoot the messenger all you want -- you don't hurt me in the least bit, because I know my service, before God and Country.
My message is, YOU ARE NOT DEALING IN REALITY.
Whether YOU admit it or not, it is more than obvious that the game is UP as far as the nation goes.
Keep shoving a war down their throats that they no longer support, and they will shove back.
If you think that good for our troops, carry on.
Actually Jan....YOU are not dealing with reality and here is why.
First you can piss and moan all you want about us being in Iraq...fact is WE ARE THERE!!!!
You piss and moan but yet not once do you dealwith the \"reality\" of what happens should we just up and pull out.
You can wish for anything you want but by not dealing or addressing the actual \"realites\" of what your flawed answers are or the ramifications of what you suggest....all you are doing is hiding your head in the sand and being extremely dishonest with intent.
Try denying the chaos that would ensue should the anti-war protesters get their way.
Try acknowledging what would happen AFTER....Then maybe you would be taken seriously in your spouting off the \"partyline\"
My my my my my.
*Golf claps*
Reality check, darlin, I've not been polled, no one I KNOW has been polled, because we talk about wondering who GETS polled for these surveys. Even most of the DIE HARD DEMOCRATS down here who HATE Bush have the common sense to realize that we haven't been attacked since 11SEP2001 because we've been keeping the enemy otherwise engaged ELSEWHERE.
I don't hate you, nor do I consider you any sort of \"messenger.\"
I do pity you, however, for your short sightedness and narrow view of what is going ON this this great big world we live in.
Maybe when ya'll get your wish and the whining is adhered to and the troops ARE brought home before the job is FINISHED over there, when we start having to do this ALL OVER again because we CUT and RAN, you'll WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Have a nice day.
Actually, I do not think I have ever met anyone that was polled..... who has?
The poll takers. They poll each other and then report it...
Omg, you made me SNORT...LOL
GOOD to know I haven't lost my TOUCH!![\"\"](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/smileys/clin_oeil.gif\")
That was toooo funny. I got the visual of one pollster calling another, asking, marking down the answer...hanging up and having their phone ring so that the one polled could now poll the other one....OVER and over again...LOL
Hunger must be messing my mind up because I cannot stop laughing.
LOLOLOLOL
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=622dbf98ca2b2265f57a46b5707ce0e0&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
So, Jan, what was the reason we didn't \"go any further\" during the 1st Gulf War? I thought it was because Bush Sr. was following the U.N. resolution to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, not to engage in regime change. I thought that was the reason.
Well what soldier actually wants to be deployed? They complain about it all the time, as do the families, but there's a reason why the reenlistment rate IN THEATER was exceeded for the entire 2006 100%+. The guys doing the work want to be there. There's no doubt about that, and anyone who enlists (or reenlists) after 2001 knows the deal. My husband re-enlisted in Baghdad in 2003. I have the photo to prove it if you want to see it.
If THEY no longer support this policy, and the American people no longer support this policy, the best thing you can do is make sure that honor and dignity are a part of the redeployment.
Whoa, where are you getting the idea that they no longer support the policy in Iraq? We support it, all our friends support it (active duty), so who are you talking about? Here are the recruitment/re-enlistment stats for '06:
RECRUITING:
Army: 104%
Navy: 100%
Marine Corps: 107%
Air Force: 100%
(Oct. 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006)
RETENTION:
Army: 104%
Navy: 100%
Marine Corps: 101%
Air Force: 100%
(Oct. 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006)
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/de....ppt#257,1,Then and Now
As for the Mission Accomplished statemetn, I'm surprised a military person such as yourself doesn't understand the technical meaning. This is the quote from the President:
\"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.\"
What is almost never included in this quote is that last sentence. The transition from MCO (Major Combat Operations) to reconstruction, security and fighting an insurgency is exactly what happened in May 2003.
Opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom and President Bush ridicule the “end of major combat operations” with every IED or US casualty in Iraq. However, the truth is that Pres. Bush was 100% accurate in his statement. The \"Mission Accomplished\" banner seen aboard the USS Lincoln was used by the Navy at the completion of the ship’s mission in Operation Iraqi Freedom as it arrived at port. It was not a part of the President’s speech, although it was true that they do describe the successful conclusion of Major Combat Operations in Iraq as well.
US Army Field Manual 3-0, paragraph 2-12,Operations states:
\"A campaign is a related series of military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space. A
Greg Daniels said:
\"Sorry Spree but this is one vet who welcomes these protests as a way of engaging the nation in an honest discussion of this war.\"
Really? How honest are the ignorant assertions of these peaceniks? If you're open for \"honest discussion\", maybe you should revist the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed into law by Bill Clinton:
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the \"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.\" This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establis
Then on December 16, 1998, Pres. Bill Clinton ordered a U.S. strike on Iraqi military and security targets partnered with British forces. Pres. Clinton offered a lengthy explanation in defense of the strikes. The full transcript of Clinton's remarks can be read HERE. The highlights are:
“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish…..
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
In short, the (U.N.) inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to re
The point being, this has been US policy on Iraq for almost 2 decades. George W. Bush has the moral authority that Clinton knew he didn't possess to send in ground troops, which is why he always waged air campaigns.
If you want an honest debate, ask Democrats why they supported this under the Clinton Adminstration and not under the current one.
Jan, I'm curious about your \"reality\". I'm totally entrenched in military life. My husband worked under LTG Petraeus until his departure for Iraq last week and we attended Petraeus' farewell ceremony. I wrote about it on my blog. My point is that although you *claim* to know something about soldiers, your experience and ours is 100% different. The soldiers we hang with fully support the mission in Iraq and the President's policy. Some might disagree on the best way to carry out the policy, but most are on board with the Generals and the President.
The soldiers support this mission overwhelmingly. You might want to do some research on war presidents like Lincoln and Roosevelt to see that Bush is really in the same boat they were in regarding public opinion. Seeing that the public is more concerned with figuring out the question of Anna Nicole's little girl's paternity at the expense of educating themselves about the war, I'd say THANK GOD foreign policy isn't up to the public. The Excecutive Branch applies to the President.
Amy.... Well said and THAT is what I forgot in my most recent piece...I kept telling myself I forgot something, but i had forgoteen what I forgot...lololol
It was Bill's Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act.
Thank you and it is telling that 95-97% of the military that comes here or comments or emails are all overwhelmingly FOR stabilizing Iraq, while 3-5% come and make statements such as Jan and Greg.
I find the same as I go through the miliblogs of the military members stationed IN Iraq....for every 100 I read, I see maybe 2 or 3 that are against what they are doing in Iraq.
People like you and your husband are godsends to this population and we are very lucky to have you.
Too bad more of them do not understand how lucky they are to have people like your husband fighting for them, even as they show HIM no respect.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
My Husband is in the US Army Reserves, and has been for almost 10 years. He was deployed to Iraq in '03. In Feb of '04 he was injured and almost lost his leg. He took the bare minimum of recovery time, and then asked the Doctor to sign off so he could go back. He had every opportunity to medical out, but chose to go back. Four months after returning home, he reenlisted for another 6 years knowing that he would be deployed again.
Bless your husband Becky and when you talk to him next....please let him know there are many of us that are grateful for his courage, strength and determination too succeed.
I am so pissed I actually hit the enter button instead of the backspace.
Anyway, My Husband reenlisted when he came back from his deployment knowing that he would eventually do another tour. Last month, he volunteered to go back. And it isn't just him. Four Soldiers from his unit volunteered to go back this past Summer. And when my Husband went to sign up to go back during his Drill Weekend, 5 more Soldier's from his Unit also filled out their paperwork.
So, I would like to know where this guy is getting his \"facts\" from? Any and every Soldier I have talked to is in Support of this War, and have been from the start. The small number of so-called soldiers who are protesting this war are more than likely the same people who signed up Just to get the GI Bill, and are not true Soldiers by any stretch of the imagination. My Husband signed up to defend his country, to fight to keep us Free. The problem is the stories in the media. I watch the Military Channel religiously and they show the truth. The reporters only seem to want to show when bad things happen, when our soldiers die, or when a civilian is killed. However, they put a spin on the story to make it seem that our Soldiers are over there going after innocent people. That isn't the Military way, that is the Terrorist way.
I am just so sick of people spouting off about how wrong this war is, and they have no clue what is really happening. They are spitting in the faces of not only our Military, but also the Military families and our Brave Soldiers who have died defending our country.
Becky,
I do not blame you for being pissed...not at all.
You, especially you and every other family member of every military soldier and indeed, the soldiers themselves have the RIGHT to be pissed.
When the media ignores the people on the ground fighting and refuses to tell their stories, unless they tell them what they want to hear....they are slapping those soldiers in the face.
When the American people do NOT insist and cry out about the unfair reporting and when they do not demand the truth, bad AND good, they too are slapping eachsoldiers and their families in the face.
Be mad... and know this: Many, many of us are trying to get your stories, your husbands words and thoughts and facts that he sees ON THE GROUND, out there.
If you comeback and read this Becky, please email me at wakeupamerica.spree@gmail.com because I have a proposal for you.
Commenting by HaloScan