Troop Support...
Ok, this post has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with politics. :)
So, the Democrats agreed to capitulate to Bush and his posse and not set a deadline for troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. They gave him a very large check to continue waging a largely illegal war half a world away, causing chaos in those countries and getting innocent American kids killed everyday for no good reason.
Ok, this is politics at work. I may not agree with it, but it is a game, and as my father-in-law likes to point out, "The First Rule of Politics is you can't take the politics out of politics."
What I really can't stand is the pro-war Republicans like McCain and Romney who blasted those who voted against the bill, specifically high visibility senators like Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, claiming they don't support our troops and by voting against more money for the wars are causing our troops to get killed or be ill-supplied. See this article from Reuters.
This, unfortunately, is politics at its worst. The intention of those voting against funding a continuously disastrous war isn't to get our troops killed. It's to force the hand of a president, who has waged an illegal war justified by false information (remember WMDs?), to bring the surviving troops home safely. And it's not like those politicians on the Right don't know this. They just don't care. They are war-mongers. It's time to end this ridiculous, unjustified war, which has caused nothing but animosity toward the United States, and, as a bi-product, toward Israel, which the Arab world sees as the United States' democratic proxy in the Middle east.
Let's hope that the 2008 elections will bring a return of sanity Washington and get the RWNJs (Right Wing Nut Jobs) out of office and out of positions in which they can cause, and have caused, irreparable damage the United States.
4 comments:
You'll get a kick out of this from Col. Hunt. ok, you won't agree with the premise of it, but you'll get a kick out of it. It places blame on the military leaders, rather than on the American government--- however, as Hunt points out, it's the government's responsibility to hire better military leaders, so it's a catch 22. I thought of you when I read the drunk part at the end. :)
--
Roadside bombs are responsible for 70 percent of American deaths and casualties in Iraq — but a vehicle called the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) offers four to five times the protection of the most heavily armored Humvee. These MRAPs, with their V-shaped hulls, can cut casualties by two-thirds.
But, according to a Marine Corps document leaked yesterday, commanders in the field in Iraq first asked for MRAPs in February, 2005 — more than a year earlier. That request — for 1,169 vehicles — was labeled "priority one urgent." Here's what the request said:
"There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area against known threats ...
The expanded use of improvised explosive devices requires a more robust family of vehicles capable of surviving ... MRAP-designed vehicles represent a significant increase in their survivability baseline over existing motor vehicle equipment and will mitigate casualties ... Without MRAPs, personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rates. MRAP vehicles will protect Marines, reduce casualties, increase mobility and enhance mission success." (Source)
How is it possible that it took more than a year for the military leadership to act on this urgent plea?
How is it possible that, when it did act, it ordered only 185 vehicles, not the 1,169 requested?
How is it possible that with the country at war, with more than 130,000 Americans in danger, with roadside bombs taking more and more lives and limbs, this administration did not make these Mine Resistant vehicles a national priority?”
How is it possible?
This info comes from the campaign of Senator Joseph Biden — I checked it out, and it is right on the money. That this happened, that our soldiers need to wait even one day more for things they need, is wrong, and makes my point in full color: our senior military leaders do not deserve the men and women they claim to lead. I am laying the blame for much of what we have come to know as the "Chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan" at their feet and then, further up the chain of command, on the president’s head. While he still can, he should fire the lot of them, at least most of those at the three and four-star level, and promote some real fighters. Our soldiers and our nation deserve nothing less.
We once had a president who got it; his name was Lincoln. He got fed up with the Union Army and fired a bunch of senior generals. He hired a drunk by the name of Grant, a man who was not even in the Army at the time, but who knew how to lead and how to be brutal when necessary. This was a man who knew how to win. Lincoln’s advisors told him, “Mr. President do you know that you just hired a drunk?” Lincoln said, “Find out what he is drinking, and give it to the other generals.”
Now, that my friends is leadership and we need it both in the military and the White House.
Too bad we can't fire someone as dumb and evil (really bad combinations to have in the leader of the world's greatest superpower) as that guy in the White House. What does my son call him? Oh, yeah. Bad Bush.
I post a very well written article, and you stoop to calling Bush dumb and evil again. okidokee.
Case in point: Has he fired them yet?
And frankly, I'm pretty sick of Republicans demonizing anyone who doesn't think like them.
But still, I love you!! (In a brotherly sort of way:)
Post a Comment