Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Douglas MacKinnon :: Townhall.com Columnist
Partisan squabbling is an insult to troops
by Douglas MacKinnon
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The infantile food fight taking place in Congress in recent days over which partisan, nonbinding Iraq resolution would get a vote is nothing short of a national embarrassment. Worse, it is a slap in the face to the troops in harm's way who are desperately looking for adult leadership from those who helped send them there.

Be it the House, the Senate or the White House, all too often, the arguments now being framed with regard to Iraq are being offered based on lowest-common-denominator, partisan self-interest. Too many politicians on both sides of the aisle are more interested in scoring debating points than in figuring out what is truly the best course for the people of Iraq, our young men and women fighting and dying in that country, and our national security.

As we are well into the 2008 election cycle, the Democrats predictably want to assign guilt to the Republicans for getting us into Iraq. The Republicans want to paint the Democrats as the party of surrender and appeasement. And the White House is looking for a miracle that will keep Iraq out of the clutches of the insurgents and Iran, get our troops home, and not have future scholars record the invasion as a monumental miscalculation.

As this disgraceful process moves forward, those of us who supported the invasion have an obligation to honestly answer some very tragic questions:

If we had not invaded, would up to 100,000 Iraqi civilian men, women and children now be dead?

If we had not invaded, would more than 3,000 U.S. troops now be dead?

If we had not invaded, would approximately 25,000 U.S. troops now be wounded?

If we had not invaded, would the critical infrastructures so desperately needed by the Iraqi people have been decimated?

If we had not invaded, would our allies in the Middle East have been put in an almost untenable position with regard to their relationship with the United States?

If we had not invaded, would we have spent more than $400 billion of U.S. taxpayers' dollars prosecuting this war?

If we had not invaded, would we have removed Iraq as the natural check and balance for Iran in the region?

Many more soul-searching questions can be asked with regard to the war in Iraq, but without a doubt, the answer to each and every question listed above can only be an unequivocal "no."

Our nation has fallen deeper and deeper into the nightmare that is Iraq, and we must be prepared to admit that we may never wake from this escalating tragedy during our lifetimes. And as this horror show plays out, who pays the ultimate price? You? Me? The president and his staff? Members of Congress?

No. None of us pays a real price. That indescribable pain is reserved only for our young men and women in uniform and for innocent Iraqi civilians being slaughtered in unimaginable ways and numbers. To them, and only them, do we owe answers and a solution.

The war in Iraq is a fact of life. We cannot go back in time and un-invade the country. There is quite a bit of revisionist history now being written. But what is indisputable is that in March 2003, the United States, all of our allies and even a number of our foes believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Given that, the logical assumption was that if he had them, it was only a matter of time before he turned one or two over to al-Qaida or another terrorist organization to use against us.

I will always believe that President Bush acted in a responsible manner when he decided to invade. The questions I have asked in the past, and questions that have been asked of me by former colleagues from the Pentagon, were these: Did the invasion have to be in March 2003, or could it have been a few months later, thereby giving our special operations teams and intelligence operatives more time to determine the facts, or even take out Mr. Hussein? Post-invasion, is it possible that - noble as his intentions may have been - the president was misled into a premature invasion by ivory tower academics in the Pentagon and White House?

Sooner or later, those questions will be answered. In the meantime, a number of our elected officials continue to disgrace themselves at the expense of our troops and the people of Iraq.

Surely, the tens of thousands of lives lost and the heroic sacrifice offered are worth more than a nuanced political position crafted to gain or hold an elected office.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the forthcoming novel, The Apocalypse Directive.

Be the first to read Douglas MacKinnon's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

You just can't do it, Kimberly
Kimberly...
Feith and Wilson have nothing to do with policy in the WH! Holy cow! You are a freaking DK talking point moonbat. And, nope undoing Iraq is not an option.
All of what the troops are doing is meaningful, just not to a hypocrit like yourself. You didn't serve so you can't possibly be for supporting the troops...sound familiar, coward?(Did I misinterpret that I cannot support the war if I didn't serve as you implied last week?) Nah! Not a coward, not yet 80...a 5-year veteran who gets it.

Guess you missed my post the other day about the Body Armor you think the troops don't have? The one where I flew with a an Iraq veteran logistics man. Let me refresh for you...

Troops never go outside the wire without full gear, whether it is an upgraded version or not, they have protection. No system of delivery is foolproof as I knew in the military and it is true now. And the Humvees are getting there as fast as they can, but because of vehicle losses daily, it is a bit tough to keep up with the supply-especially with how far things have to come.

In the interim, they do improvise and as I was informed...all the body armor and vehicles may not stop the ied innovations being attained. Vigilance is the best deterrent.
In all the units this guy supplies equipment to, he has never seen a single troop go outside the wire without his available protective gear.

Please don't bother with semantics and try and tell me if it's not the latest and greatest,it means they are not protected. They have what they have and it can't get there any faster because you think it should. Bottom line is that they are protected.
I suppose that doesn't get through to you, because you don't like to hear the truth. Oh, yes, I forgot...you didn't ask for their sacrifice,George Bush the neo-con did and last time you checked you were still free.

Like I said, I won't ever give you a pass on the cavalier attitude you have with the fact that you are free. It is an absolute insult to any who came before and to those serving now protecting this Country and it's freedom.

my 2 cents
"In March 2003 the United States, all of our allies and even a number of our foes believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Given that, the logical assumption was that if he had them, it was only a matter of time before he turned one or two over to al-Qaeda or another terrorist organization to use against us."

A fair statement of facts.

I'm sure everyone out there has seen the myriad of statements by politicians on both sides of the political fence stating how necessary it was for Saddam Hussein to come clean about his WMD and how dangerous it was for him to own them. Some of these statements were made prior to 1998, when the last U.N. Weapons inspectors were expelled from Iraq, and some of them were made in the months leading up to the allied invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Much has been made of the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq since the invasion (that we know of), leading to the "Bush lied thousands died" mantra that was so fashionable a few years back. In the last few years one by one Democratic politicians have pronounced that "WE WAZ FOOLED!!!" in re WMD. A few pauses for dramatic emphasis, perhaps a mea culpa or two and suddenly they are on the other side of the fence.

Either the WMD did exist or they did not. Either they exist now or they don't.

If they don't exist now, nor did they EVER exist, that means that we - The United States and all its allies - are all victims of the most massive intelligence failure in history. Making it even worse is the fact that this failure was so complete, so total, that we were fooled into believing that something actually existed, when in fact it NEVER DID. That is a lot harder than convincing someone that something doesn't exist that actually does.

In either case it is fair to point out that while this most massive intelligence failure in history was going on the man on watch here in the U.S.A. was William Jefferson Clinton.

Recall if you will
1) The numerous threats that former President Clinton made to Saddam in re WMD back the 90s.
2) Saddam's response was basically telling WJC to do something anatomically impossible to himself and he went on doing what he was doing. Because he KNEW that WJC lacked the, shall we say, cojones to do anything.
3) The last U.N. weapons inspector was expelled from Iraq in 1998. That gave Saddam at least 2 or 3 years to go on doing what he was doing without anyone being the wiser.
4) Talk of allied forces invading Iraq began around a year before it actually started. This time Saddam knew that President Bush meant what he said.

Therefore - what happened to the WMD? (Assuming, of course that they ever actually existed.)

Assuming that, here is what I believe happened.

1) Saddam destroyed some of them.
2) He sold some or shipped them out of the country - Syria, Iran, Lebanon and possibly Russia.
3) Some have not been found yet.
4) Some have been found but the discovery is so horrendous that the news is being kept secret.

In conclusion -

If the WMD never did exist we were all victimized by the most massive intelligence failure in history, MOST of which happened while William Jefferson Clinton was on watch.

If they did exist then they still exist now - those which Saddam did not destroy. And to claim that he could possibly have destroyed them all without intelligence picking up some evidence of that is just silly.

And I agree with Mr. MacKinnon - this partisan squabbling in congress is an insult to our troops.

Debate is never "insulting"
I think the resolution passed by the congressional Democrats is silly. But debating the war is never silly. Let's never get into a mode where we are afraid to debate any issue in a public forum just because we're afraid of the possible side effects.

The only exceptions are to not discuss military secrets or violate someone's personal privacy. Other than that, I'm for debating anything.

Can't cherry pick
The columnist engages in the most common practice of telling the truth without telling the truth, and that is cherry picking the items for discussion, rather than relating the full and complete picture. Yes, terrible things have happened in the Iraq war. If we had not gone to war with Iraq these same things would not have happened, but the comparison can't be made in a vacuum -- it must be compared to what was likely to have occurred had Saddam and his sons remained in power, and that listing of events is not likely to include free lemonade and cupcakes for all the world to share. Now Saddam is presented as a moderating force for good in the Middle East simply because Iraq was once slaughtering Iranians by the hundreds of thousands? How is it that the Iraqi Kurds -- who have benefited enormously -- have no value in our equations? Why is it that we assume a secular Baathist regime held no ill intentions towards the United States or our allies, simply because they were not Islamic fundamentalists? Regardless of whether or not Saddam had WMD prior to the U.S. invasion, did he have the intention and the capability to pursue them? Did the United Nations have the ability and the will to keep Saddam's regime in check? Did Saddam's Arab neighbors have the ability and the will to keep his regime in check? I believe the issue is worthy of debate, but in an honest debate one must consider all aspects of the situation.

More of an insult
What is more of an insult is allowing the country we love and they are fighting and dying for to be overrun by illegal aliens.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.

Is Kimberly
an Al-Qaeda operative or does she just think like one.

Kudos
From the headline, I did not expect much from this column, so I was surprised by the seriousness of what followed.

I do think that while the air of squabbling in Congress seems unseemly, that is how a body of more than 500 members has to address issues. But I do wish that they had the courage to do it in a more open manner.

I think MacKinnon is wrong that this invasion ever made sense. But it reflects well on him that while defending that decision he is willing to raise the obvious bad consequences that followed from it.

Ideally Liberals should be more open about the consequences of their own proposals. (And I am impressed MacKinnon only gave those for his side, leaving the other side to give its own). These obviously include the risk of greater violence after any pullout. The question of whether we would be pulled back into the civil war that followed. And how we would deal with the refugee crises that follows.

There is nothing in noting those problems which requires one to support the current policy which fixes none of them and simply spreads the misery out over time.

The real insult.
No, Congressional fighting is not the insult to our troops.

Our failed President's failed policies are the only real insult to our troops.

Shame on anyone who tries to deflect the blame and responsibility for the debacle.

No reason to oppose troop REINFORCEMENTS
There really is no good reason to oppose Bush's troop reinforcements. Sure, we probably should have sent them a long time ago, but I certainly don't see this as being too late.

I don't understand the Democrats' rhetoric at all: on one hand, they were big Rumsfeld bashers. Remember that Rumsfeld got bashed almost as much as Bush himself. All the Dems were against anything that Rumsfeld did...and Nancy Pelosi herself was saying "send more troops"!

Now it seems that the "send more troops" option that a lot of politicians used to get elected last November- that option has apperantly expired...now that they see Dubya going with it.

We have how many troops in Iraq, about 150,000? right? Sending another 250,000, that is NOT merely "more targets to hit". Thats a SERIOUS reinforcement, that will WORK.

The question is, do the Democrats want to win the war? If so, how is NOT sending more troops the better option? I've heard certain Democrats (you know who you are!) say that the solution in Iraq is political. Barack said that, as well as others.
Even if the solution to Iraq was ONLY political, sending more troops would STILL make sense.

Another question, which can be answered right-off, is do the Dems want us to lose the war?

Their opposition (and some pandering Republicans too) to the "troop surge" shows that they know NOTHING about strategy in Iraq. Oh sure, they confirmed Petraeus to replace Casey (or Abizaid?), but now they've patted him on the back...and left him in the dirt with a thousand knives sticking from his back.

When Rumsfeld was still up there, all they knew was that Colin Powell's idea was "way better"...now that we've come to a point where we're using it, they almost act like it was really the Rumsfeld Doctrine that they agreed with.

The Ultimate point, I guess, is that while the Dems know what they DON'T want, they'll never go beyond complaining and come up with their own real plan.

win the war!
The only discussion or debate that is relevant is how can we win the war in Iraq and send the enemy to his meeting with the 70 virgins. If our elected leaders in DC can not find a way to win this war and secure our borders, they should all be recalled. This war is winnable, but in order to win you have to know and understand the enemy and beat him on his terms. We haven't done that and it doesn't appear that we intend to. We need to turn Islam against itself just as Islam is using our system to turn it against us. Iraq becomes another Vietnam only if we refuse to fight to win and withdraw. What kind of lunacy is it to go to war and not fight to utterly destroy the enemy until he falls down and kisses your feet.

Douglas McKinnon Is Half Right
When he says there was a reasonable basis to believe invasion was the only alternative, he is correct. But he is wrong in some of his other fact assertions. For example, the number of victims of Saddam's reign may well have continued at a pace at least equal to that experienced since 2003. The 100,000 figure he uses is still a matter of debate.

But his argument is at its weakest when he asserts, with 20-20 hindsight, that we should have delayed the invasion so that better intelligence could have proved that our assumptions were wrong. I've heard more plausible arguments, which may yet be affirmed, that we delayed far too long while trying, again in good faith, at least on our part, to build a broader consensus for action. The delay had at least two seriously bad consequences. First, it allowed Saddam to get rid of the very WMDs the international intelligence community knew he had. And second, it allowed our adversaries to turn Turkey against permitting invasion from the North.

Yes, there have been huge setbacks and major blunders in the prosecution of this war. It's been handled more with an eye toward domestic politics than as a resolute and ruthless drive to victory. But Mr. McKinnon's attempt to convince us that his vantage point is from the peak of Mt. Olympus rings false. It's merely the same old second-guessing in the guise of indignant objectivity.

Troops
If the troops are sitting around watching C-Span and listening to talk radio then they are not doing there job.

worse than partasian squabbling
is the bipartisan traitorous backstabbing!!!

If you haven't signed the pledge, please do so at:
http://truthlaidbear.com/thenrscpledge/

Also for a list of the "White Flag Repubs" in both the House and the Senate, please go to teh website for the Victory Caucus:
http://victorycaucus.com/

Lets show the RINOs that they are no longer welcome in the Republican party!!!

TAKING NAMES AND (POSSIBLY) KICKING OUT

I've taken the names of those who voted and how they voted. Eventually they will come up for reelection in my state. There were two who voted the "right" way; there was one who didn't.

And to Virginia Patriot: you've hit the nail on the head.

Come to think of it, it looks to me like there'd better be some new blood when reelection time rolls around again -- for any of them.

Stroms Daughter
Obviously child you have no concept of life in an occupied area. Not all of Iraq in actively involved in combat operations and even those arenas do not have the troops in contact at all times.

Why don't you sign up for a tour to improve your image and knowledge of military ops.

Let's Just All Get Along
Is the mantra which I and much of my Conservative brethren ascribed to in 1980, 1984, etc. All we have gained is being figuratively spit upon by the Liberal left, maligned as uneducated (I have both BS and MS in engineering; Newt is a PhD, and most conservatives have at least a high school diploma and paid attention when being educated). Just look at the number of us who read and what we read and you will understand that we aren't a bunch of hillbillies with "God, guns, and NASCAR" as our only interests.

Now as Democrats have been elected to a majority on a bunch of promises which they cannot keep (where's the implement the 9/11 vote, Nancy?), we should get along while they put garbage resolutions, which they didn't even campaign over, onto the House floor? I say keep up the fight. I would rather the Congress have fist fights on the floor than we pass even ONE of these garbage resolutions.

I say keep up the good work Mitch McConnell; it is too bad that Bill Frist didn't have your stomach for a fight. This garbage might have been ironed out before.

soldier
Speaking as a soldier of 15 years, I am not insulted by discussion. I, personally, think we screwed up going into Iraq. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan.

A Conservative Plan for Iraq
http://www.controlcongress.com

Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, “I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war.

Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept that—regardless of how we got there—we are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bush’s nose in Iraq’s difficulties is also a priority.

This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between “stay the course” and “get out now”.

Some Truths

1) Iraq is having a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds will certainly join, if attacked. It may not look like a civil war, because they don’t have tanks, helicopters, and infantry; but they are fighting with what they have.

2) Vast oil revenues are a significant factor behind the fighting. Yes, there are religious and cultural differences—but concerns about how the oil revenue will be split among the three groups make the problem worse.

3) Most Iraqis support partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. (Their current arrangement resulted from a pen stroke during the British occupation, not some organic alignment.)

4) Most citizens of the Middle East who support groups that kill and terrorize civilians—such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaeda—in part because of their aggressive stance against Israel and the United States, but also because they provide much needed social services, such as building schools.

5) Both Republican and Democratic administrations have spent decades doing business with the tyrants who run the Middle East in exchange for oil and cheap labor. This has been the one of the rallying calls of Bin Laden and Hezbollah—that we support tyrants who abuse people for profits. In fact, our latest trade deals with Oman and Jordan actually promote child and slave labor; it’s so bad the State Department had to issue warnings about rampant child trafficking in those countries.

6) Iran is using the instability in Iraq to enhance its political stature in the region. Leaving Iraq without a government that can stand up to Iran would be very destabilizing to the region and the world.

From the U.S. perspective, this is all mostly about energy. As things stand, a serious oil supply disruption would devastate our economy, threaten our security, and jeopardize our ability to provide for our children.

New Directions

Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must:

1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population.

2) Allow each group to have a much stronger role in self government by creating three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting.

3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights.

4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies.

Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region.

We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics

Most Everyone is MISSING THE POINT
There is absolutely nothing wrong with open debate BEFORE A WAR STARTS. Many libs here have even stated this fact and that the debate should have been more intense. Well I remember it being very intense. In fact we really had a 12 year debate. Really too long and it only showed our weakness. But I digress.

The debate was had, and WE WENT TO WAR. That's when the debate should shift to how do you execute that war to its completion (victory). Victory in this case will be different than in past wars.

However, this is not what the libs want to hear. They would rather the US lose to prove a political point. So the debate is really disingenuous to us. It is traitorous to soldiers our ELECTED officials have the responsibilty to protect while they are in harms way. Anti war sentiment will be with us in every conflict. However, our ELECTED officials owe it to the 150,000 troops lives that are impacted TODAY as they suit up to patrol anywhere in Iraq. The debate today is not about how to win, its about how to SURRENDER. That is not helping our troops, that is killing them.

Insult to the troops?
I've been in the military for almost 21 years now and democrats squabbling about the war is not, "an insult to the troops"...it is totally expected.

It would be the same as being insulted because democrats raised your taxes, regulated you out of business, or implemented a new socialist program.

They will complain about the next military operation or Defense Spending bill as well...somethings never change.

Difference between Scouts and Congress?

The Boy and Girl Scouts have adult leadership.

Worth repeating...
Virginia Patriot wrote,

"What is more of an insult is allowing the country we love and they are fighting and dying for to be overrun by illegal aliens.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat."

Very true. Curiously, there are not many articles about the fact that our southern border is like a WAR ZONE or the agreement which President Bush signed with Canada and Mexico, which is being used to thwart our very sovereignty as a nation.

I wonder why that is. Fiddling while Rome burned?

The REAL Insult to the Troops

WE GET THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE… and, boy, we’ve really been getting it for the last 6 years! Truth, values, competence and results no longer matter in America.

THE PROBLEM: our President is not a rational thinker – his mind accepts information from only two sources: faith and experience. A notable example from Iraq, Bush learned the "the enemy will follow us here" from Vietnam and the Domino Theory: “If we don’t defeat the communists in Vietnam, then we’ll have to fight them here in America.” Now just insert “terrorists” and “Iraq” into the one lesson Bush learned from Vietnam. Of course, the real terrorists who will come to America are in Afghanistan and now the border regions of Pakistan.

Because George Bush is not rational (strictly empirical and subjective), objective facts and evidence such as the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that found this Iraq war has created more jihadists and terrorists and made America less safe are meaningless to this anachronistic man of several millennia ago. The reality of Iraq is what he thinks it is from the beautiful White House, and so our country and our precious soldiers are in for much more of this growing catastrophe, incompetence at the top from day one and continuing into the foreseeable future, and SPIN, SPIN, SPIN (from “shock and awe” to “surge,” everybody stand up and shout for failed policies).

John Citizen
Again? I thought you retired this "Geo Bush is irrational" cut-n-paste effort months ago? It's back now?

Please, try to find some other pages to cut-n-paste so we at least get to laugh at some new misperceptions, instead of the same old delusions you have been pasting for months.

John Citizen
And, agian, as I said months ago, you claim the belief that loss in Vietnam would lead to the fall of south east Asia is incorrect, yet that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. (The real Domino Effect, as opposed to the straw man you set up...)

I think you may be the one who is not open to facts in your arguments.

are we not to even ask questions now?
I doubt it will ever occur, but our nation needs to know the truth on Iraq.

Congressional investigations into this administration's vision on the mideast, as well as inquiries into why the intelligence was so wrong, should be undertaken.

We need to know whether this president viewed Saddam as a genuine threat to our nation(growing and gathering threat, wmd, etc), or whether the "fix was in", the "die was cast" in terms of invading Iraq when this administration assumed power(pre9-11).

I suppose we could "win" in Iraq, if we deploy 400,000 or more troops there, remove the restrictive rules of engagement, and plan on occupying it for a decade.

But such a huge commitment towards a nation that did not attack us is insane.

CASTLE AMERICA, UNDER SIEGE
The enemy has put war upon us and America's bravest man the ramparts. Feathermerchants and cowherds preach defeat and treat with the enemy. They are at the gates yet even now the King's men have chocked the gates. Sappers are tunneling to the walls and like only a few more shovelfulls. The odd thing is the tunnels come from inside the walls.

John Citizen
".. the real terrorists who will come to America are in Afghanistan and now the border regions of Pakistan."

WRONG!

The real terrorists who will come to America are in Dearborn.

Buck and all
Are you aware that the southern border of our country is reported to be like a WAR ZONE, by the border sheriffs?

Are you aware that our President signed an agreement with Canada and Mexico, called the Security and Prosperity Partnership that is being used to merge our countries into a North American Union?

While we are directing all our attention to the Middle East, our country's sovereignty and Constitution are being decimated.

Anyone care?

http://judicialwatch.org/SPP.shtml
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/

Stroms Daughter

FYI
In any military endeavor, support troops out number those in direct contact with the enemy.

Support is medical, supply, transportation. Take that away and you have dead, wounded ,or starving troops.

Suggest you research subject before commenting.

Nee
In the intrest of full disclosure:

>Troops never go outside the wire without full gear,

But motar attacks happen INSIDE the perimeter. So if troops up north dont have body armor, they are vunerable, regardless if they are on post or not.

>And the Humvees are getting there as fast as they can,
Truth is, it wasnt until well into the first year of OIF, when the 'Junkyard' comment was made at Beuring, that up armored Hummers were even placed on order. You can thank the 'liberal' media for that.

>You didn't serve so you can't possibly be for supporting the troops...sound familiar, coward
Does this go for the other neo-cons or does it only apply to people you disagree with?

And before you attack my patriotism, I have 24 yrs in and did an OIF tour as a commissioned officer.

Nonsense
>But what is indisputable is that in March 2003, the United States, all of our allies and even a number of our foes believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction

This is total nonsense. Were not sure is different from 'shadow of doubt' and the the UN inspectors did not find anything in the weeks leading up to the invasion. If we had let the UN finish its weapons inspections we could have save ourselves the trouble of the past 4 years.

Naked Pagan
Sir,I am not going to question your patriotism or what you know.

As for wearing the protective gear inside the perimeter,I know mortar attacks are a daily occurrance. Wearing protective gear is SOP in or out as I understand it. My reply was to Kimberly's statement that everyone wasn't outfitted with protection and that troops were walking/patrolling around in peril all the time. It is simply not true.

I also know about the Humvees not being what they are now (and that it took time to get them)Media or not,sir,could you have predicted the extensive use of IED's and their sophistication to cause such destruction? I would guess not. Even so,changes were made and until then, improvisation was a necessity. I have friends who have relayed the same info as you did to me- souping up the hummers, etc until they had better.... Again, Kimberly is insisting that troops are still not adequately protected, and I disagree based on firsthand information and not just one source I sited in my post.

About the remark "(All of what the troops are doing is meaningful, just not to a hypocrit like yourself.)You didn't serve so you can't possibly be for supporting the troops...sound familiar, coward?(Did I misinterpret that I cannot support the war if I didn't serve as you implied last week?) has to do with a response on another thread,to Kimberly.
She likes to question the fact that I support the war and then wants to know why I am not fighting, especially when I disagree...and said that there were only two reasons I wouldn't be. That I was too old, or a coward. But I am a veteran and I would serve again if I could without question. I was trying to point out to her the ridiculousness of her statement to me by putting it back to her.
I don't care if she supports the war, but in my opinion,she uses her "I support the troops, not the President" as a smokescreen to spew hatred toward the President all the time and questions the service of others. I won't stand down for that, sir. No way. Bush/Neo-con are her words back at her. Her lack of respect for the soldiers she claims to support galls me, frankly. Whether she believes it or not, they are protecting her freedom to spew.



The Trouble with Today's Pundits
is that NONE of them have the balls to call what the DEMS and 24 Republicans have done exactly what it is - TREASON! Say it! It's not that hard! Repeat after me: T-R-E-A-S-O-N!!! What does that spell, boys and girls??? TREASON!!!!!!!
Now, see, that wasn't that hard, was it??? Conservatives get a whole lot more mileage out of being truthful than dancing around the issue. Liberals count on the fact that Conservative pundits do not have enough conviction to call TREASON "TREASON". It's a shame that only we bloggers have the balls to call it what it is. Liberals cannot defend the indefensible; it's a shame that Conservative pundits can't understand this common principle for destroying Liberalism. KEEP THE BASTARDS ON DEFENSE; THEY CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES AT ALL!!! QUIT PLAYING DEFENSE!!! PLAY OFFENSE!!! IDIOTS CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES EVER!!! WE ARE THE PARTY OF INTELLIGENCE; THEY ARE THE PARTY THAT PRETENDS TO BE INTELLIGENT IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE THEIR IDEAS APPEAR TO HAVE CREDENCE WHEN IN FACT THEIR IDEAS ARE INSANE!!! COMPEL THE LEFT TO DEFEND THEIR INSANITY AND THEY IMPLODE - ALWAYS!!!

America is telegraphing a message to the world that never again should the US allies trust us in a fight - NEVER AGAIN. Our allies in Europe are watching us, too, and making their own assessments about US willpower and stomach for eliminating evil, but more importantly our enemies are celebrating our cowardice and are becoming more emboldened in their evil cause to kill Christians and Jews worlwide in a never-ending mass genocide that makes Hitler's Holocaust pale in comparison. Our enemies and even our duplicitous and sometimes questionable allies no longer FEAR us at all. Iran could care less what American diplomats like Condi Rice or even the American President or Congress or Senate say. They now KNOW our words are as good as our actions - MEANINGLESS, LIBERAL, WEAK-WILLED DRIVEL. Our words and our actions are as effeminate as Political Correctness. America has become a great big Liberal crybaby that our enemies are just waiting to ABORT.

Now, more than ever, America needs men of REAL CHARACTER AND LEADERSHIP - MEN who abhor Political Correctness - MEN who will take the fight to the enemy without mercy - MEN for whom Conservatism is a way of life instead of a mere political ploy to get elected. Don't fall for the Romneys, Giulianis, and McCains the Liberal MSM and the Liberal GOP are trying to thrust on you. They are guaranteeing a Hillary Clinton Presidency in 2008. Sit back and wait like the Scottish Army under William Wallace in Braveheart who held off raising their spears until the British Cavalry were close enough to be skewered. "HOLD! HOLD! HOLD!" When it's time for the primaries, if no Conservatives have enough confidence or Corporate money to run, then Conservatives should write in Conservative candidates like Tom Tancredo ourselves instead of voting for these moderates and Liberals who are trying their damndest to convince us that they have suddenly discovered Conservatism overnight. Give your campaign contributions to CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES ONLY - NOT THE LIBERAL GOP. The GOP in its current form will not get elected in 2008; it will be abandoned in droves by the Conservative base. We must abandon the GOP if we expectto survive politically. They have given away our country to Mexico; this will not go unpunished.

Today's Democrats would demand...
a Congressional investigation into why we went to war with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. They would try to impeach FDR for anything under the sun - fill in the blank. They would vote for anti-war resolutions that would embolden Nazi Germany and Japan and would most certainly have tried to impeach Truman for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Peacenik Democrats would go absolutely apoplectic after the a-bomb and h-bomb were dropped. Of course, if they really were in power back then, FDR and Truman would both have them all in chains in concentration camps where they all belong for crimes of sedition and TREASON against the United States of America. How very strange indeed it is that today OUR GOVERNMENT IS AGAINST OUR COUNTRY. Revolution will soon come to our country as long as we stay on this path of TREASON, and it won't be a moment too soon. The Democrats are a threat to the viability of this country; IF ANYONE OR ANYTHING NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED BY THE US CONGRESS, IT IS TODAY'S SOCIALIST, GLOBALIST UN-LOVING, DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

The Blog
raised great questions-As usual,it turned into a Hate war of Liberal-NeoCon blather. It won't change any minds. Thoughtful Minds Here are a minority. If I said the Sky was blue,there would be NeoCons to argue with Me because I am 'a Liberal'. Sad.

Take Back the Government
Belongs in a padded cell. Whew! I don't fear No 'terrorist'. But I sure fear Him/Her. And so should US all.

Nee
writes that it is not true that troops were walking around in peril. Huh? Troops not in peril? No thought here.

Nee
>Sir,I am not going to
Can the Sir stuff, It doesnt mean anythign here.

>Wearing protective gear is SOP in or out as I understand it.
Depends were you are in theater. They are a required part of the uniform up north. Sorry if I didnt understand your full post.

>,could you have predicted the extensive use of IED's and their sophistication to cause such destruction?
I dont do combat arms, but yes, I would think it would be obvious that if we invade a country and kill their people, these people would defend themselves. This whole concept of 'treated as liberators' was nonsense and not planning for a worst case was neglegent


> I disagree based on firsthand information and not just one source I sited in my post.
I would be careful about firsthand knowlege, since if I were to base my total preception on what it was like in Buering or Wolverine, I would think we hand this things dicked.

>has to do with a response on another thread,to Kimberly.
Okay, cant help with cross over like that.

>Whether she believes it or not, they are protecting her freedom to spew.
In general yes, but not in Iraq...there is also the possiblity that you have medical reason for not getting in the game, which wasnt considered...but overall it seems a lot of your post was a continuation of other converations I could not have known about so I interpeted them out of context. Sorry about that.

Naked Pagan
Sorry Sir, I don't know how to "can" the use of sir. Just a part of who I am, showing respect. I still call my former CO sir and we are friends for 20 years.

actreal
I know the troops are in danger every day. But for someone to suggest that they are not protected because of a negligence is BS. That is my point.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.