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, March 13, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Supporting the troops
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The front cover of Newsweek's March 5th issue featured a woman with amputated legs and a sweatshirt that said "ARMY" across the front. Inside, there were pages and pages of other pictures of badly wounded and disfigured military veterans, in a long article that began under the big headline: "Forgotten Heroes."

The utter hypocrisy of all this can be seen in the word "heroes." There have been many acts of heroism among our troops in Iraq -- but those heroes didn't make the front cover of Newsweek.

One man fell on a grenade to protect his buddies, smothering the fatal blast with his body, so that those around him might live when he died. But that never made the front cover of Newsweek. It was barely mentioned anywhere in the liberal media.

They are not interested in heroes. They are interested in depicting victims -- in the military as in civilian society.

The Newsweek hypocrisy is not unique. It has been the rule, not the exception, as much of the mainstream media has devoted itself to filtering and spinning the news out of Iraq.

Parading casualties is called "honoring our troops." But what does it mean to honor someone? When we gather at a memorial service to honor someone in death or at a ceremony to award prizes to them while they are alive, what do we do?

We talk about the good things they have done, their endeavors and their achievements. We don't call simply pointing out that someone is dead "honoring" them. Nor is simply pointing out that someone is dismembered or disfigured "honoring" them.

Talk about "supporting the troops" or "honoring the dead" is part of the general corruption of language for political purposes. It is like saying "I take full responsibility," when all that this phrase really means is: "You have caught me red-handed and there is no way to deny it, so I will just use these words to try to dissipate your anger and escape punishment."

After generations of dumbed-down education in our schools, perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality.

The reality is that many of those in the media and in politics who are constantly talking about "supporting our troops" or "honoring our troops" have for years been in the forefront of those criticizing or undermining the military, long before the Iraq war.

During the early stages of that war, men fighting for their lives were criticized for not protecting the contents of an Iraqi museum.

Unsubstantiated charges against American military personnel create instant front-page news stories in the New York Times. But innumerable things that our troops have done that would make us proud are not likely to be reported at all.

It was front-page news in the March 4th New York Times when a young soldier said goodbye to her father before heading off to Iraq.

It was front-page news in the New York Times when some reservists had financial problems when they had to leave their civilian jobs after being called to active duty in Iraq.

Anything negative, no matter how commonplace, can make the front page of the New York Times, while even remarkable acts of bravery or compassion are passed over in silence.

Activists are creating displays in which a small American flag is planted for every death in Iraq. For some of these activists, it may be the first time they have ever touched an American flag, unless they were burning it.

Perhaps the most irresponsible act of all has been Congress's promotion of a non-binding resolution against the recent increase in American troop strength in Iraq.

People's opinions can differ on troop deployment, even if -- like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- they have never deployed troops in their lives and have no military experience whatsoever.

But if anyone in Congress is serious about stopping the war, they can simply cut off the money -- and take responsibility for the consequences that follow.

Instead, they want to have it both ways, passing a non-binding resolution whose only effect is to embolden our enemies and undermine the morale of our troops that they keep saying they are "supporting."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
??????
I'm not sure I followed the point of this editorial. It started blaming the media for not showing pictures of the dead soldiers so it could show pictures of wounded ones. It continued with phrases that were played over and over again by Republicans and President Bush, remember the yard signs that read "I Support our Troops and President Bush"? It then referenced the Museum getting stuff stolen the media covering it, and then ended blaming the Democrats in Congress for not cutting off money for the war and accepting responsibility for it.

Let's be honest about this, criticizing the Commander and Chief and the decisions he and his staff have made is not in any way relfective of how most people feel about the soldiers. People were upset that there weren't enough guards to protect things like the history of the place where life began. People were upset that the infastructure wasn't protced or restored better. But no one blamed the troops for that. People didn't even blame the troops for Abu Gharib or the Haditha incident. They blamed the situation and the decisions of the higher ups. It's the Commander and Chief who chose to protect his loyal staff instead of the soldiers who fought this war. No one was fired when soldiers were piecing humvees together with scraps from broken down humbvees, for more protection. But a soldier from my home state was given a dishonorable discharge, and sentenced to months in military prison for doing just that, and this is after he recieved some military medal, because his decisions saved lives. No one was fired when the prison was being used as an amusement park except for a soldier who served her country. No one was fired when our commander and chief sent our soldiers into a war under manned, under equipped for under justified reasons.

To Loyal Democrat
I dont know where you got the story about the Broker that quit to join the army who lost his house car etc etc ... There is somthing called the soldiors and sailors relief act.. That means that all contracts, mortages leases are suspended until after he returns from active duty.In other words By LAW he cannot have any action taken against him in any way. Upon returning from his employer MUST hire him back at the very salery he would have been making had he not left. How do I know this ? In 2005 I deployed to Iraq and was fully protected by this act and droped right back into my life without a hitch.

Surge/strained military
I really wish someone knowledgeable would shed some light on this.

We have 1.4+ million military personal in active duty and another 1.5 million in the reserves. over the course of the war we have had 120 to 150 troups thousand in Iraq. We keep extending tours and recycling the same national guard units into Iraq. What are the other 2.7 million troups doing?

Many people think a surge of 20,000+ will strain the military. However, the surge seems to be working in the short run.

We have needed more than an extra 100,000 troups in Iraq for years. (Note: there are also approximately 200-250 thousand Iraq troups of various levels of competence and equiptment, a few thousand allied troups and approximately 100,000 private security personel).

If 20,000 extra troups make that much difference, a 100,000 would have made this war history long ago.

Why have we not committed the force necessary to win this and get it overwith? We do not act like we are trying to win.

What gives? I would really like a thoughtful detailed explanation of why we have pursued this war the way we have. It does not make a lot of sense.


Iraq
My son-in-law was in the invasion of Iraq. Many of my friend's son's have served in Iraq since then. We (US) have been in the area to control the Isam world from taking over the world as they have promised they would many times before. Hopefully we can end the fighting and power stuggle in the Middle East and Bring our troops home but Biblically I feel we will be there for the long haul or until things get totally out of control.

LD
Good to hear from you. Hadn't seen this colummn or you post until now. Got a little worried when I didn't see something from you regarding Mrs Clinton's rehashing the rhetoric of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that's taking place in the vast empty space between her ears.

So many things to write about...so little heard from Loyal Democrat. I see you do realize that not everything has to be satirical

Don't send them to fight immoral wars
When history is written about the Iraq war, it will go down as the biggest con job in U.S. history masterminded by Bush, Cheney and the AEI fraternity. Our military has paid the price for this fiasco. It's too bad that Powell didn't blow the whistle. Shinseki also knew the truth but quietyly retired. America was poorly served in her hour of need by good men who stood by and did nothing.Maybe some day, Powell will tell the truth about how America and Congress were lied to. We can only pray that Bush and Cheney aren't allowed to send more troops into battle for a war that is already lost, because of their lies and incompetence. Congress should cut off funding for this war ASAP!

Iraq Wounded Troops
It's rare indeed when I differ with Mr Sowell. While I'll agree the media motivation in these pictorials featuring the wounded is all but treasonous, the images do serve another, different purpose. The American people and the government need to be reminded of the awful cost of war. I'm no peacenik, far from it, however it is essential that we spend this country's war capital wisely. Iraq is a hopeless case and will eventually descend into chaos, with the savage elements finally getting an opportunity to kill each other. We should be utilizing our military capacity to influence that outcome, not to impose "stability." Like Vietnam, we could actually achieve an outright military victory there, however it would require a level of savagery which this country simply could never muster.

I am always angered when a president recites the old mantra about the awful responsibility of sending our people into battle. None of them knows. The hundreds of thousands of people who are directly affected for their entire lifetimes, they know. My father died face down in Italy when I was an infant. Never knew the man, but I've missed him my whole life.


Loyal Democrat
I think people once again missed your very moving post which sounded very autobiographical

Loyal Demo
Please link me to the article about this soldier because the HUD site says that soldiers are protected against foreclosure while on active duty.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/nsc/qasscra1.cfm

Prove me wrong

Mr Buck
First, The sacrifices CPL Jason Dunham and SFC Paul Smith, both Medal of Honor winners, made will only be forgotten by people the likes of you.

Second, your profound observation about Soldiers not soldiering for the sake of soldiering is one of those clever sounding, but ultimately empty statements that show your true ignorance on the subject. Perhaps you can illuminate to the rest of us some of your favorite anecdotes on being a Soldier from your own numerous years of service? I am sure you have tons of stories about subordinating your wants, interests, and even possibly the continuation of your life to something you view as bigger than yourself. Probably not. The reasons Soldiers soldier is that there is a segment of the population that still holds to what you would call antiquated and futile beliefs. Some examples of these beliefs are honor, duty, sacrifice, service, integrity, discretion, love of country and both physical and moral courage. Had people like you ruled at Tours, Vienna, or Thermopylae the world would still be in the dark ages. Had you been in charge at Vally Forge or Lexington we would still be serfs. Would your motto have been "Forget the Alamo" during the Mexican war?The osterich method, may be easy in the short term, but then Soldiers would have top soldier in your neighborhood and not over here. Fortunately for you there are 18 and 19 year old men and women who have a clear enough world view to know what we have and know it is worth defending. Their sacrifice, dedication, love of country and humility demonstrates their understanding of and dedication to bigger ideas that you seem to have lost sight of. Perhaps you should look up what a noble cause is and what the greater good is. Then you might begin to understand what soldiering is about and why we do what we do.



Leroy
Here's your oath...

"I (your name)do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

YMML2 has clearly never spent one day in the active service to this country. I just retired last month with more than 29 years of service in the Air Force. I never once surrendered by Constitutional Rights while I was on active duty. That includes my right to say what I want.

However, once I decide to speak out against the president of the United States, I am obligated to resign from service, since I would no longer be able to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter."

People like YMML2 don't understand terms like honor, integrity, selfless service, excellence, duty, country.

YMML2...go chew your spew.

Leroy...Semper Fi

Dirty Greek...Thanks for your continued service. May God Bless you and yours.

Mr Sowell...Keep on keepin' on

Democrats/liberals...kiss my a$$. You never supported the troops unless it got you something.


I'm sitting in Baghdad right now...
...and the surge is working. Just thought you all might like to know. There is a military term called tactical patience. In the case of something as high stakes as a war, patience should be something practiced by more than just the military. This is a hard sell as patience is a virtue that is no longer practiced in our nation on a wide scale. People get OFFENDED if they have to wait for more than 30 seconds for their Whopper meal. When in doubt look to history. We have been in Europe for almost 60 years, Korea for 50+ years, Bosnia for over 10. There is no simple formula to doing what is being asked here. If we choose impatience now, we will be passing the buck to our children.

I'm sitting in Baghdad right now...
...and the surge is working. Just thought you all might like to know. There is a military term called tactical patience. In the case of something as high stakes as a war, patience should be something practiced by more than just the military. This is a hard sell as patience is a virtue that is no longer practiced in our nation on a wide scale. People get OFFENDED if they have to wait for more than 30 seconds for their Whopper meal. When in doubt look to history. We have been in Europe for almost 60 years, Korea for 50+ years, Bosnia for over 10. There is no simple formula to doing what is being asked here. If we choose impatience now, we will be passing the buck to our children.

admiration
At some level you have to admire this column by Sowell. The Bush administration has sent soldiers to a war with little understanding of the situation, and no planning for what was coming next. They sent them with inferior body armor. They have overtaxed the system because the alternative of building up the army would have been unpopular and they were selling a party. We now find out that they ignored problems in the care of veterans on top of cutting veteran benefits (and not including soldiers in the additional tax credit because they dont work hard enough (that is make enough money) to count).

Some supporters of the administration might be embarassed by this. But Sowell is ready to take the bull by the horns and say that honoring the troops is not doing silly things like making sure they have good health care or armor or proper rest between missions, or jobs when they come home. No supporting the troops is supporting the policy of the president who sent them to war. (Does anyone really think that the soldiers picked the priorities of what to defend in Iraq. Sowell joins the administration nonsense of pretending that administration decisions were really soldier decisions when they get criticized.)

It takes a certain amount of gumption to distort when the distortion is so out in the open. 66% of the country can read this and see it is idiocy. But Sowell is writing for that remaining 34% who remain with the president.

laughing2
That particular oath didn't stop Mr. Kerry. Guess that at least sets our current crop more honorable than John Kerry wouldn't you say.

Also I don't believe there is anything in the oath that covers speaking out against the president. It has been some years back and you will forgive me if I cannot remember verbatum every word of the oath that was administered by a new 2Lt. in a small room to about 50-60 sweaty 18-20 year olds. The offense you may be trying to reference could be covered in the UCMJ, but then again I was no expert on it either.

Hang-Tyme
So, you support the troops, you just want them to loose.

Or maybe loose is not the word you would prefer here. You support the troops, but you want to see them leave right now so that Iraq has the chance to implode on itself and turn into a festering cesspool of hatred with no stabilizing faction at all to try to check the killings.

To leave now and give the "locals" the opportunity to resolve their own problems by butchering each other without American interference.

To leave now so that we can be absolutely sure that all the injuries and deaths are wasted. That all of the sacrifices will be for naught.

Don't get me wrong, I will not argue the fact there is violence in Iraq today, and yes there are times it almost appears unchecked. But surely you don't advocate pulling the police out of our own inner cities simply because crime and violence are high there.

I do not care one bit what your opinion of George W Bush is, or Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan, or Bozo the Clown. But when you say you support the troops but...you just don't like who they volunteered to serve under, or where they volunteered to go, or the mission they volunteered to perform, well pardon me if your claims of support sound a little, shall we say empty.

"Oh yeah, I really like and support you, I just despise everything you stand for".

I'd just love to hear your pick-up line for the girls.

bobbit
bobbit:
"You libdolts are like little kids - you can never see the big picture and you don't deal in reality."

Liberty:
Actually, it is YOU that won't deal in reality. All your talking points are straight from the statists on FOX news. By the way, bobbit, I am a conservative and that IS precisely why I do not agree with what this administration is doing. THEY ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE. If you think they are, you need to think about it some more.

This is what I was always told were conservative principles. If you had a different understanding, please tell me what yours was/is.

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

If we rate those in government, and elsewhere, going around calling themselves conservative, on these ideals, how do you think they fare?

Bobbit:
"9/11 was a symptom of a much larger problem. While I wish our Marines could walk down Main Street with bin Laden's head on a stick even that would not end the problem of Islamic terrorism. The jihadis wish to convert or kill the entire world starting with us. They are well on their way to taking over Europe through demographics alone so there is little need to attack them over there. But the US is another story. They have been attacking us for 30 years and our sorry response (or lack thereof) has only led to more and more and bigger and bigger attacks until we got 9/11. You may be right that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but you may also be wrong."

It's pretty easy to go check the facts. Why don't you go do that. Even Bush finally admitted they had nothing to do with 9-11.

Bobbit:
"The point is that we needed to do something to change the ME and Saddam was the likeliest target because of all the trouble he caused that could be documented and he would be the easiest to depose. This is a global war on terror not just some guys in Afghanistan. The entire ME is a festering cauldron of danger for non-muslims. You make that point yourself when you point out that the hijackers were from SA funded by Pakistani money. They're all in it together."

Liberty:
There certainly are some terrorists, yes. But that in no way includes all the muslims in existence. To start a war with a name of the "war on terror" is ludicrous at best. Historically, wars were declared and waged against a country, not some open-ended catch all. This is analogous to starting a "war on badness".

This war was designed by ex-Trotskyites that used to be associated with think tanks. One of the plans they devised before getting into power was called, "A Clean Break". It has everything to do with creating a "new middle east" for Israel. Before the ex-Trotskyite neocons got in power, they were considered the D.C. "crazies" by their own party. However, now that they are in Bush's administration, they are free to execute their CRAZY foreign policy and that is exactly what they are doing.

bobbit:
"And of course our military had plans for attacking Iraq and Iran before 9/11. This what the military does - it plans for contigencies. They would not be doing their jobs if they were not."

Liberty:
I'm sure they do, however in this case what we are executing are the neocon plans. The military was not involved. Go read them yourself. I have posted links to several of them, from their own sites, multiple times.

bobbit:
"Two of the bad apples in the world and threats to us were Iraq and Iran. Despite Saddam's likely inability to strike at us himself it is naive to belive he would not help al qaeda do so if he could."

Liberty:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and was not an imminent threat to us. That might have changed years down the line, but then again, we could also have problems with whomever ends up with the control in Iraq once we leave. The bottom line is they were not a threat to us at the time. I suppose anyone could help Al Qaeda if they wanted. Even Great Britain. Should we attack them next?

Bobbit:
"He attempted to assasinate Bush Sr. remember?"

Liberty:
Yes, I do. Many of these leaders are less than wonderful. Do you remember when we used to support Saddam? How about Noriega? How about when we took out Mossadeqh, who went to school in the west and was quite friendly to us? The thing is, when we have this policy of intervening in the affairs of other sovereign nations, we end up with strange bedfellows that quite frequently we decide to take out later. I do not think this is a good foreign policy, personally.

bobbit:
"And what do you expect GWB to do with Saudi Arabia right now?"

Liberty:
Well bobbit, NONE of the hijackers were Iraqi. NONE. The vast majority were Saudi. IF we were honestly going after the terrorists, do you think perhaps we should have instead gone somewhere where someone actually had something to do with it? Just a thought.

bobbit:
"Surely as a good libdolt you would not recommend military action would you? "If we did that not only would you be crying about that we'd be hurting for oil."

Liberty:
You are making yourself look like an idiot. Please turn FOX news off and read a history book.

I am all for military action against those responsible for attacking us. YOU BETCHA. In fact, I'm past ready for us to give an ultimatum to Mexico to cease and desist facilitating the invasion of our country by their citizens. If the ultimatum is not followed, I think it is an act of war.

re: oil. Why would we be hurting for oil if we had not invaded Iraq? Actually, the price of oil has gone through the roof SINCE we invaded.

bobbit:
"We've got to do this slowly and methodically though I would agree it's been screwed up since we deposed Saddam. But the jihadis get as much credit for that as Bush does for screwing it up though as a libdrool you'll never see that."

Liberty:
I'm getting a little tired of your juvenile name-calling. Especially, since you have shown yourself to be far further to the left than I am.

Our troops did a wonderful job catching Saddam and his associates. I'm sure you agree. That is what they are trained for....war. And they do it better than anyone. They however are not trained for setting up new governments or being a police force. We've done the job we set out to do. It is time for them to come home.

bobbit:
"And last your sdtatement about the economy imploding is laughable at best. Every economic indicator is good with the exception of housing and even that is beginning to rebound. I know I know tax cuts for the rich and all that. Sheesh you guys are so boring. Get a clue."

Liberty:
I have a clue. It is you who do not. Let's talk hard numbers, bobbit. Our debt currently is around 10 trillion dollars. If we add the entitlements to that number, it raises the debt to 50 trillion dollars. The estimated net worth of all families in America is estimated to be around 50 trillion dollars. Do you understand the problem now?

What YOU are looking at are the smoke and mirrors of our current fiat money system. Hopefully, they will be able to perform some more Houdini acts to keep it all afloat a little bit longer, but we are in a financial crisis. If even one of the countries that is holding so many of our dollars currently, decides that is not a good idea, it could start the collapse of the whole deck of cards. You DO remember what happened to the peso, right? It can happen very quickly, once it starts. It is no fluke that so many of the elites are buying islands and putting their money in other currencies and precious metals.

Supporting the troops
A lot of people on either side of the political fence talk about supporting the troops. On the left, it seems to mean supporting them by bringing them home. On the right, it often means supporting the president and his policies. Sowell's column appears to fall into the last category.

I think there is a better way to support the troops than using them to make political points. Anyone disagree with these suggestions?

1. They need to have an achievable mission, not something utopian. If we are using the American military, it should be achieving the clear advancement of American interests, not a political agenda from either party.

2. They need the right strategies and tactics to allow them to achieve their mission. This includes leadership that understands what we are trying to accomplish and how we plan to do it. There should also be continuous monitoring to determine whether we are moving forward and if not, we should either change our approach or get the troops out of harm's way.

3. Our troops need the manpower, equipment and training required to achieve their mission through the strategies and tactics that have been chosen. We cannot send our military to do a job "on the cheap," expecting them to spend their lives while we save a few bucks.

4. They need to know that they will be properly cared for whenever they need medical attention, preferably by the best doctors and in the best facilities available. And they need to know that after their immediate care, the VA will not tie them up in paperwork so that follow-up care is made difficult or unavailable.

5. In an ideal world, I'd like to think that most Americans would also be behind what we are trying to accomplish, giving the troops our full political backing as well as the military tools they need. But that may not be possible in today's toxic political climate.

I think these are the very minimum requirements for what I would call "supporting the troops." Anything less is dodging or politicizing the issue.

Liberty
I believe you fall back too heavily upon the tired saw of defending the constitution above all else. The constitution was written to protect the citizens of this country from an oppressive government. It was never meant to shelter foriegn citizens who happen to be on American soil so that they plot against this country. If you can please provide evidence that the United States Government has used the Post 9-11 environment to round up it's citizens and deprive them of any civil liberties you may have my support. You cannot do this.

You have not given up one freedom, save for the humiliation we all suffer at an airport, but that is more our own fault for screaming "What will they do to protect us?". Where are you now confined in your daily activities? Do you pass through armed check points to go to market?

The smoke screen over government ease dropping on your intimate cell phone conversations does not stand of it's own either. How many cell phones do you estimate are in the United States? Well there are at last count 300 million people residing in America. Say 60% of them were early adult toadult, 180 million. Just for arguements sake lets say only 50% of them had cell phones, 90 million cell phones. Say each user speaks on average, again conservativly, 15 minutes per day on their cell phone. That is 1/4 an hour times 90 million people. That makes over 22 million hours of cell phone conversations to monitor for only one day. And that is only cellular phones. Just how many people do you think the FBI have on staff?

It is not your nations liberty you think so self-rightously on it is your freedom to complain which you cherish, nothing more. If you feel this is the trait that sets you up as a conservative then you are much more a liberal than you know.

Troops = George Bush
To all the neo-con lovers who say you can't support the troops without supporting the war, I have one thing to say. BULLCRAP. Through rather clever, yet transparent rhetoric, what they really mean is if you support this war, you wouldn't criticize our messiah, President Dubya.

Having served eight years in the Arkansas Army Nation Guard, I can appreciate a greater call to service and duty. I never saw war, but I was always on stand-by, willing and able if the need was to arise.

When I took the oath to serve my country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, that oath didn't include being used as a tool of political convenience. You see, when soldiers are given an order, obeying is the only real option. It's the job of the American people, and dare I say, the EVIL MEDIA to insure politicians are held accountable when the military is used for less than noble purposes.

This war was based on rationale that has been debunked to the fullest. No link to Al-queda. No WMDs. The war has been mismanaged because our commander-in chief has been more loyal to his political cronies than to the men and women in uniform. How many lives were sacrificed because Bush refused to fire Donald Rumsfield and replace him with a qualified Secretary of Defense?

How do we, as a military, squash sectarian violence (a civil war) between rival factions that runs centuries deep? The Sunnis and Shiites hate each other. The Kurds want an autonomous government. All three have an unhealthy hatred for the United States. And were engaged in a babysitting mission, in the midst of all three like sitting ducks.

And the neocons challenge our patriotism because we question the immoral, and perhaps unconstitutional misuse of our military. Well, for all of your misguided sense of grandeur and righteousness, you're still not doing the troops any favor.

I support the troops wholeheartedly. I just don't support this corrupt andministration.

Moses
Actually, I think we should reevaluate having our troops a number of the places we have them stationed around the world. Thanks for bringing it up. We were talking about Iraq though, I thought.

As far as what the Democrats are thinking, you'll have to ask someone else, because I am, and always have been, a conservative.

I realize that my stances are quite different than many on this board. However, they are quite consistent with traditional conservative ideals and the Constitution. If you disagree, maybe you should check your stance against conservative principles and see how they match up.

Conservatives used to have a healthy respect for the Constitution. However, since 9-11 so very many have been convinced that it is ok to just lay the Constitution aside and trust the government with our liberty. Doesn't anyone remember what our Founders told us about doing this??? If you don't remember, please go look for yourself. We also believed in a constitutional government, however here too we are allowing the separation of powers that are clearly delineated, to be encroached upon and ignored, by this administration. Not to mention the various pieces of unconstitutional legislation that this administration has introduced, such as the unPatriot acts or the Military Commission bill.

We also believed in a fiscally responsible government. Today, we are borrowing in excess of 2 billion dollars per day from RED China to finance the war. If we include the entitlements to the current level of our debt, our debt is at 50 trillion dollars. A recent article on Drudge estimated the total net worth of ALL households in America was approximately 50 trillion dollars. Do you understand the problem here?

Conservatives also believed in a limited Constitutional government. In other words, limiting the federal government to those duties laid out by our Founders in the Constitution. However, President Bush has EXPANDED the size of the federal government more than any President before him. In addition, he has used Presidential signing statements to stipulate what part of the legislation that he plans to follow. This is not constitutional. He is not supposed to do this. Yet, we sit idly by and apparently bow at his feet.

Conservatives believed in personal privacy. Yet, so many applaud the advent of unconstitutional wiretapping, reading our snail mail, checking all our financial transactions, unconstitutional "sneak and peak" activities, the incessant power grabbing such as putting each state's national guard under Bush's total control and much to my shock, support legislation such as the Military Commission bill. Which, whether you want to admit it or NOT, allows for Americans citizens just like YOU, or your neighbor to be picked up on a mere accusation and thrown in a secret prison camp for years.

Many conservatives seem to have forgotten why they became conservatives to begin with. It's no wonder with the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly telling you, over and over again, that you must give up your liberty to be safe. I will say again... once liberty is taken, it rarely is returned.

I sure wish you folks could see past the propaganda you are hearing on Fox news. I sincerely do.


Mitt Romeny on Saudi Arabia
The State of the Race: The Republicans
by Richard Baehr
RealClearPolitics.com, March 9, 2007

Romney showed an unusual trait for a politician by refusing to pander to the audience he addressed Wednesday, a group of Jewish Republicans. While Barack Obama made sure to touch every base on Israel-related issues at his AIPAC event, and only added extraneous comments on Iraq to get a few licks in at the White House, Romney began his talk by arguing that the PRIMARY THREAT to this country was ISLAMIC RADICALISM, rather than exclusively addressing threats to Israel.

And rather than repeat Obama's boilerplate on stepping up diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran, Romney addressed the SPREAD OF THE WAHHABIST IDEOLOGY around the globe, FUNDED BY SAUDI ARABIA, a country which seems to get a pass in most political discussions these days.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/
the_state_of_the_race_the_repu.html

Liberty
You libdolts are like little kids - you can never see the big picture and you don't deal in reality. 9/11 was a symptom of a much larger problem. While I wish our Marines could walk down Main Street with bin Laden's head on a stick even that would not end the problem of Islamic terrorism. The jihadis wish to convert or kill the entire world starting with us. They are well on their way to taking over Europe through demographics alone so there is little need to attack them over there. But the US is another story. They have been attacking us for 30 years and our sorry response (or lack thereof) has only led to more and more and bigger and bigger attacks until we got 9/11. You may be right that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but you may also be wrong. The point is that we needed to do something to change the ME and Saddam was the likeliest target because of all the trouble he caused that could be documented and he would be the easiest to depose. This is a global war on terror not just some guys in Afghanistan. The entire ME is a festering cauldron of danger for non-muslims. You make that point yourself when you point out that the hijackers were from SA funded by Pakistani money. They're all in it together.

And of course our military had plans for attacking Iraq and Iran before 9/11. This what the military does - it plans for contigencies. They would not be doing their jobs if they were not. Two of the bad apples in the world and threats to us were Iraq and Iran. Despite Saddam's likely inability to strike at us himself it is naive to belive he would not help al qaeda do so if he could. He attempted to assasinate Bush Sr. remember?

And what do you expect GWB to do with Saudi Arabia right now? Surely as a good libdolt you would not recommend military action would you? If we did that not only would you be crying about that we'd be hurting for oil. We've got to do this slowly and methodically though I would agree it's been screwed up since we deposed Saddam. But the jihadis get as much credit for that as Bush does for screwing it up though as a libdrool you'll never see that.

And last your sdtatement about the economy imploding is laughable at best. Every economic indicator is good with the exception of housing and even that is beginning to rebound. I know I know tax cuts for the rich and all that. Sheesh you guys are so boring. Get a clue.

Dude3344

Why do the liberals want us to lose in Iraq?

Is it just because they hate Bush? Rumsfeld?-YES

Isn't winning the war in Iraq more important than politics? -NO

'Scuse me
Shoulda said "power" not "poser".

Dude3344
Nothing is more important than politics on the left side of the aisle. It is always about who has the poser. That is why the play identity politics, big labor politics and class warfare. Leftists will do or say anything to promote their agenda regardless of consequences.

Look what LBJ did to social security. It would be solvent today if he hadn't raided the fund to pay for his Great Society. This bought votes.

Unions force dues form their members so they can influence elections and politicians. They say it is for the good of the general membership, but rarely is.

Look what Jimmy Carter did to the prestige of the United States. He did nothing about a terrorist attack on our soil except wring his hands and make one half-hearted attempt to rescue the hostages.

I should not try to give anyone political advice but in my 50+ years it seems to me that leftists and liberals in general don't care for facts, they want to do something that makes them feel good instead of something that makes sense. Case in point: There was a tax increase on the ballot in Kansas City, MO that had no accountability and no transparency. It ostensibly was to fix up the parks and recreation areas in the city. When challenged about the two problems mentioned above, the slogan became "Vote yes on the tax increase. It's for the children." Doesn't matter if it is a bad law, it's for the children. Now that tax increase is there, there is no accountability and the parks still need fixing, but it was for the children. That's like saying "We can move forward together." "Public use before private use." "We must all work together." "Lifting us all up together." One of these is a slogan from the National Socialist Worker's Party. Pick it out.

A wise man once said "If you live in a society that votes, then do so. If you don't have the time to invest in studying each issue, down to the costs and benefits then find a well-meaning expert and find out what he says. Then vote the other way." I use Time, Newsweek, the New York Times and other news papers for the "expert".

Hustler
You bring up and interesting point when you say "They may be good people but they certainly are not good citizens. Some people care enough to educate themselves."

I have a different opinion on that. Consider the dumbing down of education in general. I think those who do graduate today feel they have received a good High School education. And are usually proud to have graduated. Those that do not, or cannot, go on to college. Take jobs, invest in buying a home and start raising families. All the while trying to better themselves an "get ahead" and do everything they can to be a good citizen, and they are.

The problem comes from trusting Leaders that they voted for to do what they promised they would do. After voting, they get on with their lives without much daily thought to government. These are all good citizens. Doing their patriotic duty to vote along with trying to better their own status in life.

It is only when a good citizen realizes that the government he/she helped elect. Is not only failing to do it's job, as spelled out in the Constitution. But in fact makes it harder and harder for a citizen to make a living. It is then when they begin educating themselves about the current activities of government.

Of course, I'm not speaking of those who look for government hand-outs in all their Socialist forms.

jaymay: "Good things"

"Beefy GI helping a little Iraqi girl paint her fingernails."

YES, I believe I saw that picture as well... Brought tears to my eyes.. as did the few pictures I've seen of GI's carrying young Iraqi children, asleep on their shoulders.

YES, this is, in part, why we hear so many of our wonderful GI's saying that they must stay and complete their mission. Their mission includes the safety and welfare of those sweet, beautiful children.

"Wish we could see more of this kind......" It helps keep us focused on what's important.

Dude3344
I spent 20 years in the Army and am a VietNam era vet. I had plenty of leftist support for the troops during the 70's, thank you.

You are right, though, about asking for a solution from the political left. They don't even try to provide one, just want to voice their spleen about the issue.

If one (anyone) would do the minimal research necessary to understand the situation, one cannot reasonably say there was a rush to war, Bush lied, this war is for oil, the war is for haliburton profits, Cheney's ties to halliburton got the war started, or that there was no intention of starting up the nuclear program or other WMD programs. Saddam may have bluffed that he still had them, but after being ordered to provide proof that they were destroyed, he refused.

Talk to the soldiers, read the site at http://www.defendamerica.mil (precluded by law from lying or even stretching the truth) or the http://www.mnf-iraq.com site and see what is going on.
You could google al-tuwaitha and Georges Sada.

But these things take work, effort and the mental ability to get outside of one's dearly held world view.

Even the New York Times said Hussein's Iraq was less than a year away from an atomic weapon.


Loyal Democrat, such stories exist.
the one i can think of offhand is one where the new york times heavily excerpted a fallen soldier's last letter home to make it sound like he was doubting what he was fighting for. his fiance later published the entire letter, whic demonstrated that the sooldiier held exactly opposite sentiments.

i'm at work, but i'll link when i get a chance to dig it up.

here's how the nytimes portrayed Cpl. Jeffery Starr's death:


"Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.
But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.

"Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''"


here's a fuller quotation of his final correspondence, provided by his uncle:

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."


so Loyal Democrat, such stories do exist, and this is only a single example. Mr. Sowell is not "off". he is exactly on.

They fall flap on their faces every time
What do the Democrats know about showing support for our troops or this country. They're new at this. They make fools of themselves every time they try to show some type of support. The only thing they can recognize as being heroic, is hardship the war has brough to someone, not the sacrifice they made. In the newpapers on the networks, it's never taken seriously because Americans already know how the Democrats, and the media feels about our troops. Oh sure, a hero to the Democrats are those troops, who speak out against the war in Iraq like they did on 60 minutes. Thats something the Democrats can relate to, complaining. Parade those troops around like they're hero's and Americans will come to think our troops, feel as they do about the war in Iraq. How do the Democrats interpret what they're doing with the slow bleed resolutions? To them it's a show of patriotism to the anti war protesters and the media. Those who support the war, President Bush, and our troops are fascist. They can't even get patriotism right.

Supporting Troups..
Hey idiot (youmakemelaugh2): It was Marxists like our infamous Pat Schroder who demanded a cut the military budget which resulted in the drop of quality of medical facilities in Colorado. The Leftists/Marxists have supported any enemy of the USA (vs our military) save for WWII when they demanded the use of our military to ensure that Stalin (not Hitler) remained in control of eastern Europe (vs letting the two of them destroy each other, then moving in for the clean-up).

Peppermint: You are correct - the Marxists have been trying to destroy our constitutional republic since the mid-1930s. Having taken over most of Hollywood, Marx's Socialist Media, our educational system & the Democrat party, they are bringing truth to Nikita's statement "We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within".

Moses, well said
Have you noticed that you never get an answer when you ask what our exit strategy from Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia, the Philipines is? They just change the subject. And while dissent and debate are laudable activities, equating Bush to Hitler, Gitmo and Abu Graib to Nazi concentration camps or soviet gulags is tantamount to treason as it is completely illogical and anyone that actually thinks the comparisons are legitimate, is mentally unstable and probably beyond all hope of recovery.

I actually think that many on the left are not so much anti-American as anti-human and America is the greatest (worst) example of human progress and therefore, to destroy humanity, first destroy America and capitalism. Just look at all the kooky PETA arguements that each animal is worth the same as a human! Lunacy!!

sell some newspapers
As a current active duty member of the U.S. Army, I was impressed with Sowell's article. This is a consistent point of frustration for me because I see this all the time. I constantly here about good news stories that our (and other countries) forces are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oddly enough, I never hear those stories in our media and certainly never hear of them in international media. A man that I respect who has served, and is still serving, for 35 years told a story of a time he was talking to an editor of a large news outlet in NEW YORK. Apparently they told pretty good TIME. He asked the editor a question similar to this, "why are you not writing about the good things that we are doing here in Iraq?" (no matter who you are and what you think, we are doing great things in that country. as simple as security and as complex as every local service that comes so easy to us here in the states) The editor gave him this answer, "those things that you are talkin about just don't sell newspapers!" That is what it comes down to. The selling of their newspaper! Who cares about those things that we are doing for Iraqi's and that a majority of them appreciate the work we're doing for them. After all, Iraqi's wouldn't buy that paper (due to a lack of availability) so if the people here don't buy it than they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on. I would not lose any sleep over that!

Thank you Mr. Sowell!

Supporting the Troops
Can't support the troops without supporting the mission. No way. Ain't possible.

And all the leftist screeching to the contrary, it is not supporting the troops to say we need to just walk away, talk to the insurgent/terrorists/Michael Moores freedom fighters.

youmakemelaugh2 and jabelson and liberty and liberal goodman are just wrong.

Let the screeching begin.....(You know you want to!)

This subject
reminds me of the older today shows:
Remember when Willard Scott would do his century plus birthday celebrations?
Of course, the "what's your secret" question would always be asked.
More often than not, an answer like, "..a shot of Jack Daniel's everyday" or something close to that would follow.
One day,with no warning, the century celebrations turned into pictures only-no commentary...
As Sowell says...
"...perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality".


Jabelson
You read as poorly as you reason. Mr. Sowell mentioned a young man using his own body to absorb the blast from a grenade, thereby giving his life to save his comrades. This is an act of heroism which should be recognized. That is what Mr.Sowell was speaking of.

You do not support the troops by proposing and passing a resolution saying everything they have done is no better than a wasted venture. That their sacrifices, their buddies sacrifices and the hardships endoured by those left behind at home were meaningless.

Go ahead, fool yourself into believing your own lies about what you call support. I've heard this brand of drivel before, it rang hollow then and is more so now. The troops see through you, why keep up the charade?

Not good citizens
Goshawk,

“Dr. Sowell is right on the mark when he says "generations of dumbed-down education in our schools, perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality." This can account for good people being led like Sheep.”

They may be good people but they certainly are not good citizens. Some people care enough to educate themselves. Are the rest of us failing them by not being more forceful in pointing out the fact that they didn't get good information?

Do our elected officials not know the education system sucks? Of course they do, but they have us by the gonads and they know it. They have their agenda and it is not ours.

The election is like a large buffet, here are your choices, pick one. If you don't like what is on the menu, go hunt your own. It makes no difference who we vote for. Follow the money.

liberty - good point but ...
if you are against stupid missions where we do not belong, why are we still in Bosnia?

we've been there a lot longer and may stay there forever. why no time table?

let's get our troops out of the other places before pulling out of iraq, after all we still have troops in germany, korea, japan, etc ...

it's been over 50 years since WWII, when can we stop the imperial efforts of the US in the post WWII world?

see how stupid that sounds. now reread the democrats' call to pull out of iraq and leave after a few years.

can't the democrats be honest? shouldn't they call for the surrender of the US? that is what they are doing anyway.


ChitownHammer
Chitown, I am all for going after those responsible for 9-11! But, what we are doing in the Middle East has nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11. The neocons (who are NOT conservative at all) developed the plans to go to Iraq and Iran long BEFORE 9-11. They were not in power when they developed these plans. They were not in power until Bush and Cheney got in office. Now they run our foreign policy. Just google "neoconservatism" and check it out.

Our soldiers go where they are sent and fight the mission they are directed to and they do a wonderful job. Have you ever considered that it is OUR job to make sure they are not sent to risk their lives for some other agenda?

I am mad as h*ll about 9-11. Do you think we could actually go after those responsible. The vast majority of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. The money to Atta came from Pakistan. Yet, our troops were sent to Iraq, while Bush rolls out the red carpet for the Saudi royals. Of course, the Bush family has had long business ties with the Saudi royals. Perhaps that explains it.

Do you understand that our economy is imploding, we have allowed the framework for a police state to be put in place all around us, illegal aliens are being encouraged to invade our country and our country is being merged with Canada and Mexico, while the neocons are doing everything they can to start WWIII. We are in deep doo doo. Please turn off FOX news and do your own thinking.

Liberty and Ron Paul...
Ron Paul says "Rest assured one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.

The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all of us." He is obviously a moron. One cannot support the troops and be against the war. War is their mission, their job. To tell them that their job is wrong or " ill-advised" is to undermine them. You cannot have it both ways.

I wonder when the last time Ron Paul was at the World Trade Center site or if he has ever seen it? Because the is still A SIXTEEN ACRE HOLE IN THE GROUND there. I know. I have to go through it twice every day. How about you Liberty? Have you been to see it? I doubt it.

Why does the meida
lie? Because they and the dims are one and the same. The dims want a completely socialist/commie government. By discrediting the troops at every opportunity they can grasp, they hope no one will turn to them to rescue us from their commie government which will enslave all of us.

Everybody supports the troops
by Ron Paul

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, January 18, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our armed forces. This is pure demagoguery, and it’s intellectually dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm’s way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There’s no better way to support the troops.

Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It’s disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops! This is strange indeed!
Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?

Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.

Many now agree that we must change our policy and extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq. They cite a mandate from the American people for a new direction. This opinion is now more popular, and thus now more widely held by politicians in Washington. But there’s always a qualifier: We can’t simply stop funding the war, because we must support the troops. I find this conclusion bizarre. It means one either believes the “support the troops” propaganda put out by the original promoters of the war, or that one actually is for the war after all, despite the public protestations.

In reality, support for the status quo (and the president’s troop surge) in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval build-up in the region, and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia, demonstrate the administration’s intentions to escalate our current war into something larger.

There’s just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.
Don’t believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That’s nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth – including home.

We shouldn’t forget that the administration took $600 million from the war in Afghanistan and used it in Iraq, before any direct appropriations were made for the invasion of Iraq. Funds are always available to put our troops into harms way; they are always available for leaving a war zone.
Those in Congress who claim they want the war ended, yet feel compelled to keep funding it, are badly misguided. They either are wrong in their assessment that cutting funds would hurt the troops, or they need to be more honest about supporting a policy destined to dramatically increase the size and scope of this misadventure in the Middle East. Rest assured one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.

The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all of us.

Why the lies?
There are plenty of stories of braveness that our media should be talking about. However, I wonder why we were lied to by our government on Pat Tillman's death and Jessica Lynch's story?

I remember the story about Pat Tilman when he joined the military. It was a very uplifting story of braveness. I also remember the story when he was killed. The story all of a sudden died when it was found that he was killed by "friendly fire". Last I knew, his family was still being stone-walled by the gummit and are quite upset. Where is the outrage for the family of this brave soldier?

I also remember the story on Jessica Lynch, which she herself came forward later and denounced.

Why the lies from this administration?

I suspect.....
I suspect that Loyal Democrat is really the soldier he's talking about.

When your hitch is up, I suggest you consider a career in writing.

Good things
I remember a picture, I believe it was in US News and World Report...one of my favorites. Beefy GI helping a little Iraqi girl paint her fingernails. Wish we could see more of this kind......

Mr. Sowell hits it
on the head again. If they were serious (honest) they woyld cut off funds and take the consequences. That's the problem, their first loyalty is to getting elected. Their second is to their chicken hearted policy of no military action what-so-ever if it may be advantageous to the US. The anti-war dems are anti-US traitors.

Supporting the troops...
... of the insurgents is what the Dems are doing. Why they are doing it, I haven't a clue.

During the heyday of the Soviet Union, it made some sort of sense for liberals and leftists to cheer for a very leftist country, but today their actions make no sense whatsoever. I think of them as more anti-American than as leftist.

More Evidence
Anyone remember Pat Tillman? Did he make the news when he left his million dollar football career, or after he was killed?

How many can quote the deaths from Iraq, but not the schools, hospitals, etc that are built? Who can number the casualties but not the liberated?

As Sowell states: when was the last time a good story hit the MSM about our troops?

By the way, Loyal Democrat, I missed you! Where you been?

My Mistake!! So Sorry!!!
Our military wouldn't have to stand down in the face of a Leftest President.

They could "redeploy" to the Mexican border. It is a bit closer to home than Jack Murtha suggested but it is surely a fine alternative.

If we cannot fight the Islamofacists in Iraq or the Middle east then at least we can seal our borders, right??

Loyal Democrat, you are off your pace!
I have a relative in Afgahnistan. He has all the things your (perhaps) mythical soldier has or had.

His level of commitment to freedom far exceeds that which you read in America's press. It burns strong in many many hearts. No wonder newspapers are dying and the alphabet news stations are sucking strings.

There is a strength in America which I enjoy, contribute to and rely on to save our country, and probably the future for a sane world. I surely hope that our troops do not give themselves in vain for some dim-bulb Leftist hack such as are presented for president in 2008.

They would be better served, and more appreciated, by standing down until a leader who has our interests in mind and deed.

Wouldn't that be special? As the Saturday Night Live line went.




Take full responsibility??
I want to puke every time I hear a politician say that. The lying SOB's! Taking responsibility is the last thing they want to do! And they know that they will never be held "responsible" or prosecuted in any way for their wrongs. Just like when Janet Reno announced so bravely on TV about her murdering actions in Waco and Ruby Ridge. "I take full responsibility!" Nothing was done.

Dr. Sowell is right on the mark when he says "generations of dumbed-down education in our schools, perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality." This can account for good people being led like Sheep.

But the real crimes are committed by the politicians in Congress and the Liberals posting on Townhall. Knowing that everything they do and everything they say. Is being monitored by our enemies. But they just don't care. Their Liberal/Socialist agenda is far more important to them than our country!

Anyone interested
in hearing what the troops have to say can check my blog (just click on my name) under any of the Voices From the Front posts. Theyr'e not current, but they do provide a contrast to what we mostly hear.

Great line:
"It is like saying 'I take full responsibility,' when all that this phrase really means is: 'You have caught me red-handed and there is no way to deny it, so I will just use these words to try to dissipate your anger and escape punishment.'"

Ain't that the truth!

Could it be Satan??
Does anyone have an idea why the media does this? I can't fathem a "follow the money" scenario. I can understand liberal journal schools spitting out liberal copywriters, but for what gains? To simply crow that "we got Bush?? Or is there an ideology that wants the total destruction of the good old US of A; and have put in place a long range plan for us to boil (raising the temp ever so slowly). And who is this?? The old communist Russians? The new muslim jihadists? Satan??

Bruce Bartlett...
will tell you that the Media for the Masses is not so Left handed anymore, they are more likely to be centrists.

I do not believe it; what often passes for news seems more a vendetta against George Bush, our Military and America than any actual reporting.

Dr. Sowell makes a better case for it than I could. Well done!

How can you tell?
How can you tell that a liberal is spinning/lying? His lips are moving.

How can you tell when a column is A-1 rock solid truth, nailed to a "T", take it to the bank, straight shootin', tell it like it is profundity? It has Dr. Sowell's byline on it.

Loyal Dem, your poppycock hypothetical was pretty lame, and does not stand up to Dr. Sowell's actual exmples.

zzzzzzzzzz

Poppycock
Dr. Sowell's article is certainly false, otherwise there might be a case like the following hypothetical story:

A former soldier turned civilian was busy working at a mortgage company where he was a top producing loan officer. 9/11 occurred, and war ensued. The man experienced despair whenever he looked at the faces of the fallen in the news. Having enough of the dying youth, he joined the Guard once they received word of their deployment. He left his job, taking a $400,000 per year pay cut, and became a lowly rifleman in a cavalry unit.

During the 18 months he was deployed, his savings eroded faster than expected, and he lost his house to foreclosure: over a half million in equity was gone. Yet, in spite of the financial devastation, the man remained a cheerful soldier. Word of the event reached the local news, and the media set upon his family in hopes of getting a hard luck story into the headlines. The goal of the story was to provide a tale that detailed how bad things were for those that deployed, and how horrible it was to be a Guardsman pulled away from home. When the man and his family refused to adopt the face of pity, the story was dropped. The press was not interested in the sacrifice because the man took the events in stride. He found great satisfaction in the path he had chosen, in spite of the costs. The story could have detailed just what some individuals are willing to give up when fighting for a cause they believe in. Instead, the only story desired was a pity story designed to demoralize anyone that might consider making a similar sacrifice. When participation in that story was rejected by the "victim", the media interest evaporated.

This story would be true if what Dr. Sowell alleges in his article was accurate. But everyone knows that the press isn't really driven to portray the troops only in a pitiful light. So it looks like Dr. Sowell is way off base this time.

Aiding and Abetting
The Republicans had the ball and fumbled it badly. As a result we are now stuck with the Democrats and White Flag Republicans in control. Sure enough, as soon as Pellosi and Company get control they immediately join Al Qaeda, setting up dates of encouragement and smearing the American military. Much of this could be so easily countered if the honest press would come forward with every possible shred of good that we are doing in that country.

There are many reporters who know this stuff. Where are they? Why aren't we hearing it from anybody.
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.