<p><a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/260810,CST-EDT-steyn18.article[/url]”>http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/260810,CST-EDT-steyn18.article</a></p>
<p>Another conservative weighs in on America’s “defeat” (his word, not mine).</p>
<p>I find it extremely offensive that apologists for the boneheaded policy which led to this sorry state of affairs have the gall to wrap themselves in the honor and sacrifice of the men and women who serve in the armed forces and, hiding behinds that cover, spit that anyone who disagrees with them is against - not the neocons, not the Bush Administration, not morons like Jeff Jacoby and his ilk - but the soldiers.</p>
<p>Hows this for a simple explanation: I support the military. That means, I honor and support every man and woman who has volunteered to put on a uniform ans put themselves at risk to defend our nation. When we need them, they will answer. That’s what soldiers do. That is exactly why I’m outraged at the casual waste of those lives in an attempt to cover up the incompetence of the politicians who sent them there, without any realistic positive goal in mind. </p>
<p>American soldiers are dying because George Bush lacks the guts to admit he was wrong and take the blame for wasting the lives of the first 3,000 to die. He, and Jacoby, and all the rest of the “dead-enders” are willing to throw away the lives of many more Americans just to try to obtain political cover for their failed vision and lack of integrity.</p>
<p>I support the soldiers. That means I’m against wasting their lives just to make George Bush look good (or less bad.) I’m against wasting their lives in further adventures pasted together with a devil-may-care attitude. I say honoring the military means when you were wrong to send them somewhere you bring them back and admit that you erred. You don’t just keep leave them in harms way until you have secured political “cover” for your mistakes.</p>
<p>Is that so difficult to understand?</p>
<p>well said, kluge.</p>
<p>Yup, what Kluge said.</p>
<p>As I posted back a page or so, the best possible support for the troops I can imagine is to bring them home. Why sacrifice more American lives (because there clearly will be untold number more casualties) for this sorry, immoral, illegal war? </p>
<p>The public has spoken against the war. Bush just won’t listen, and he will continue to sacrifice American servicepeople.</p>
<p>That is NOT supporting the troops.</p>
<p>Kluge very well said. There’s almost nothing to add, but I am going to try anyhow.</p>
<p>I think the article I posted from the Washington Post about the conditions at Walter Reed’s outpatient facility makes it pretty clear that the administration is supporting the war but not the troops.</p>
<p>Suporting the troops is looking at the money spent and how and where and getting the billions back that is missing so we can buy them the equipment they need</p>
<p>supporting the troops is not cutting funding to the medical care they need</p>
<p>and supporting the troops is finding a way to bring them home and not have them having to back for 3 and 4 tours of duty</p>
<p>supporting the troops isnot the lip service done by so many…</p>
<p>putting a sticker on your truck doesn’t support the troops, taking care of them does</p>
<p>Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army’s Top Medical Facility
By Dana Priest and Anne Hull
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 18, 2007; Page A01</p>
<p>Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan’s room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.</p>
<p>This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html</a></p>
<p>Iraq veteran Patrick Murphy: “We are the troops and we don’t support escalation.”</p>
<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>
</p>
<p>It really upsets me that people just dismiss the soldiers and veterans who disagree with the war as though they don’t exist.</p>
<p>I have yet to hear a conservative admit that we have opened the gates of Hell in Iraq, and that our presence there is inciting a civil war of possibly epic proportions–and one that will likely last for many years to come. But who really cares, eh? It’s primarily Iraqi women, children, and other civilian types who are being torn to pieces in these nightmarish daily bombings while we go about our business of shopping at the mall, or whatever.
As for Mr. Jacoby’s opinion:
“You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or “a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas,” yet bless the troops who are waging it.”
What an obscenely ludicrous, insulting, vile thing to say. I personally believe just the opposite: That you cannot logically or honorably support the war as a moral neocon triumph or a Haliburton philanthropic endeavor, or “a wonderful piece of political decency cooked up in Texas,” and at the same time bless the troops who are waging it. It just does not compute. If you truly support these wonderful Americans, you’d despise the cynical and heartless political maneuvering that sent them where they SHOULD NOT BE in the first place!</p>
<p>Here’s a little FOX news item from last month. Old news, but still interesting.</p>
<pre><code>WASHINGTON — As President George W. Bush contemplates a “surge” in U.S. troops in Iraq and an expansion of the nation’s armed forces, several former military officers warn that either decision could place an almost fatal strain on an already stressed force and may reduce recruiting standards in a push to meet numerical goals.
</code></pre>
<p>Former military officers who spoke to FOXNews.com said increasing troop levels in Baghdad would mean keeping existing brigades there longer, bringing U.S. troops in from other areas of Iraq and accelerating deployments from home. If any of these were to be done long-term, rules for mobilizing the reserves and National Guard would have to be changed so they could be redeployed more often.
“Surge? Yes, we can,” said retired Army Col. Douglas MacGregor, a decorated combat veteran who led armored cavalry in Operation Desert Storm. “It will break the force, which in my estimation is broken already. It will leave you with no strategic reserves.”
Retired Army Col. David Hunt, a regular FOX News contributor who recently returned from Iraq, said the prospect of assigning soldiers and Marines in Iraq for longer tours of duty is cause for worry. …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re making the mistake the neocons want you to make. Confusing them with conservatives. There are plenty of anti-war conservatives and conservatives who recognize the harm the war in Iraq is doing to our own country. </p>
<p>And these conservatives are not too happy with the big-government-loving, foreign adventure-going, fiscally wastrel, neocons who have tried to distort and corrupt the meaning of “conservative” in order to lay claim to a legacy they don’t deserve.</p>
<p><a href=“Pacific News”>Pacific News;
<p>You make a valid point, conyat. The problem is, I know some war-loving fanatical right-wingers who identify themselves as “conservative.” They’re wrong, but that’s how they see themselves. I’ve never known anyone yet who openly admits to being a neocon. But, you’re right. In my #71 post, “neocon” would have been much the better word.</p>
<p>“On Sunday, in areas closer to Sadr City, parents slapped away the candy and lollipops given to children by U.S. soldiers.”</p>
<p>BAGHDAD, Iraq - Militants struck back Sunday in their first major blow against a U.S.-led security clampdown in Baghdad with car bombings that killed at least 63 people, left scores injured and sent a grim message to officials boasting that extremist factions were on the run.</p>
<p>This is what Joe in DC at Americablog has to say about the Congress and administration that allowed such deplorable conditions for our wounded and maimed soldiers at Walter Reed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Literally spit in their faces (and worse) in Cumberland, Maryland.</p>
<p>
If you feel that that piece supports your view on the war in any way, I suggest you go back and read it again.</p>
<p>
This post is without a doubt going to be nominated for chutzpah post of the year award. How the cut and run crowd can support pulling out now and at the same time bewail the deaths of innocent Iraqi’s is sinister irony at its best. </p>
<p>I suppose it’s the same crowd that hails their “victory” in getting the US to turn its back on Vietnam and then turn a blind eye to the ensuing carnage as the North came down and slaughtered the S. Vietnamese. Yeah, I guess if you closed your eyes for 20 or 30 years and then opened them again you can say, “well things didn’t turn out so bad there afterall”.</p>
<p>Of course the difference with Iraq is that the Iraqi’s won’t just slaughter each other until one side capitulates and then stability will be reclaimed. No, with Iraq, the ensuing mess of our premature departure will have long-term dire consequences far greater than what anyone can imagine if we don’t see this through. But, maybe if we close our eyes tight enough or pull the covers over our heads we may be able to convince ourselves that we did the right thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that what the neocons are doing about going to war in Iraq in the first place? Hoping that if they just try enough random things that military strategists say won’t work, eventually by beginner’s luck one of them will work out, and it will make the war seem like a good idea?</p>
<p>FF, if you are going to call Hindoo a “coward” for saying that our presence in Iraq is inciting a civil war, you are also going to have to call by those same words people like: General Odom, General McCaffery, Patrick Murphy, Admiral Joe Sestak, etc. Frankly, I don’t think you have the guts to do it. At least not to their faces.</p>
<p>conyat, I would greatly appreciate you not putting words into my mouth that were never spoken/written. Thanks.</p>
<p>“Bewail the deaths of the innocent Iraqi”?</p>
<p>Are you serious, FF? Do you “bewail” the over 100 innocent Iraqi deaths a day in this civil war? The 100+ deaths a day that are occurring while five or ten US troops are dying every week? </p>
<p>Are we doing such a bangup job of protecting the innocent Iraqi (which is difficult, because many of the “enemies” are dressed in Iraqi uniform)? </p>
<p>How many more deaths till you have had enough, FF? 3000? 30,000?</p>