posted March 31, 2007
I do not understand all the Republican rhetoric about handing a victory to the enemy if a withdrawal date is set for the Iraq war. I do not understand why this is telling the enemy our game plan or strategy.
Does Bush plan on leaving the troops over in Iraq forever? He keeps stating that the troops will come home when the job is done, whatever that means, but when he feels the job is done, or whoever the next President is, when he/she feels the job is done, and the withdrawal of troops is announced to the country, won't "the enemy" know our plans then as well? Won't that also be handing the enemy a victory? Isn't this also giving away our game plan?
Unless Bush intends a permanent occupation of Iraq, this rhetoric makes no sense to me. Does he plan on sneaking all the troops out of Iraq in the middle of the night once he feels the mission is accomplished, for real this time, only to have the enemy wake up, scratch their heads and say, Now where did they go?
Some may reply, well they won't come home until the enemy is defeated. Well since Iraq is in a civil war, it is hard to pinpoint exactly who the enemy is, don't you think? And the real enemy here is a mindset, the mindset of radical Islamic extremists who hate the West and Israel. This mindset continues from generation to generation. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens - including women and children - who had nothing to do with Sadaam's regime have died in this war. Perhaps we are actually helping the enemy by raising up a new generation that hates America and Israel with a passion never known before.
Did anybody else see that special on the news about all the children in Iraq with extreme psychological and mental trauma because of the constant gunfire and explosions? There is little help for these children because the thin resources available are aimed at children missing skin and limbs. These children who wake up screaming every night have nowhere to turn. Thank God we liberated them.
At this point, would it be unreasonable to impeach President Bush? Now of course some people do not understand what impeach means. It does not mean to be removed from office; it means to be brought to trial. Because this war was started based on two premises - the presence of WMDs and a connection to 9/11/01, and because neither of these have surfaced, is it unreasonable to bring the President before Congress and Senate on trial and force his administration to present the evidence used to establish these premises?
Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Bush's 2nd term has been an extreme letdown. I voted for him in 2004 and even supported going into Iraq like most of America. The only war I was alive for prior to March 2003 was the Gulf War, so in my mind, I imagined a similar experience for the Iraq War. Swift victory, quick results.
Though I am traditionally Republican, I applaud the Democrats for forcing the President's hand on this issue. Vetoing this bill will be Bush's way of telling the nation, I will not negotiate. I will not move to the center. I will not bend, buckle, discuss, or acknowledge any authority in America except me.
So now, what can the Democrats and my fellow disgruntled Republicans do? Count down the days until Jan. 20, 2009, and wait on the world to change.
Sadaam is dead. Iraq has a new government. If their police and security is weak, that is their problem. I say not one more dollar, not one more death, bring our troops home.
D. Thomas Jenkins
DThomasJenkins@yahoo.com
* * *
Waking up this Saturday morning, I was reading a few news stories. I ran across your opinion. A few things popped out at me. I hope my tone is not too aggressive, honestly, I aim to simply inform and show a soldier's perspective. I am not alone in most, if not all of my comments. My military friends and I discuss our country's political condition quite often. The aggressivness should only be taken a zeal, due to the closesness this Iraq issue is to my heart. And I decided to cc the Chattanoogan in hopes they would consider some alternate opinions.
First, it is easy to see someone's bias in the way they reference MY commander-in-chief. "Bush" is typically the extend of the respect he gets from the bashers. Not "the President"or "President Bush." It is nearly 100% in media writings where the author harbor some amount of resentment and anger toward the man. Unfortunate he has become the villian for our popular culture. Finally a man more leader than politician, but vilianized by those without the integrity and fortitude to lead. So as I continued reading, I was not disappointed. The article held true to it's "tell".
I should tell you, I am a captain in the U.S. Army, so I daresay that my grasp of military tactics and operational strategy trumps that of most journalism majors out there. The military spends quite a bit of training effort to teach young officers about America's weaknesses and how to help to minimize them. We are taught that the "national will" is the number 1 weakness of America. That we quit due to fading public support. Mogadishu, drag a few American bodies through the streets on TV, we're gone. Vietnam, Jane Fonda (and John Kerry) tell of all of the "war crimes" American soldiers
committed. Now Iraq, we have Abu Ghraib, the Haditha murders, and Walter Reed, all spotlighted by the fundamentally, anti-war mass media. And thanks for effectively calling this generation of soldiers "baby-killers." The trauma that I personally inflicted I'm sure will be felt for generations.
You must think that down deep in their hearts, most journalists KNOW that the constant barrage of stories that show America effectively losing the fight for Iraq have a negative effect on the troops there. Why do they continue to bury this emotion? This "we support the troops, but not the war" nonsense does not fly. It doesn't even pass the common sense test. But it does rally those without the capability of independent, critical thought to your cause. Let me tell you this, as an Iraq veteran, the American people
give the soldier NO REASON to wake up in the morning, be proud to be a soldier, and be motivated to fight for victory when you tell him or her that what he is fighting for is WRONG. Shouting, Bush lied! There are no WMDs!
Continuously repeating news of American casualties. Do you not believe this has no effect our fighting strength? It does. It does not "support the troops." Oh yeah, and the "bring our boys home" mantra... keep it. They're not YOUR boys, they're mine. Having lost eight of my West Point classmates in the war on terror so far.... Jim Gurbisz bunked next to me for a whole
summer. Todd Bryant stood three yards from me for our entire basic training, he left behind a wife of three months who I'm sure wants to be proud of what he was doing. KJ, Kevin Smith, spent about as much time in my room during our four years of college, as he did his. He was one of the two goalies on the soccer team there, my roommate being the other.
Do you support these soldiers?
Died: 16-MAR-04 ADAMS, Michael
Died: 31-OCT-03 BRYANT, Todd
Died: 04-NOV-05 GURBISZ, James
Died: 01-SEP-03 JOYCE, Richard
Died: 27-JUL-04 KANG, Zane
Died: 01-APR-06 MOSHIER, Timothy
Died: 08-DEC-05 SMITH, Kevin
Died: 10-APR-04 SPRINGSTEEN, Erin
I do. But mass media says they died for NOTHING. Why do they desire to turn their pride into blame?! Bush led them to "slaughter." Couldn't we
honor their memories and warm the hearts of their families by finishing the mission that they started?!
Do you know the real story of why we went to Iraq? Or have you just collected sound-bytes from NY Times and CNN headlines?
Here's what I believe the facts are, and remember... I am no journalist, but oddly have gone straight to the sources.
In September 2002, President Bush (I'll observe the respectful title of the man's position that so often seems to be discarded) began making a strong public case for the next target in the war on terror. He began by trying to get the international community to recognize the threat. In a September speech to the UN he pleaded that the international body back their threats
to the rogue state and the President attempted to form an international coalition to liberate the Iraqis.
The case was also made to the American people and to Congress. Congress gave the thumbs up!
By the way, President Bush's was not the only administration to recognize
this regime as a threat.
A draft resolution was forwarded by a four-nation coalition requesting military action in Iraq. This resolution was rejected by Russia, Germany, and France.
Any one of these three had the power to veto military resolutions in the UN, but could only stand firm in their own "counter alliance."
Yet, a coalition (though one predominantly comprised of American might) was formed and war began. Did you know 28 other countries assisted with military forces??
So the international community was convinced, both American congress houses were convinced, the American people were convinced. So off to war we went.
It took all of 6-9 months before our unified effort was undermined by dissent of the power-hungry and cries that "Bush is a liar!"
Impeach who? I agree that the President shares some of the blame, because everyone was duped by intelligence that didn't accurately portray what was happening on the ground. But there are many others that deserve their fair portion too. But are we really going to bring him to trail in front of a 77-23 majority that drew the same conclusions and made the same decision as him?! It is mere rhetoric! Unfounded sensationalism. Oh did you not hear
about the WMDs? Chemical weapons were encounter twice by my unit alone. Yeah, those stories were only run in small town papers, and were glossed over in the mass media.
But why didn't we hear this? Because we're too busy reporting casualties.discrediting those "in power."
If we set a withdrawl date, we have effectively told the enemy. You're
going to win. If you can hold your ground until XX/XX/2008, then we're going to leave you alone.
A country in a civil war. Thank you for regurgitating what is played on CNN. In fact, from all of my friends currently deployed, they're saying the biggest killer now is the Iranian made shaped charges that are being used in the attacks now. And that most raids of safehouses and caches show a stong Iranian influence in funding and training of the insurgents. That sounds like a war to me. We are effectively fighting IRAN on Iraq soil. When we pull out, we leave Iraq to the mercy of their rogue neighbor.
Is Iraq the slaughter we're making it out to be? Here's the official numbers:
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates1.pdf
Do the years "at war" seem like an unholy massacre to you? 7,500 U.S.
servicemen and women were killed during President Clinton's two terms. News to you? Did you know that in California, since the overthrow of Saddam in 2003, more the 10,000 people have been MURDERED? Yet, what gets the news?
If what you are said about your past is true, you used to support the war and have now turned to the side of the protesters, then I am truly sorry.
Thanks for adding to the masses that embolden the enemy my brothers are
facing today. And thanks for your support.
Ryan Deaderick
rdeaderick02@hotmail.com
* * *
Captain Deaderick, I find many problems with your response, sir. While you deserve respect for your service to this country, your assertions should be held up to scrutiny.
I first disagree with your assertion that Bush is more leader than politician. Being unable or unwilling to admit mistakes can seem like resolve on the surface, but in fact it is a dangerous facade. This President has absolutely no resume to suggest that he has leadership qualities. His misuse of words often gives him the appearance of a "regular guy" when in fact he has been given everything that he has ever had with no effort of his own.
Secondly, your point about the military deaths during the Clinton presidency is misleading at best, besides the fact that it was a nearly direct quote from Rush Limbaugh. Nearly 30,000 military personnel were killed during Bush 1/Reagan. These deaths include accidents, suicides, sickness and military combat. I am not sure if your point was that the troops might as well die in combat because, statistically they would probably die in an accident or due to illness on base. Military deaths due to combat have risen from 0.6 per 100k(1996, the highest under Clinton) to nearly 40.0 per 100k since 2003. This does not include the tens of thousands of severely injured troops so far.
While your comparison to the murders in California is accurate (a comparison directly from worldnetdaily.com, the #1 most visited conservative website), it too is misleading. California has a population of 34 million, while the military deaths in Iraq were from the population of under 150k. California = 7 murders per 100,000, -U.S Military deaths have averaged 750 per year per 130,000. None of this includes the possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths.
As far as your recollection of the buildup to the war, let me tell you what I remember. I remember this administration, using the so-called liberal, anti-war mass media, to tell the people of this country how the next thing we might see could be a mushroom cloud. I remember a country and world who were willing to give this President the benefit of the doubt about WMD's and the danger of Iraq, even though the weapons inspectors were confident that Saddam was not an Immediate threat. I remember the President going to Congress and explaining that he needed the authorization to use force as a tool to get Saddam to obey sanctions. I remember him looking Congress and the people of this country in the eye and telling us that he would only use force as a last resort. We now know that war was already inevitable and had been in the works for months, and years. I Do Not remember him asking for, or Congress giving him the authorization to occupy a foreign country, for what may in all reality be decades.
You made the assertion that it is the Iranian influence that is killing our troops, and not the "CNN" created civil war. Yet it is our own military experts and leaders telling us that the insurgency is 90% Sunni. You would not know that if you listen to Rush, Hannity, The President or any other of his supporters in the "liberal media". They want us to go to war with Iran. The truth is that the Sunnis are backed by the Saudis. This is very inconvenient for this administration, but in retrospect it makes perfect sense. 15 Saudi Arabians fly planes into the Trade Towers, we attack Iraq. Saudi supported Sunnis cause 90% of the insurgency in Iraq, we attack Iran. And yet, Saudi Arabia, the real support behind 911 and the most oppressive Islamic government, still gets invited to camp David and the White House.
I cannot begin to claim that I know what it must be like to lose friends or family in war. Your perspective is appreciated and respected. I only ask that you not discount patriotic Americans who feel the best way to support the troops is to not have any more of them killed. The mission our troops were given has been accomplished, several times. The goal posts are continually moved back. Unfortunately, but predicted by many including The Bush 1 administration, we are considered occupiers. You say we should honor the troops by staying and achieving victory, and I ask you how long would it take before you no longer had the desire to remove a foreign occupier if we were the ones being occupied. From your biography and obvious patriotism, I would guess never.
While I believe President Bush is sincere in his belief that his war is the right thing to do, I believe his is horribly wrong. I also know that he has had and continues to have people in his ear who, regardless of their motives, are becoming enriched by this war. The people who profit from wars will always advocate war. The Republican President Eisenhower warned this country to be afraid of the day that there was a President who knew less about war then he did, due to what he called the military industrial complex. While I am not suggesting this is the sole reason for our war, it would be just as foolish to believe it is not a factor at all.
While I disagree with your opinion, I thank you for your service and I sincerely hope that you will not be adding any more names to your list of lost friends.
Bryan Vance
Johnson City, Tn.
bvdisc@gmail.com
* * *
10,000 deaths in California since Sadam was overthrown from power in 2003?
By golly, this calls for a total troop withdrawal from California and redeployment to Okinawa. Where is Congressman Murtha when we need him? Where are the rest of our Congresspersons when we really need them?
"We sleep peacefully in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf." ~ Orson Wells
Thank you for your service, Captain Deaderick, and for being one of those rough men.
Royce E. Burrage, Jr.
RBurrage@bellsouth.net
* * *
Mr.Vance's arguments are just a regurgitation of the anti-President Bush/anti-freedom/leftist rhetoric that has been floating around for several years now. It is really tiring and counterproductive.
Just a few facts are all I need to know: (1) Sadam Hussein used WMDs to mass murder thousands of Kurds, so there were in fact WMDs. (2) When instructed by the United Nations to disarm and prove that he no longer had WMDs Sadam refused. (3) The U.N. and the U.S. Senate approved the war.
You can shake it, you can bake it, you can turn it inside out and outside in, twist it in whichever way, but there is no doubt that it is an absolute lie to say that there were no WMDs.
The war in Iraq may have been clumsily initiated and clumsily conducted, but it is not illegal or immoral or a fraud. I have a son on the ground in Iraq conducting foot patrols and taking fire. And contrary to the express wishes of Mr. Vance and the shouted demands of the new Congressional leadership, I do have the right to question anyone's patriotism when they say to me, "I support the troops but not the mission."
My right to question people's motives is based on the absolute moral authority given to me by, of all people, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. If you recall she shouted down Secretary Rice when she was testifying before a Senate inquisition telling her that the Secretary had no right to speak on the war since the Secretary had no family that could become involved in the war. Well, I have a dog (a devil dog in fact) in the fight. So based on the most honorable senator's statements I must be correct in everything I say.
C.L. Miller
Chattanooga
semperdad@netzero.net
* * *
"15 Saudi Arabians fly planes into the Trade Towers, we attack Iraq."
Oh, please.
Actually, I think our military attacked Afghanistan after those terrorists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center because Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the act and the Taliban were protecting him inside their borders. Iraq was attacked, and Sadam Hussein was brought down, because he refused to abide by the terms and conditions of a cease fire agreement he signed to save himself in the first Gulf War. Even I know that and I'm a girl, an old girl but still a girl. Could you please get your facts straight, Mr. Vance?
I can't claim to know anything about war. I've never served. But I do know that in a war after all of the worst fighting is done our troops have to stay to maintain the peace. Maybe that makes them occupiers, but that's the way it is. If they went in, ran off the bad people, and then left, all that would happen is the bad people would come right back; and we would then be accused of not rebuilding what we had destroyed.
It sounds like the schools in Tennessee aren't any different from here. They don't teach history any more. When I was in school we learned, from history, that after every war was over our troops stayed for a while. We still have troops in Korea, Japan, Germany and other places around the world. WWII has been over for more than 60 years. Why are we still in Germany and Japan? Korea has been over for more than 50 years. Why do we still have troops along the North/South border there?
I accuse my husband of having selective hearing loss and we have a little fun with that. I have to wonder if Mr. Vance isn't suffering from selective memory loss, but his isn't much fun.
Like the gentleman above, Capt. Deaderick, thank you for being one of those rough men, a real man, standing between me, my children and grandchildren, my husband, and the rest of our family and extended family, and those who want to do us harm. Also please know that some of us have family standing at your side. They may not be directly at your side but they're at your side all the same. They're just stationed at different places.
And Mr. Vance, Mr. Jenkins? If you have to hate the United States so much could you please do it from another country?
Barbara Fields
Stallings, N.C.
BF1217@bellsouth.net
* * *
Mr. Vance, your reply is right on, but I fear that it is an exercise in casting pearls before swine. There is a mountain of information available to inform the public that the case for war against Iraq was manufactured for reasons other than those given. But the majority of people are terrified at the prospect of having their world views shattered, so they will not allow themselves to consider it.
From U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who worked frantically to inform us before the war that there were no WMDs, to Bush’s first Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, who revealed that Bush’s very first security council meeting in January 2001 was on the topic of how to divide up a post-invasion Iraq, to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern’s explication of how the intelligence was falsified, to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s exposure of one of the most significant pieces of “evidence” for war—there have been dozens upon dozens of voices crying in the wilderness, trying desperately to get the truth out to a benighted American public.
Some of us listened early and have been working against this obscene war from the start. Others are only now beginning to understand and come around. Many others will continue to cling to their error because they are too proud or too ignorant to do otherwise. The righteousness of our cause has become an article of faith for these people, and you will never win trying to dissuade a person of his or her faith.
I know from history that every period of horror, fascism, and mob mentality is ultimately righted. Even during the Third Reich, there were humane and rational people who fought the Nazis in whatever way they could. Mr. Vance, I thank you for your true patriotism and pray for the day when reason returns to a land that has gone temporarily insane.
Joy Day
joylovesnin@comcast.net
* * *
While I was in Iraq, I had occasion to see numerous small children. They didn’t have nightmares and they had no psychological trauma. They were also dead, heaped into mass graves, courtesy of Saddam Hussein.
President Bush didn’t create Islamic extremists. The United States didn’t create them. They have been murdering innocent civilians all over the globe and will continue to do so until they are themselves killed. You may call it a civil war or call the terrorist “insurgents.” Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Moscow, Indonesia, Paris, Baghdad, or Chattanooga, anyone who tries to kill civilians to advance their political, philosophical, or religious agenda is a terrorist and you needs extermination.
Telling your enemy that you no longer have the will to fight or that your resolve has an expiration date is stupid, gutless, and amounts to surrender. Once upon a time, Americans knew the difference between right and wrong. Presented with the image of an innocent American citizen helplessly kneeling while his head was sawed off would have resulted in a frenzy of Americans racing to arms. Only a truly insane leader would ever have dared hold innocent American civilians hostage.
Japan had the bad manners of attacking Pearl Harbor and we essentially vaporized two of their cities and rightly so. There was a time when those that used the air waves to demoralize our troops were tried for treason. Now, we elect them and give them control of the Senate and House.
These Jihadist animals are murdering civilians all over the world. They openly tell you they want to annihilate Israel and the United States. They have captured and executed our soldiers and civilians. They cowardly bombed the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, attacked the World Trade Center twice, attacked the Pentagon, etc, etc In spite of all this, the only person you wish to stop is George Bush.
Nobody lied to you. Your president told you this was going to be a long, difficult struggle. If you thought we were going to have another quickie war, you need to turn off “Survivor” and pick up a book on Islamic history. If being herded around like shoeless sheep in an American airport or seeing Nick Berg having his head cut off doesn’t get you to the recruiter’s office, I doubt there is anything you would fight for.
The fate of the world is decided between the wolves and the sheep dogs. Hopefully for you, the sheep dogs will prevail.
Jeff Young
Soddy Daisy
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |