Supporting Our Troops
Check out this magnificent slide show, and ask why The White House isn't doing something like this . . . (HT: Dan M, New England Republican).
posted by LadybugUSA at 5:56 PM
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Contact & Other Information
Contributors
Key Links
Previous Posts
- More on Alito and CAP
- "Slow Joe" Biden Nailed by FNS
- Thank You, CSM
- Undermining Troop Morale
- Calling the MSM to Account
- How Times Change . . .
- For Those Who Didn't Get It the First Time . . .
- Proselytizing Teacher
- Boston's "Holiday Tree"
- No Draft Dodger
23 Comments:
Wow. The silhouette of the salute to the fallen comrade was chilling. The whole thing was spectacular and worth the time to download and view. Thanks, Carol!
Romance!!! What a great substitute for competent leadership and a coherent plan! Bravo!
Here's my non-parody song/video aptly titled "BushWhacked".
I'm an American Veteran (Infantry Hospital Corpsman, USMC/USN) and a songwriter opposed to Bush's war.
Please share the links.
High res. 9.3 MB
http://www.tomsongs.com/images/Bushwhacked_0001.wmv
Low res. 4 MB
http://www.tomsongs.com/images/Bushwhacked.wmv
Pardon the following paste but the maker of the video says what needs to be said, "There are so many strong feelings that run deep in times of war especially with those who suffer great losses. During such times it is easy to lose sight of the end goal. Over 30 years ago, this nation sold a part of it's soul to purchase peace. The hole left behind continues to fester to this day in the hearts of men and women who gave so much for what they felt was a just cause. They returned to an ungrateful nation that had bought into the spin of certain poorly-principled, ill-informed, and perhaps even over-privileged individuals. We have learned our lesson to be supportive of those we send to defend us. But once again the spin begins spouted by strangely familiar voices.
This presentation is dedicated to those who will "stay the course." They know that if we do not, it is our children or their children that will have to finish or even repeat what we have started and those who have sacrificed so much will be all for not."
I went to tomsongs.com and am saddened that so many want to profit from tragedies. I would like to see two pictures, first Cindy Sheehan receiving the American flag at her son's funeral, second Cindy Sheehan sitting, forlornly, at a table to sign her book.
Dodger,
To clarify, TomSongs music/film resources are entirely free of charge. Zero commercial interest. Purely from the heart!
As for your comment:
"This presentation is dedicated to those who will "stay the course."
I believe that most of America would like to have the "course" for our troops in harm's way defined clearly and finally with no rhetoric or lies.
Sincerely,
Tom
TomSongs
Rhetoric is defined as the effective use of language. How is one to explain the "course" without using rhetoric? Carol has previously defined "lie." Clearly, lies or no lies, any war is a day to day reactionary exercise. Unlike TV wrestling one doesn't write a script, at least one the enemy is likely to follow.
enough said:
link: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33305
Letters to the Editor for Monday, November 28, 2005
Stars and Stripes
European and Mideast editions
(EDITOR’S NOTE: These are the letters that appeared in each edition of Stripes on this publication date. Click here to jump ahead to the Pacific edition letters)
War based on a lie
Weapons of mass destruction? I’m still looking for them, and if you find any give me a call so we can justify our presence in Iraq. We started the war based on a lie, and we’ll finish it based on a lie. I say this because I am currently serving with a logistics headquarters in the Anbar province, between the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I am not fooled by the constant fabrication of “democracy” and “freedom” touted by our leadership at home and overseas.
This deception is furthered by our armed forces’ belief that we can just enter ancient Mesopotamia and tell the locals about the benefits of a legislative assembly. While our European ancestors were hanging from trees, these ancient people were writing algebra and solving quadratic equations. Now we feel compelled to strong-arm them into accepting the spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney Spears on MTV and driving to McDonald’s, but do you honestly believe that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds want our Western ideas of entertainment and freedom imposed on them? Think again.
I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who lied, cheated and pillaged his own nation. But how was he different from dictators in Africa who commit massive crimes again humanity with little repercussion and sometimes support from the West? The bottom line up front (BLUF to use a military acronym) is that Saddam was different because we used him as an excuse to go to war to make Americans “feel good” about the “War on Terrorism.” The BLUF is that our ultimate goal in 2003 was the security of Israel and the lucrative oil fields in northern and southern Iraq.
Weapons of mass destruction? Call me when you find them. In the meantime, “bring ’em on” so we can get our “mission accomplished” and get out of this mess.
Capt. Jeff Pirozzi
Camp Taqaddum, Iraq
I thank Capt. Pirozzi for his service. But the sad fact is that he loses any credibility when he begins parroting Democratic talking points, including the canard that we went to war based on a "lie."
No one is trying to foist the worst elements of American culture (like Britney Spears) on Iraqis. Rather, we have removed a psychopathic dictator and his even more psychopathic sons -- at the same time eliminating the possibility that he would procure and share WMD's with terrorists. And judging from the lengths to which most Iraqis have gone to participate in their own elections, the many Iraqis signing up to defend their country -- whether as soldiers or policemen --it seems clear that the Iraqis value the opportunity to participate in their country's life far more than Captain Pirozzi acknowledges. As for the "nightmare situation" that Pirozzi says we created, well, it's one where girls now can be educated and women can participate in civic and professional life, relieved of the fear that they'll be plucked off the streets to serve as one of Qusay Hussein's sexual playthings or hauled off to a rape room.
It's sadly evident Captain Pirozzi is no admirer of the country whose uniform he wears. That's clear from his jaundiced reference to "spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society" that he defines as Western-style freedom. Given that's the case, why would anyone expect him to be a supporter of his mission?
If his view of the situation in Iraq is as flawed as his assessment of America and what it stands for, then his views on Iraq aren't really worthy of being taken seriously.
Have you heard the story about the fire that erupted the other night? A neighborhood was set ablaze, a huge five-alarm fire that took all the city's firefighters to contain.
While the fire raged, it became clear that the arsonist was none other than the fire chief. As the townspeople encircled him with clenched fists, the chief fidgeted. Finally, as the crowd grew ever closer, he put on the most anguished expression he could conjure, pointed to the firefighters and cried, "You all shut up! Look what you're doing to their morale! I can't believe you are questioning me instead of supporting these firemen! They're bravely fighting this fire for you and they don't deserve your criticism!"
But this story had a happy ending. After scratching their heads trying to follow his twisted logic, the townspeople just shrugged, grabbed the chief, and threw him in the fire.
Of course, Carol. It would take a parrot to know one, wouldn't it? You, like so many other GOP parrots, immediately seek to impeach this man's (Captain Pirozzi's) opinion simply because it doesn't comport with yours. How do you know what it is like on the ground in Iraq?! You don't! Captain Pirozzi, who happens to have had infinitely more contact with everyday Iraqis than YOU knows what the reality there is. YOU are the one who lacks credibility.
But like all the others of your ilk, you latch onto the tiniest shred of his words to turn the argument into one of patriotism. He has a jaundiced view (and who among us wouldn't under those conditions?), therefore "his views on Iraq aren't really worthy of being taken seriously."
You really are a piece of work.
Thank you Dan M, and Carol. It is the big picture that counts.
Oh, we've already invited a decades-long civilizational collision with our bomb-the-turbin-heads mentality. Furthermore, the invade first, ask questions later (er, never) strategy by the current idiot-in-chief has pretty much assured that when a TRULY IMMINENT threat looms, there will be no coalition of the willing next time.
Now that we've radicalized all one billion Muslims into hating us, it's going to take a lot more than our current troop levels to conquer them all. So I suggest all of you who are so committed to this civilizational collision to get to polishing those boots and strapping on your rifles, 'cause it's going to take all of us to do the empire's dirty work.
And it'll take a lot more of your precious tax dollars too; you know, the ones we're not paying NOW for the quarter-trillion dollar fiasco underway. Unless, of course, you have in your sights another country with much better spoils than Iraq.
You are absolutely correct in that the bomb-the-turbin-heads mentality is a nascent response to what has for centuries been a cultural chasm between Islam and the West. We have finally stooped to the same unsophisticated level of the terrorists by lumping Muslims into the same category: that of a Godless, uncivilized people who are all bent on our destruction (the mirror image of their -- the terrorists -- view of us Americans).
It's not convenient to dwell on those pesky details you alluded to in your previous post, the ones that might complicate BushCorp's mission to pave over Iraq with Air Force bases and runways. No, it's much easier to dwell on the so-called "big picture" of thousands of years of turmoil (which, I might add, included a few Crusades), throw up our hands, and declare occupation, conflagration, and domination to be what the doctor ordered.
If we could have some honest dialogue in this country about what was really behind this thrust into Iraq, instead of the usual conflation about 9/11 and Iraq -- obfuscation that continues to this day in spite of official findings to the contrary -- then we would be a lot closer to figuring out how the hell to get out of there and restore some of our credibility.
But instead, we're still arguing about stupid things like defending our "manhood" (??!!) in response to their (the nebulous "they") contempt for us. So we'll just show them who the bigger men are. This, in a nutshell, is what got us into this war: the big macho Texan needed to show what a stud he is. Screw the details!
If his motives hadn't been so shallow and self-serving, he and his underlings wouldn't have to defend those motives by hiding behind the troops ("You're hurting their morale!) or impugning the masculinity and/or patriotism of anyone who dares to question him.
Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism.
Dan M wrote, "Conflating 9/11 and Iraq. Not me, rather those uncomfortable facts." By uncomfortable facts, I assume Dan M doesn't mean the following...
We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.--National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
He also probably doesn't mean this statement...
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th,"--President George W. Bush
No, Dan wants us to "Go read Stephen Hayes book about the relationship between OBL and Saddam." Here are some comments from others on Mr. Hayes' reportage in this matter.
The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.
Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.--Department of Defense Press Release on the Feith Memo and Stephen Hayes' use of the same.
W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], said yesterday that the Standard article "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"
Another former senior intelligence official said the memo is not an intelligence product but rather "data points ... among the millions of holdings of the intelligence agencies, many of which are simply not thought likely to be true."
--Walter Pincus (Washington Post) on the Feith Memo and Stephen Hayes' use of the same.
A leaked Defense Department memo claiming new evidence of an “operational relationship” between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s former regime is mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials more than a year ago—and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. -- Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball (Newsweek) on the Feith Memo and Stephen Hayes' use of the same.
In order for Dan's recommendation to be meanigful, you have to believe Stephen Hayes and discount the claims made by Newsweek, the Washington Post, the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Defense and the President of the United States. I personally won't choose to go down that route, but your mileage may vary.
Dan M said, "If you think that the world is going to be a tranquil place with neighbors motivated by the darkest of impulses latent in Totlitarian Islam, you are beyond the constraint of reason."
And how does attacking Iraq, a secular nation, and converting it into an Islamic Republic like Iran going to help us constrain Totalitarian Islam? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Duh-bya's motives were, yes, shallow and self-serving. Dan, of course, begins repeating some of the RETRO-rationales for the invasion, beneficial corollaries that MIGHT emerge from this debacle (assuming, as Mr. Twister points out, the whole place doesn't emerge a clone/extension of Iran or descend into civil war).
What got us into the war were the base impulses of this small, greedy, simple-minded man. When he took office, he was already sporting a raging stiffie to avenge Daddy. That personal vendetta started all of this in motion. The rationale(s) followed.
I believe in my bones that what kept the moron in his seat for seven minutes after being told 'the United States is under attack' were thoughts of how this event could be manipulated to rally the public into backing his foray into Iraq. He knew who was attacking even before he got out of his chair (even a dolt like him must have remembered that PDB from a month earlier that apparently was only good for kindling for the ranch's chimenea). And so it began, the ad nauseam conflation of 9/11 and Iraq.
Because it was a personal matter, the commander-in-chief had diminished objectivity. Combine diminished obectivity and raging machismo (the kind that reverberates throughout Dan's writing) and you get poor decisions that, while they might fulfill certain Americans' desire for vengeance, do not reflect smart policy.
Cherry-picked intelligence, an opposition cowed by the patriotism card, and heightened paranoia following 9/11 all contributed to his scheme. He had the country right where he wanted us -- aching for something tangible to blow up instead of scouring caves for the real culprit of 9/11. And most Americans drank the Kool-Aid.
But his poor leadership qualities did not begin with, nor are they limited to, this misguided war. With the help of the hoofed one, Karl Rove, he has fused together a powerful amalgam of voting blocs who would not ordinarily be aligned: the God/guns/gays crowd so dazzled by his rhetoric that they end up (largely) voting against their own economic interests; the wealthy who in spite of their personal fiscal conservatism are all too willing to abandon that philosophy at the federal level, as long as they get their chunk of the treasury; and the military/industrial complex, who wield more power in Washington than any standing committee in Congress.
Slaving to the interests of these factions has made him the worst president ever, and I am sickened by all that he has squandered that I hold dear. I love my country and my opposition to the war then and now does not make me a "Saddam-lover" or an abettor to the terrorists. These are the slings and arrows used by those who have nothing else to cling to.
Well Carol?.....we're all ears!
Of course, Carol. It would take a parrot to know one, wouldn't it? You, like so many other GOP parrots, immediately seek to impeach this man's (Captain Pirozzi's) opinion simply because it doesn't comport with yours.
That's usually why we try to impeach someone's opinion.
How do you know what it is like on the ground in Iraq?!
How do you know there even is an Iraq? Ever been there?
You don't! Captain Pirozzi, who happens to have had infinitely more contact with everyday Iraqis than YOU knows what the reality there is.
Well, then, I guess we better do whatever it is Captain Pirozzi wants.
YOU are the one who lacks credibility.
Don't forget reality as well.
But like all the others of your ilk, you latch onto the tiniest shred of his words to turn the argument into one of patriotism.
You mean the words where he declares President Bush lied? Since President Bush didn't lie we have to give little credibility to someone who says he did. What the President said was, "Based on intelligence given me by our intelligence agencies, by international intelligence agencies, Saddam either possesses weapons of mass destruction or the capability of developing same." Here is the scenario the Bush lied crowd envision:
Mr. President, there are no WMDs in Iraq. But you need to say there are.
Remind me, why?
Because the other 17 reasons you have, the no safe harbor doctrine, etc. aren't sufficient. The fact that Saddam has declared he will start developing WMD as soon as the sanctions are lifted and place them in the hands of terrorists isn't sufficient for the dopes out there.
Some say the intelligence was cherry picked. Namely, the president had intelligence available that others did not have. Colin Powell says all other intelligence was readily availableto others, upon their request, and further, the other intelligence even more forcefully supported the condlusion that Saddam had or would be able to develop WMD. So what, then, was the intelligence that was passed over? And since Bush never gave as a reason to pre-empt Saddam a link to 911, or to alquaeda, there just isn't any "picked-over" intelligence.
Dodger, it was widely known before the war that Saddam had no WMD. Saddam told us this repeatedly. It was widely known before Columbus' voyage that the earth was flat. And that Columbus would sail off the edge. He didn't. Those who said the earth was flat were liars.
Oh, you'd like that wouldn't you, Dan? We shut up and let you and other "real" men like you who know ONLY force take care of matters. Oh wait! We already did that! And look where it got us.
There's your ultimate hottie, Lynndie England, dragging those dirty Muslim men around by a leash. (Do you have anymore of her calendars? I want to send one to Dick. Lynn will wonder why he's so randy this Christmas.)
Then there's Afghanistan, a mission I fully support, by the way, except for the part about your guys nabbing the innocent cab driver and beating him to death. (His innocence was known by several of the interrogators, but heck, why not have some fun?)
Then there are the black sites, some of which are even in old Soviet detention camps. How fitting?
Yes, your idea of doing the "heavy lifting of killing" sure has made us safer. You really are a Bush accolyte, aren't you? In fact, he seems to be the very essence of what you love in a president: "9/11! No need for statesmanship. 9/11! Screw the world. 9/11! We're Amurrca, dammit! 9/11!"
Yep, you found yourself the perfect knuckle-dragger for the Oval Office.
Oh, and belated thanks for winning the Cold War for me. I nearly spewed my beer when I read that.
See you over at a more recent post.
Thanks, Dan M, your words are insightful and helpful towards understanding an untraditional war in traditional terms. War is an ugly, savage enterprise. During the Indian wars it was a common tactic for U.S. soldiers to attack an unprotected village populated only by women and children. The theory was that the men would then have to come out from hiding and fight in the open. Our military has not resorted to this tactic but our enemy has. They attack unprotected women and children as a tactic to draw our forces into range of fire and bombs. Maybe what is needed is more media coverage that identifies this heinous aspect of our enemy.
Post a Comment
<< Home