A Memorial Day Lie

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by tabs
Shaun I wonder how U see me, I think I represent a more or less conservative view point, however I don't see myself as being an ideolog. I see myself as having some vision and stating what I see as the Reality of a situation. I don't see myself as going away with the next election. I also don't see the Right Wing disappearing either, if the WH becomes Blue with the next election U will hear one he11 of a howl come from that Right Wing eschlon.

Also the United States is committed in Iraq whether we like it or not, whether it is a Blue or Red President. The next President will just have to make up some excuse to the American People as to why we have to stay in there. U see that is HOW BAD of a mess GW and HIS CREW got America into. There is virtually NO WAY OUT, unless the USA is willing to RISK EVERYTHING. Think in terms of a World Wide Depression that would make your Grandpas Depression of the 30s look like high times. Now do U really want to risk that, or is your Porsche worth the blood of a few more American soldiers.

Ted, above all, even though we've only buffet'd twice, I see you as a friend. After that, a great and glorious eater. But seriously, we've had good, articulate conversations and I know your perspective comes from the Right. But you aren't Far Right. And you aren't an Ideolog, maybe a romantic pragmatist. the right needs more like you.

I don't buy into the NO WAY OUT concept, and as you have seen, I'm on many sides of one fence on this issue. I can tell you that I find the "if we set a deadline, we signal to our enemies to just wait it out" a bankrupt argument. the fact is that it will take 3 to 6 months (3 if we leave heavy, cold war footprint gear like tanks for the Iraqi's...6 if we take it all back) to pull out of Iraq. I give our enemies exactly 30 days to figure out that we are leaving and then mount a furious campaign to take over the country. of course we would have to step back in to stop them since it's a fact that the Iraqi Army will never be up to the task. that's a sad fact. Perhaps it would be better to leave, let the country fall into ruin and then rain upon it a furious rage never before seen. tough to say.

The above scenario, the only probably one for years to come, is what led me to my new theory that we need 300,000+ troops in Iraq. Why? Well, first of all, from a diplomatic standpoint, Bush has significantly weakened the U.S. Proof? Condi Rice begging the Iranians to stop the inflow of trained insurgents, terrorists, IED's, etc. WTF is that all about. Iran is our enemy with nuclear capabilities and we are begging them to not destabilize Iraq?

So, we need XX,000 troops, heavy armor and helicopters flying 24/7 on the Iranian border, Syrian as well to help stabilize the country. I once believed that a diplomatic solution was the only one. But now I see that the combination of our failure in diplomacy, combined with Iraqi government caring more about lining their pockets while in office than building a democracy combined with our unique creation of an Entitlement State in Iraq, means that diplomacy is not going to work. Ever.

We need 200,000+ more active troops (yes, 300K troops means 500K total including support) to turn the country upside down and clean it up, all while winning hearts and minds by getting the electrical grid up and running for more than 3 hours a day, etc.

At the same time, we need to catch and destroy Bin Laden. Did you know that we give Pakistan $1B of taxpayer dollars ANNUALLY specifically to catch OBL? There's some good ROI, huh?

catching OBL and putting his head on a pike on the WH will show that when you kill 3,000 Americans, there's a price to pay...though I know the Right likes to say "we'll marginalize you" instead. NO! We've squandered huge opportunities for the U.S. to maintain and build respect in the world, and OBL is at the top of the list.

sort of rambly, sorry, but I wanted to sort of explain where I am coming from. Of course we are committed to Iraq, but not for the talking points the WH puts out.

[tabs]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Ted, above all, even though we've only buffet'd twice, I see you as a friend. After that, a great and glorious eater. But seriously, we've had good, articulate conversations and I know your perspective comes from the Right. But you aren't Far Right. And you aren't an Ideolog, maybe a romantic pragmatist. the right needs more like you.

I don't buy into the NO WAY OUT concept, and as you have seen, I'm on many sides of one fence on this issue. I can tell you that I find the "if we set a deadline, we signal to our enemies to just wait it out" a bankrupt argument. the fact is that it will take 3 to 6 months (3 if we leave heavy, cold war footprint gear like tanks for the Iraqi's...6 if we take it all back) to pull out of Iraq. I give our enemies exactly 30 days to figure out that we are leaving and then mount a furious campaign to take over the country. of course we would have to step back in to stop them since it's a fact that the Iraqi Army will never be up to the task. that's a sad fact. Perhaps it would be better to leave, let the country fall into ruin and then rain upon it a furious rage never before seen. tough to say.

The above scenario, the only probably one for years to come, is what led me to my new theory that we need 300,000+ troops in Iraq. Why? Well, first of all, from a diplomatic standpoint, Bush has significantly weakened the U.S. Proof? Condi Rice begging the Iranians to stop the inflow of trained insurgents, terrorists, IED's, etc. WTF is that all about. Iran is our enemy with nuclear capabilities and we are begging them to not destabilize Iraq?

So, we need XX,000 troops, heavy armor and helicopters flying 24/7 on the Iranian border, Syrian as well to help stabilize the country. I once believed that a diplomatic solution was the only one. But now I see that the combination of our failure in diplomacy, combined with Iraqi government caring more about lining their pockets while in office than building a democracy combined with our unique creation of an Entitlement State in Iraq, means that diplomacy is not going to work. Ever.

We need 200,000+ more active troops (yes, 300K troops means 500K total including support) to turn the country upside down and clean it up, all while winning hearts and minds by getting the electrical grid up and running for more than 3 hours a day, etc.

At the same time, we need to catch and destroy Bin Laden. Did you know that we give Pakistan $1B of taxpayer dollars ANNUALLY specifically to catch OBL? There's some good ROI, huh?

catching OBL and putting his head on a pike on the WH will show that when you kill 3,000 Americans, there's a price to pay...though I know the Right likes to say "we'll marginalize you" instead. NO! We've squandered huge opportunities for the U.S. to maintain and build respect in the world, and OBL is at the top of the list.

sort of rambly, sorry, but I wanted to sort of explain where I am coming from. Of course we are committed to Iraq, but not for the talking points the WH puts out.

Shaun is that U talkig? Our only difference come in the definition of "No way out" We are stuck with dealing with Iraq in one way or another and leaving is a worse choich then a Surge.

Boy "Romantic" Whew..that bad huh?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by tabs
Shaun is that U talkig? Our only difference come in the definition of "No way out" We are stuck with dealing with Iraq in one way or another and leaving is a worse choich then a Surge.

Boy "Romantic" Whew..that bad huh?

A surge is worse. More needless American deaths, zero ROI on the Action in terms of strategy. The Surge is a bumper sticker marketing TACTIC, nothing more. I'd still like to know what our strategy is. It seems like iraq is nothing more than a string of tactics.


Yup, a Romantic. It leaks out here and there: dogs, food, guns, grilling...

[the]

I think I see the seeds of the "exit plan" being laid by both the dems and the repubs.

First, we'll say what a great and noble thing we did trying to help Iraq become a democracy. We've lead that horse to water, but dammit, we can't make it drink. It's their own fault.

Second, we'll say that Iraq is a soverign nation that doesn't want us there anymore, so we really have no choice but to leave. It's their own choice.

[tabs]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa



Yup, a Romantic. It leaks out here and there: dogs, food, guns, grilling...

Ohh U mean a capacity to LOVE...YEP.

[jyl]

Originally posted by techweenie
Did Bush politicize a national holiday? If so, that merits a poltiticized response. If he did not, then his opponents should refrain as well.

Yes, he did and has done for year after year.

I have been reading Bush's Memorial Day speeches for the past 5 years.

In 2003 he said that our troops have proven that the moral force of democracy is mightier than the will and cunning of a tyrant. An allusion to bringing democracy to Iraq and deposing the tyrant Saddam. He also suggested that the Iraq war is was a simple question of good versus evil.

"The widow of one of our Marines in Iraq made this point very simply. "There is good and evil in the world." she said, "That's what's going on. And he was the good.""

In 2004 he said that after we were attacked, American soldiers have banished two terror regimes, made us safer, and brought freedom to 50 million. Notice the implication that Saddam supported terrorism and was involved in the 9/11 attack, a claim which Cheney was at the time making explicitly.

"Since the hour this nation was attacked, we have seen the character of the men and women who wear our country's uniform. In places like Kabul and Kandahar, in Mosul and Baghdad, we have seen their decency and their brave spirit. Because of their fierce courage, America is safer, two terror regimes are gone forever, and more than 50 million souls now live in freedom. (Applause.)"

In 2005 he repeated the line about banishing two "terror regimes", bringing freedom to Iraq, and making America safer.

"(Applause.) The war on terror has brought great costs. For those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, today is a day of last letters and fresh tears. Because of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, two terror regimes are gone forever, freedom is on the march, and America is more secure. (Applause.)"

In 2006 he dropped the stuff about bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq, instead arguing that our soldiers fight in Iraq to prevent attacks in the US.

"brave Americans like these, who volunteer to confront our adversaries abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."

In 2007 he went back to saying that the war will bring liberty to millions, in addition to repeating that invading Iraq has made the US safer. He also said that US soldiers are fighting in Iraq today so that our sons won't have to.

In every Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery, for the past 5 years that this war has been going on, Bush has sold us this war.

Every single such speech has featured, right in its center, a sales pitch. This war is bringing liberty and democracy to millions, keeping America safe, overthrowing tyrants and terror regimes, avenging the 9/11 attacks, etc. His speechwriters put these sales lines in the midst of heartbreaking anecdotes about brave soldiers and grieving families. Right where no-one dares question them, or even question the President, for fear of being cursed at for daring to politicize a memorial.

Who's politicizing Memorial Day? It's pretty darned obvious.

[fintstone]

That is funny! What would you expect the President to speak about on Memorial Day when we are at war? The easter bunny? Of course he spoke about the war, the troops in the field, and why they are there...just as any President would in time of war. Sheesh.

[jyl]

Yup, and if he may speak up on Memorial Day to argue his case for this war, then us mere citizens can speak up too.

[fintstone]

Most folks would consider speaking about the war on Memorial Day to be the President's duty...and you would likely be calling him deficient or cowardly if he chose not to. A rational person would not claim he was policizing the day unless he spoke at length about the Democrats "cut and run" strategy and their providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy...or the Republican's moral fortitude in backing the war. He certainly did not use it to attack Democratic presidential candidates for their cowardice or their lack of character in voting for the war and now that the war is not so popular...pulling for our retreat/defeat.

[the]

Originally posted by jyl
Yup, and if he may speak up on Memorial Day to argue his case for this war, then us mere citizens can speak up too.

I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

[jyl]

Originally posted by fintstone
Most folks would consider speaking about the war on Memorial Day to be the President's duty

I would probably agree. A major war, that looks set to keep going for several more years, is not a topic that can be easily avoided on Memorial Day. It should not be avoided. And the President should not have a monopoly on speech, on this day or any other.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by jyl
I would probably agree. A major war, that looks set to keep going for several more years, is not a topic that can be easily avoided on Memorial Day. It should not be avoided. And the President should not have a monopoly on speech, on this day or any other.

He does not..you have every right to make the families of those at war and of those killed in the war to feel as badly as possible any day of the year....but as some have posted, many of us consider it in extremely bad taste not to give them just one day without added grief.

[cairns]

I think you're beating a dead horse Fint.

Jyl doesn't seem to get it and I don't think he's going to.

Ironically I read this AM that John Edwards had advised his supporters to refrain from protesting at events and otherwise speaking out on Monday. I can't stand Edwards but give him credit for that.

[tabs]

Edwards has had a taste of humility with his wife being Terminally Ill.

[tabs]

JYL seems to as obsessed with the war in Iraq as GW is.

[cairns]

I find the Bush haters to be just as obsessed as the Clinton haters were. No sense of middle ground or compromise. I love a good debate but there was that quote about arguing with the pig.