* Column about soldiers’ sacrifices: President must be held accountable

Search the Archives

Contact Information

The Citizen Newspapers
310B. North Glynn Street,
Drawer 1719,
Fayetteville, GA 30214

For Advertising Information
Call 770-719-1880
or Fax 770-719-1976

Email us your news!
Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Sports
Names & Faces
Weekend
Churches
Weddings & Engagements

For technical difficulties
Click here to email the webmaster

Letters to the Editor

Column about soldiers’ sacrifices: President must be held accountable

Tue, 09/05/2006 - 4:24pm

By: Letters to the ...

I agree with Mr. Garlock’s recent editorial that we are not earning our soldiers’ sacrifices, and I want him to know up front that I consider him an American hero for his service in Vietnam.

His editorial, “We are not earning our soldiers’ sacrifices,” Aug. 30, raised a number of important questions and though I am loathe to raise the ire of such a fine editorialist and the author of a wonderful book about his experience as a Cobra pilot in Vietnam, I would like the opportunity to respond to some of his questions.

Mr. Garlock asked, “What kind of people are we that we send these fine young people off to war and then encourage the enemy trying to kill them?”

My response would be that the question is false. No one is encouraging the enemy to kill our troops, and if Mr. Garlock knows anyone who does, he should name them so that they can be held up to public condemnation.

It is easy to set up a straw man and then knock him down, but I would ask in response does anyone reading this know of anyone in the United States encouraging the enemy to kill our troops?

Of course not. This is merely a way to impugn the patriotism of those of us who do not and have not supported a misbegotten war entered into on false premises and then bungled by the neo-conservatives who control the administration, abetted by a spineless Congress.

Mr. Garlock also asked how we could be encouraging our enemies by publicly slamming our president. In a recent speech by Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, he reminded me of a quote by a great Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, who said: “The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

The truth is that the president and his administration declared an unnecessary war against a country that posed no threat to the United States. In the conduct of this war, and against the advice of his military advisors who knew better, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney devised a course of action in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib which has led the United States into the shameful quagmire of torture and “extraordinary rendition.”

The truth is that the administration knowingly used falsified information to justify invading Iraq and has continued to link Iraq and al Qaeda even though now even President Bush admits that there was, in reality, no connection.

The truth is that the administration failed to plan for the aftermath of their invasion and was apparently so ignorant of the region that the President declared it a “crusade” and was then astonished by the worldwide backlash by Muslims.

The truth is that the administration and its allies have diverted the United States military from the fight against al Qaeda and real terrorists to pursue the neo-conservatives’ desire to overthrow Iraq at whatever cost under whatever pretext.

And finally, I am tired of people asking how we can say we support the troops without supporting the war and this administration. I’ve got family in the 3rd Armored Division Mechanized and in the 82nd Airborne who just returned from Iraq and a friend who just completed a tour and is on the way back.

I do support the troops, and I do not support the war or the administration which has recklessly endangered them.

How is it supporting the troops to commit them to an elective war without proper planning? How does it support the troops to send them into a foreign country in inadequate numbers? How is it unpatriotic to criticize the civilian leadership of our country when they so totally miscalculated almost every aspect of the war, so convinced that we would be welcomed as liberators and that roses would be strewn at our feet that there was almost no planning for the aftermath of the invasion?

How is it supporting the troops to blindly and obsequiously follow a President and Secretary of Defense who have been shown to be wrong about almost every public utterance they have made about the war and who are apparently clueless as to how to resolve the debacle they have created?

Iraq has now become a training ground for terrorists, has fractured and destabilized the Middle East and has made my country less safe, not more secure.

What am I supposed to do? Become another sycophant for the administration? Just not notice that within the next few weeks more U.S. soldiers will have died in Iraq than U.S. citizens died on 9/11?

Why? So that the neocons can continue to be unchallenged when they trump a useless and unnecessary war instead of admitting that we were wrong to go into Iraq; continue denying that Iraq, before the war, was not linked to the attack on our country; and avoid recognizing that because of our reckless invasion we have destabilized the region, inflamed our former allies, sullied the reputation of the United States and turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists?

Well, please excuse me for speaking out about it. I am not cowed when you imply that I am not patriotic, that I am a sympathizer with the terrorists, that I am an appeaser and that I do not support our troops.

And I do not fear history’s judgment for my position. I hope that this has answered some of your questions.

Jeff Carter
Peachtree City, Ga.

Mr. Carter is the son of former President Jimmy Carter.

Actually someone DID encourage our enemy to kill our troops

Submitted by birdman on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 5:34am.

Jeff,

First let me say congratulations and hang in there. Your letter was by far the most articulate and well thought out of the group. And to think you actually signed it! The blogs it has created have the usual rhetoric you find around those who cannot use facts to support their position. There are too many "gee I served so my opinion must be right" comments. Well, I, too am retired military and my son is in his sixth year as a Navy fighter pilot. So now that I must be an "expert" let me add some comments. You hit all the issues right on the head. Please don't let the neocons around here silence you as Terry Garlock has tried to do with his original letter. If we sit and tacitly support a bungled administration then we simply become like the Germans in WWII that failed to voice opposition to Hitler (now before all you neocons jump on me I am not comparing Bush to Hitler, simply trying to point out the danger of unfettered silence). So as Teddy Roosevelt so eloquently stated we must continue to question our government. By the way, for a group of "the President is always right" neocons, they sure seem to have no problem questioning your dad or Bill Clinton. Guess "patriotic support" only flows to one party.

Anyway, I would like to address your comment "No one is encouraging the enemy to kill our troops, and if Mr. Garlock knows anyone who does, he should name them so that they can be held up to public condemnation." Well, it seems we do have one prominant American who did exactly that...George W. Bush. Do you remember his great rallying cry of "bring it on" when talking about the insurgency? He directly challenged the insurgents to attack our troops. Now I admit he didn't encourage them to actually "kill" our troops, only to "try" and kill them. Unfortunately they have become quite successful at their trade.

So, add "bring it on" to "crusade" and "war of ideology" and all the other buzz words Bush has uttered.

It appears we are in this war for the long haul. Do not allow them to silence you.

Sticks and stones

Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 7:38am.

So, is your point that had President Bush NOT challeneged tha islamo terrorists, they would not have attacked Americans again? There would be peace in Iraq and the Brits would not have found threats to blow up US bound planes?

To steal a phrase from the CBS news, "it's time to face a hard, cold fact. Militant Islam wants to kill us just because we're alive and don't believe as they do".

Thank You for your Letter

Submitted by Jersey Girl on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 8:27pm.

Mr. Carter -

I just wanted to take a moment and say Thank You for your Letter to the Editor. If you look in today's paper, you'll see that the majority of the Letters to the Editor were all agreeing that we should not be participating in this war and that President Bush has a horrible misjustice to the people of the United States!

I was excited to read all of the comments showing people are finally seeing Bush for what he is - someone that got into office simply on his father's coattails - and someone with an ego so large that he'd rather watch the country faulter and end up with the largest deficit in history, than admit to a mistake and take advice and try and rectify his errors!

Again, thank you. It was refreshing to read your letter.

Coattails?

Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:09pm.

Oh you mean W riding his fathers coattails like Jeff Carter's brother is riding Jimmy Carters coattails in his Senate bid in Nevada. Ohhhh...those coattails. Wow Joisey Goil Thanks.

W & Coattails

Submitted by bladderq on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:31pm.

I wish he were riding his father's 'tail. His dad was at least a centerist that understood diplomacy and allied action. His son is a a neo-something that made a deal w/ the religious "right" & Pat (God talks to ME) Robertson. At least God told Pat that global warming was real.

The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree

Submitted by thebeaver on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 7:06pm.

Well, I guess this letter proves that the proverbial acorn doesn't fall far from the terrorist appeasment tree. Jeff, if your father had the stones to confront evil in the first place, our great country wouldn't be in this situation. Former President Carter, in my opinion, is a coward and a traitor. He bashes our President on foreign soil, and should be tried for treason.

His Opinion

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 9:27am.

How is Carter stating an opinion on w. any different than when bush sr. criticizied Clinton when Clinton was a sitting president?

We're protected

Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 9:19am.

Fortunately, he has the Constitution of the United States to protect him from your opinions. Much to your chagrin I’m sure.

Dear Norwester1

Submitted by Jersey Girl on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 8:34pm.

You are so neo-conservative it's nausiating to read responses like yours! When a person writes an article outlining all of the things they believe to be true, why is it that people like you don't know how to respond with a true rebutal. All you know how to do is insult!

In short . . . you're an idiot!

You see, I would have debated your response, if you actually wrote something intelligent. But then, blind flag wavers that just scream patiotism simply because they follow a president, whether a good or bad one, usually don't have anything intelligent to say!

Quote of the Week

Submitted by muddle on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 3:51pm.

I am not entering into the fray here. I'm not sure I've taken in the full context of the debate.

But, forgive me. One of my daily tasks is to read and assess the writing of students who are learning to articulate and defend their views. As a result, this quote from Jersey Girl--whoever she is--leaped out at me. I nominate this as the Fayette Quote of the Week:

"why is it that people like you don't know how to respond with a true rebutal. All you know how to do is insult!

In short . . . you're an idiot!"

Oh I See

Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:14pm.

Norwester1 did exactly what you're doing here. Now we know how the ultra-libs do it. Thank for your fine trashing example there Joisey.

Norwester1; question for you:

Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 7:30pm.

Please tell me how you serve your country?

What did Bush 1 and Reagan do to fight Islamofascists?

When is the last time you felt your president was more smarter than you was?

Please tell me how bad a situation has to become; how incompetent civilian leadership has to be, or how long Osama Bin Laden has to remain free before you will raise your sheepish voice in demands of accountability from your Elected Public Servants????

Kevin "Hack" King
USAFA 89, USAFRES, A-10, T-38, blah blah blahh

"What did Bush 1 and Reagan

Submitted by thebeaver on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 7:57pm.

"What did Bush 1 and Reagan do to fight Islamofascists?"

More than yellow-belly Carter and Billy-Bob Clinton

The President IS accountable

Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:49am.

Jeff, you start your response by qualifing the Moveon.org, not in our name, Cindy Sheehan, ANSWER fringe description of PARTISANSHIP.

"those of us who do not and have not supported a misbegotten war entered into on false premises and then bungled by the neo-conservatives who control the administration, abetted by a spineless Congress."

Like it or not, much of the garbage we are dealing with today is due to INACTION by both Clinton and Carter. Weakness like the inactions of those former Presidents has emboldened our enemies. Should I call them names like misbegotten enablers, bungled by liberals?

You state:"The truth is that the president and his administration declared an unnecessary war against a country that posed no threat to the United States." The last time I checked most DEMOCRATS agreed that Saddam had WMDs and was a threat because he could supply terrorists. You can google the 2003 statements by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and many others supporting the war. Your OPINION that the war was uneccessary and posed no threat are your OPINIONS. Strategically how can a democracy next to an Iranian facist state be a bad thng? How can freeing millions of brutally oppressed people in Afghanistan and Iraq be bad? Would you prefer Saddam still be in charge?

I could depate point by point your "truths" but you have your talking points and will not listen to opposing opinion.

I will state that in my opinion Iraq has now become a dying zone for terrorists, has a Contitution and an elected government and in time, with proper support will make my country more safe, and more secure.

Jeff, just what former allies have we enflamed? Were they truly allies or are they looking out for their own best interests financially like the Oil for Food scandals, or Russian and French arms sales to Iraq? Many of our former allies have their own internal problems thanks to open borders and violent Islamic extremists. Their economies are stagnant. Their opinions do not concern me, but our security does. America was liked for eight years under Clinton because we did NOTHING to combat terrorists.

If you are concerned about our reputation from the CORRUPT and scandal ridden UN then you are very naive.

Oh and by the way, I am the son of a former WWII Vet and Union Steamfitter who was just as good as anyone else's daddy.

Rather than attack the president, why doesn't your party come up with a PLAN, Oh and just saying we would have done it better doesn't count. Your only plan is to attack, attack and attack anything this president or republicans do. You sir are a Yellow Dog democrat. No you are not "My country right or wrong", you are "my party right or wrong".

The rest of the quote?

Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 1:25pm.

Is: "My country right or wrong. When right to be followed; when wrong to be corrected."

Decatur said it first and best!

Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 1:42pm.

QUOTATION: Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.
ATTRIBUTION: Stephen Decatur (1779–1820), U.S. naval commander. Toast given at Norfolk, April 1816. Quoted in Life of Stephen Decatur, ch. 14, Alexander Slidell MacKenzie (1846).

proposed at a banquet in Norfolk, Virginia to celebrate Decatur’s victory over Algerian “Barbary pirates.” The words were revived in a speech by Carl Schurz (1829-1906, German orator, later U.S. general and senator) to the U.S. Senate, Jan. 17, 1872: “Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.”

Don't Forget the Gipper!

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 9:04am.

There were a couple of presidents in between Carter and Clinton.

Let's see who could it have been?...........hmmm oh .....thats right, they were republican presidents to boot. The lovely regan and bush 1 hmmmm how could we leave those two great guys out?? That is 12 yrs of mistakes between the 2 of them. There is enough blame to go around, isn't there major?

Allies

Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 8:50am.

In the latest Pew Global Attitudes Poll released June 13, 2006 tracking “Favorable opinion of the United States” over several years, they found that in Great Britain favorable opinion of the US dropped from 83% in 2000 to 56% in 2006. Favorable opinion of the United States in France dropped from 62% in 2000 to 39% in 2006. Favorable opinion of the United States in Germany dropped from 78% in 2000 to 37% in 2006. Favorable opinion of the United States in Spain dropped from 50% in 2000 to 23% in 2006. Favorable opinion of the United States in Indonesia dropped from 75% in 2000 to 30% in 2006. Favorable opinion of the United States in Jordan dropped from 25% in 2002 to 15% in 2006. Favorable opinion of the United States in Turkey dropped from 52% in 2000 to 12% in 2006. Favorable opinion of the United States in Japan dropped from 77% in 2000 to 63% in 2006. Favorable opinion of the United States in India dropped from 71% in 2005 to 56% in 2006.

Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries say that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In Great Britain 60% say the world is less safe with only 30% saying the world is safer.

These numbers are also reflected in the World Public Opinion poll and the BBC poll. The polls also show a marked decrease in people who believe that the US is a leader in human rights and a marked increase in people who believe the United States uses torture.

I await your analysis of how these countries are not our allies, or how decreasing the number of people who believe the US is a leader in human rights or increasing the number of people who believe the US engages in torture strengthens the moral authority of the United States or promotes freedom or adds to the security of our country.

Armymajor full of hot air

Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 6:57pm.

Army major, do you have a life? Do you not get tired of zipping from message board to message board listing Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, "yellow dog democrats", and the like as the true misguided among us? Honestly, I believe you may be senile and blinded by misplaced anger. Here's something for you to stew on from a "yellow dog democrat" that, inconveniently for you, has dedicated a lifetime to military service supporting THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!

You mentioned Iraq is Clinton and Carter's mess. Did you leave a president or two out who fit between those administrations? Do you ask why Don Rumsfeld met with Saddam several times in the 80s as they gassed Iranians with our FULL knowledge? You realize we helped them import the ingredients of all the chems they used.

You twist the democratic stance on this war by saying they agreed with the invasion. They voted to let Barny Fife carry a gun. They didn't say, go shoot people who haven't attacked us. Diplomacy is a word we all believed the president could spell.

You ask how a democracy next to Iran can be bad. Lean real close armyguy.... If that democracy consists of majority Shiite Muslems with similar ideologies to Iranians... IT IS BAD FOR US! Like Hezbollah is for Israel; or Hamas. Both groups ELECTED!

You, oddly, ask what allies we have inflamed. Are you in a spider hole? England is jettisonning Blair. Japan ousts their pro west PM, Italy and Spain canned their conservative leadership. Pakistan no longer fights beside us (we trained their pilots only two short years ago). Can you not see the nose on your face? In the last two months I have been to France, Italy, England, Germany, Ecuador, and Greece. You may have done some traveling yourself, but I engaged and talked to the locals. We do not have popular support in any of the aforementioned. You hear it in their voices and see it on their news and in their commentaries.

While you sit in front of your screen typing on how effective the SecDef is and asking, "What plan do the dems have?" Be honest: You know that democrats cannot bring a single bill to the floor. Why? Because your party is in power. Your party is accountable. And all of the Nazi references you can type will suddenly pull success from incompetent leadership and an unprecidented lack of oversight. See you at the polls!!!

Kevin "Hack" King

Can't "Hack" another point of view?

Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 8:14pm.

Welcome back Hack. Yes, a great life thanks for asking. I do not suffer from Post Tramatic Election Disorder. That said, who pissed in your wheaties? I was responding to a particularly nasty and offensive letter. If you notice the pattern here, some partisan attacks what I believe and I respond with another point of view. Isn't that what the 1st ammendment is all about? That's what I dedicated a lifetime to military service supporting THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!

What nazi references are you talking about?

P.S.

I'm a proud conservative and glad yuo have self identified as a "yellow dog democrat". Nothing that PRESIDENT Bush does will ever be right in your party's eyes. Sort of makes the whole honest debate thing mute and forget about bipartisanship, harry Reid admitted that the dems would not work with the majority. Who's being hurtful and dishonest with this country?

P.P.S.

I counter your Rumsfeld met with Sadddam with a Carter returned the Ayatollah and raise you a Franklin Roosevelt assisted Stalin!

Hacked - Off??

Submitted by OldSchoolFootball on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 8:46pm.

As a veteran I have never challenged another's right to an opinion. Hack's anger is only overshawdowed by his ignorance. IF he really was a pilot it seems he would have known that "Bush1" is the youngest fighter pilot to ever be shot down in combat. As for Reagan, seems like he won the cold war...you know, the Berlin Wall and all that trivial stuff. Now granted, Jimmy grew peanuts and Bill liked to bite lips and stain young womens dresses..... and aside from his impeachment and being disbarred was a pretty good ole fella (although inhaling would have been more polite -when in Russia do as the Russians and all that you know). As for Bush2, he is the first President to actually address the issue of Islamic Terrorism. Although I am sure if you could sit down with the terrorists (and don't I wish you could) you could establish world peace, I for one appreciate that at least "Bush2" has the intestinal fortitude to make decisions based on the SCI (Secured Compartmental Information - that one above Top-Secret for A-10 pilots) information he receives and not political ignorance like YOU Democrats are doing. Kum-bah-ya Hack and Semper-Fi!

Islamic Terrorism

Submitted by Jersey Girl on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:01pm.

You're right. Bush2 may be the first President to actually address the issue of Islamic Terorrism. It's a real shame, though, that he addressed it in the WRONG COUNTRY!!!!!

It's kinda like the police going out on a drug raid, and the SWAT Team busting down someone's door, shooting everyone in the house, and then realizing they were at the wrong address and saying Oops!

Of course the only difference to that senario is that Bush still hasn't realized he is at the wrong address!!!

And, as far as your final "Kum-bah-ya" crack - when did it become wrong to want peace? How quickly you neo-cons are ready for war and killing, all in the name of patriotism! Here's an idea . . . why don't you enlist? Why don't you get your sons and daughters, grandchildren, wife and everyone else in your family to enlist if it's such a good thing to be in Iraq? Why don't you go and help Bush Address Islamic Terrorism personally.

At least us Democrats have the nerve to question what our government is doing and admit we don't want to be in the war.

Put your body where your mouth is . . . go fight the war!

Jersey Girl, you want personal information? Okay -

Submitted by OldSchoolFootball on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 10:31am.

A.) I did fight the war. Maybe you should too. What do you think Semper-Fi means?? I noticed you know what Kum-bah-ya is.
B.) YOU better know what country to put terrorists on the defense? That's quite impressive.
C.) What country must the Iranians and Syrians fly across to get to the other (other than Iraq) democracy in the middle east? (...you know, Israel.)
D.) My son returned from Iraq last December. He spent a year with Black Betty (a 50 cal. machine gun for you 'code pink' types).

So, in summary, why don't you simply move to a more peaceful country and get away from all this hate filled (9/11) war mongering, say, North Korea, Syria, France, Iran, Somolia?? (Oh, and since your emotive response tells me reasoning with you would be futile, but in case you feel the need to ask - I served in South Korea, Kuwait, and Iraq too). Have a nice day Jersey Girl .... peace out!

Dontcha loveit

Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 11:04am.

Don't you love it Jersey Girl when the final argument is: "Oh, Yeah! Then why don't you just leave!" Bet he was crushed when the Republicans changed the Congressional dining room's Freedom Fries back to French fries, thereby undoing what was arguably their finest accomplishment of the whole legislative session.

Stick To Your Alledged Facts

Submitted by Git Real on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 11:37am.

You attempts at humor suck.

Bush 1, et al

Submitted by bladderq on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:22pm.

I believe Bush 1, the youngest pilot to be shot down, is the last and only Bush to be tested in combat. Granted no one dare to invade Texas (or ALA) while W was tooling around. There are those 2 cute twins that could enlist. Jeb has a daughter that could use some direction in life but I think she's disqualified. Neal (remember the savings & loan scandal) has a couple but in the fine Cheney, Stockton, et al tradition: I've got better things to do. Makes me proud to be a stand up 2nd lottery draft dodger.
The war in Iraq was personal. It could never be won without allied support and it NEVER will. It is not a country...it is an asseblage.

Famous Dems service

Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:33pm.

Dean, bad back but went to ski
Reid?
Pelosi?
Ted Kennedy guarded NATO after cheating scandal chased him out of school.
Clinton, draft dodger, joined ROTC to avoid draft, got deferment, quit, went to smoke pot and protest with hot English chicks.

So now National Guard sevice is dishonorable? You slay me.

More Famous Dems Service

Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 9:23am.

You forgot Jimmy Carter. He served the second longest of any President in the 20th century.

Honorable

Submitted by bladderq on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:45pm.

National Guard would be honorable service if you got in honorably..ie: not on your Dad's 'tails. At least Bill and I protested an un-just (another un-winable) war horonorably. We said, "Hell No We Won't Go!" The chicks were just an aside.

How was Canada?

Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:50pm.

Bet your a big Carter supporter because of the amnesty!

There is a big difference with this war.

1. All volunteer service.
2. This war is winnable.

What is the same?

1. The media is focuing on shaping the news, not reporting it.
2. Millions will die if we pull out.

They also serve...

Submitted by bladderq on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 10:20pm.

It is not un-patriotic to disagree with your government. That's government not to be confused w/ country. I never left and going from draft # 9 39 52 10 to lottery # 186 wasn't called.
1. This is an all volunteer service? At best it is paid mercenary service. You seen the money they wavin' at these kids?
2. A winnable (sic) war? What in the hell is in that corn cob pipe you be smokin'? I want some of that blonde Lebanese or that Afgan hash.
You really think we are going to win a war in a place that is not a country but a collection of peoples. Any thing we create will fall apart as quickly as we leave. You obviously know nothing about the history or dynamics of the region.

1. Media's focus? I guess they could be reporting on all the oil that is pumping out of the ground? Well, no they can't. I guess they could report how safe it was to drive from d'town to the airport? Well, no they can't. I am not real sure the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under the Saddam...at least they knew what they were dealing with.
2. Millions will die? According to some on this blog site they are godless non-believers who mean US all harm anyway. Is this the 'Nam blood bath mentality? Who's at fault? Who created the sides? I wonder if I will like Iraqi food as much as Thai & Viet? Because I guess we'll have to let our allies in.

You left out the biggest difference

Submitted by Basmati on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:59pm.

You left out the biggest difference between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war:

George W. Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam!

18 reasons why I am a Republican

Submitted by OldSchoolFootball on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 6:31pm.

Cynthia McKinney, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton, Shelia Jackson-Lee, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Marion Barry, Teddy Kennedy, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, Howard Dean, George Soros, Cindy Sheehan, Ray Nagin.

19 1/2 reasons to be a Republican

Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 6:50pm.

OldSchoolFotball - good list of the 18, but after reading Jeff Carter's letter - add him and his Dad - Jimmy to your list.

He actually said "I support the troops, but not the war" How do you let your mind get that convoluted? Maybe Howard Dean sends him talking points each morning.

Let's make it an even 20

Submitted by blabbermouth on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 7:18pm.

and add John Murtha to the list.

As of today

Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 9:01pm.

according to the Pentagon,
there are 2,666 reasons I'm glad I'm not a Republican.

As of today...

Submitted by kimberlyinptc on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 10:33pm.

According to Wikipedia:

"The Iran hostage crisis was a 444-day period (about 14 months), during which student proxies of the new Iranian regime held hostage 66 diplomats and citizens of the United States inside the U.S. embassy in Tehran. The standoff lasted from November 4, 1979 until January 20, 1981. During the crisis, some hostages were released, but 52 were held until the end. The United States launched a rescue operation, Operation Eagle Claw, which failed and caused the deaths of eight servicemen. Historians consider the crisis to have been a primary reason for United States President Jimmy Carter's loss in his re-election bid for the presidency in 1980.[1]. The crisis also punctuated the first Islamic revolution of modern times"

That's 66 reasons why I'm glad I'm not a Democrat, or a Carter for that matter.

Kimmy... 66 + 8 = 74

Submitted by Git Real on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 10:45pm.

Historians consider the crisis to have been a primary reason for United States President Jimmy Carter's loss in his re-election bid for the presidency in 1980. Sorry, I can still see the burnt remains of our boys sprawled out on that desert floor. Didn't want to forget them.

Not to mention the runaway intrest rates and the highest gas prices ever when adjusted for inflation. I guess the closest example we have today of a do-nothinger president would be our do-nothinger congressman.

Sorry Git...Semper Fi & HoohRah

Submitted by kimberlyinptc on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 10:56pm.

Didn't mean to forget the brave ones. By the way...where's the cat?

We are glad you're not either

Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 10:03pm.

Wow, leave it to you to take the low road and use our honored dead for your argument.

I'm proud of the courage and honor of all but a fraction of our troops today. Reenlistments are high and recruitment keeps making it's goals, so it seems those that wear the uniform don't share your opinion. Except those cowards in Canada.

Search the Archives

Navigation

Contact Information

Column about soldiers’ sacrifices: President must be held accountable

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options