Mr. President, stop the speeches and do something

Temperatures soar in Iraq and U.S. soldiers suit up and admirably do their duty, trying to quell the seemingly unending insurgence and periods of civil unrest and merely survive until their tour of duty is up.

It should have been over by now.

If we ran a poll at the beginning of this war with Iraq, almost all of the responses would have said that this clash would last weeks or months, not years.

But it has been years and it will be years more. President Bush has stated that we will not leave Iraq while he is in office, so for people with family or friends in the military, get ready to ship off some more care packages, if you ever stopped.

The constant reminders of war can be unbearable, and lately there have been more reminders coming from the Bush Administration, practically every day since last Monday. Pundits suggest that the American public can expect more and more of it as the November elections approach. The President is trying to persuade voters that Republicans are better than Democrats at protecting the country.

Nice try, but the non-stop message is starting to fall on deaf ears, and the only people who are lapping up the President’s rhetoric are the people who have supported him all along.

Even some of the people who have been on his side in the past have ditched him, most recently Colin Powell and hugging buddy John McCain. Powell recently stated that the President’s proposal to re-define the Geneva Conventions would encourage the world to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism” and “put our own troops at risk.”

Mr. President, if I may, stop putting our soldier’s lives at risk!

A while back, you told the insurgents and the terrorists to “bring it on.” Well, they brought it and they will now keep on bringing it at the pace they choose for, oh, probably forever.

You see, the insurgents, terrorists and bad guys over there, they don’t have to do much to keep this whole thing going. A suicide bomb here, a detonating device there, some quick skirmishes with guns every now and then, and this thing just keeps on going.

The deaths of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis we are training to take over this incredibly insane battle get reported, because U.S. soldiers dying is important. It just is.

And with each bad report, you hop on the television and tell us to stick it out. To what end, Mr. President? When is thing going to be over? When every terrorist or insurgent is dead? When everyone finally dances in the streets and throws roses at our feet?

Neither of those situations is ever, EVER, going to occur.

And while I’m on the subject of training Iraqis, is it any wonder that the process to hand things over to them is going so slow? Would you speed things up if you knew you’d be the ones in charge of this situation once the U.S. goes home?

Gee, thanks, but we’re busy for the next couple of lengths of our lives.

Nothing about this mess is easy. It never was and it never will be. And maybe we can’t leave right now, but we need to leave sooner or later. There is no sense in fighting a decades-long war and really stirring up a hornet’s nest. The longer we are there, the more terrorists we create.

Can you imagine what the kids who are growing up witnessing these daily horrors are going to be like after several more years of this? It isn’t our fault, but they don’t know that. They will never know that.

The battle to defeat terrorism needs to be in the hearts and minds of that generation, Mr. President, and we can’t fight that battle over there. We aren’t their enemy, but it doesn’t look like it to them, as long as we are occupying their country and fighting with people in the streets, while their world continues to blow up around them.

One more thing, Mr. President, just because we’re fighting, doesn’t mean we’re protecting the country. Our daily battles in Iraq aren’t what’s stopping terrorist attacks in the states.

I know you’re a baseball fan, but have you ever heard the saying that the “best offense is a good defense”? Our troops, especially the members of the National Guard, would be serving us better by helping out with Homeland Security and maybe working borders, ports, and, you know, places in our nation.

You are our President for two more years, so let’s work on some new ideas. You have the power in both the Senate and the House right now and you have people on both sides of aisle wanting to see some new results.

Let’s stop the speech-making, which only continues to divide this nation (didn’t you say you were a uniter?), and get to work. Find some folks who don’t agree with you (throw a rock and you’ll hit one) and find some middle ground that we can all accept.

You’re a tough guy, Mr. President, and you’re smarter than many people give you credit for. You know how things work and I think that, while you don’t like them, you also know your limitations.

Please stop trying to overrule the Supreme Court on the issue of interrogating and trying enemy combatants. This isn’t an issue that needs to be played out in court and nobody wants to see the U.S. give the world a big thumbs-up on just making their own rules when it comes to war. Certainly not Senator McCain, who spent years in a tiger box in Vietnam.

Admit that you don’t know everything — that nobody does — but you are willing to consider that there may be an alternative approach to this war, other than just sticking it out.

You aren’t sticking it out over there — neither am I — but thousands of U.S. citizens are, sir, and they know that the reasons why they are have changed a few times already and that they might not be coming home as soon as they had hoped.

Consider a new approach for them and the people who want them home.

Geez Michael, are you buying into liberal rhetoric?

Submitted by fancypants on Wed, 09/20/2006 - 8:17am.

You make some pretty good points and I do agree that we need to change some of our tactics in regards to how we deal with the war in Iraq. A clear message of what milestones need to be reached before we remove our troops from Iraq should certainly be on the top of any kind of list.

On the topic of what interrogation methods our military and the CIA can use when dealing with terrorist masterminds I have to strongly disagree. The Geneva conventions are dealing with military combatants. Terrorists are NOT military combatants. If we apply that label of soldiers (who should always be treated with honor, regardless of their nationality) to these terrorists, we have truly lost sight of what this war on terrorism is about.

Military combatants can merely be asked their name, rank and serial number. Is that really all you want from a known terrorist? Come on, get real!

This war on terrorism is about the fight between good and evil. Evil extremists who fight western civilization and all it stands for, regardless of the consequences. They fight against liberty, equal rights for all and freedom.

I'm not saying that the motives of the USA and the administrations are always pure and honorable; however, at the end of the day I'd much rather support our President and his decisions than those of Osama and his goons.

THat's really what this is about: Do you support your elected official, whether you agree with his decisions or not, or are you a sore looser? It is fine to disagree, but at the end of the day our President deserves and needs our full support, as well as our sonds and daughters serving in the military.

login to post comments

Geneva Conventions

Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 11:59am.

If I may offer some clarification as to the Geneva Conventions, fancypants is absolutely correct that terrorists are not considered military combatants. In fact, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the arbiter of the Conventions, addresses this issue on their web site and specifically states that terrorists are not military combatants. Nor are they POW’s. However, terrorist are covered under the Geneva Convention III Common Article 5, which states: “Should any doubt arise whether any of these persons belongs to one of the categories named in the said Article, that person shall have the benefit of the present Convention until his or her status has been determined by some responsible authority.” This is precisely the article on which the Supreme Court ruled in Hamden vs. Rumsfeld when they decided that the proposed military tribunals were not a “responsible authority.” There are several sections defining what a “responsible authority” is. Bottom-line is that Congress has to act.

It is very significant that terrorists are specifically excluded from military combatant status because this limits their rights considerably. Most importantly, they are subject to murder charges being brought against them, whereas a military combatant cannot be tried for murder if they kill someone in the course of combat. Terrorists are also not given POW status. Again, several consequences accrue; the most important is that a non-POW can be detained even after the combat period is over, whereas a POW must be released at the end of hostilities. After an acceptable “responsible authority” is established (coming soon!), the terrorists will surely be ruled not to be military combatants.

Regardless of whether a person is a military combatant, all persons captured in the course of hostilities are covered under Article 75 – (Fundamental Guarantees) of Additional Protocol I. There are no exceptions to who is covered and it is Article 75 which prohibits torture and also contains the prohibition against “outrages upon personal dignity.” This is the section that the administration wants to modify because even if the terrorists are brought before an acceptable “responsible authority” and ruled to be terrorists, Article 75 would still prohibit their being tortured.

login to post comments

Common-sense Should Rule The Day!

Submitted by Imhotep on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 10:06am.

No Public [elected] Official deserves the peoples support if they are wrong in their reasoning and decision-making. Respect from the people must be earned by all Elected Officials. Based on your logic, if an Elected official would say to you let's go sky-diving without a parachute, trust me, just stay the course; you would gladly jump to your death. Well, some of us aren't suicidial.

login to post comments

Common Sense

Submitted by lawaboveall on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 10:18am.

Common Sense would also tell you that no one is perfect. To expect elected officials to be perfect is absurd on the face. Everyone makes mistakes, including you, for this posting and the ridiculous analogy that you put here.

We make decisions based on many factors and information that we get from others. If that is flawed, then certainly the decision is flawed.

If a mistake is made, there should be an opportunity to rectify it.
If it becomes a pattern, then action should be taken.

To set yourself up as the sole judge of what is, or is not a mistake is, in itself, a mistake of extreme arrogance.

login to post comments

Understanding Is What You Need............

Submitted by Imhotep on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 10:34am.

I never said anything about expecting our Elected Officials to be perfect. Don't put words in my mouth. Instead, check your comprehension skills before you attempt to insult me. You on the other hand are willing to give inept politicians the freedom to destroy us all. I think they have had plenty of opportunity to make corrective action, but, chose to do otherwise. Get it!

login to post comments