[Update & Bump] Support Resolution 636
September 2nd, 2008 by Admin
SORRY, BUT THE COMMENTS TO THIS POST REQUIRE ME TO BUMP IT. We're the number one hit on Google for this topic, and ignorance is abound!
Vets For Freedom has released a new ad urging Congress and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama to acknowledge the surge worked. With all the other frivolous legislation passed in Congress in the past year, this shouldn't be that hard to accomplish. But, would Obama support it?
[update] Because of the liberals coming in here poo pooing this resolution, I'm going to call them out. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the liberals don't like – success!! They are INVESTED in defeat and this resolution would just crush them to have to admit success and victory. Here's the text of Resolution 636 that the liberals disagree with:
Posted in Doing Great Things, Military Perspective, Nigerian ScammersRESOLUTION
Recognizing the strategic success of the troop surge in Iraq and expressing gratitude to the members of the United States Armed Forces who made that success possible.Whereas, by the end of 2006, it had become clear that, despite exceptional efforts and sacrifices on the part of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq, the United States was pursuing a failed strategy in Iraq;
Whereas, by the end of 2006, large-scale sectarian violence was accelerating throughout Iraq, al Qaeda had established significant safe havens there, militias sponsored by the Government of Iran had seized effective control of large swaths of Iraq, and the Government of Iraq was suffering from political paralysis;
Whereas, by the end of 2006, insurgents and death squads were killing more than 3,000 civilians in Iraq each month and coalition forces were sustaining more than 1,200 attacks each week;
Whereas, in December 2006, the Iraq Study Group warned that ‘the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant international challenges in decades’ in Iraq and that ‘Iraq is vital to regional and even global stability, and is critical to U.S. interests’;
Whereas, in December 2004, Osama bin Laden said the following of the war in Iraq: ‘The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War. . . . The world’s millstone and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.’;
Whereas, on January 10, 2007, in an address to the Nation, President George W. Bush acknowledged that the situation in Iraq was ‘unacceptable’ and announced his intention to put in place a new strategy, subsequently known as ‘the surge’;
Whereas President Bush nominated and the Senate confirmed General David H. Petraeus as the Commander of Multi-National Forces–Iraq, a position he assumed on February 10, 2007;
Whereas General Petraeus, upon assuming command, and in partnership with Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the Commander of Multi-National Corps–Iraq, and United States Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, developed a comprehensive civil-military counterinsurgency campaign plan to reverse Iraq’s slide into chaos, defeat the enemies of the United States in Iraq, and, in partnership with the Iraqi Security Forces and the Government of Iraq, reestablish security across the country;
Whereas, under the previous strategy, the overwhelming majority of United States combat forces were concentrated on a small number of large forward operating bases and were not assigned the mission of providing security for the people of Iraq against insurgents, terrorists, and militia fighters, in part because there were insufficient members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq to do so;
Whereas, as an integral component of the surge, approximately 5 additional United States Army brigades and 2 United States Marine Corps battalions were deployed to Iraq;
Whereas, as an integral component of the surge, members of the United States Armed Forces were deployed out of large forward operating bases onto small bases throughout Baghdad and other key population centers, partnering with the Iraqi Security Forces to provide security for the local population against insurgents, terrorists, and militia fighters;
Whereas additional members of the United States Armed Forces began moving into Iraq in January 2007 and reached full strength in June 2007;
Whereas, as a consequence of the additional forces needed in Iraq, in April 2007 the United States Army added 3 months to the standard year-long tour for all active duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the United States Marine Corps added 3 months to the standard 6-month tour for all active duty Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as an integral component of the surge, members of the United States Armed Forces began simultaneous and successive offensive operations, in partnership with the Iraqi Security Forces, of unprecedented breadth, continuity, and sophistication, striking multiple enemy safe havens and lines of communication at the same time;
Whereas, as an integral component of the surge, additional members of the United States Armed Forces were deployed to Anbar province to provide essential support to the nascent tribal revolt against al Qaeda in that province;
Whereas those additional members of the United States Armed Forces played a critical role in the success and spread of anti-Qaeda Sunni tribal groups in Anbar province and subsequently in other regions of Iraq;
Whereas, since the start of the surge in January 2007, there have been marked and hopeful improvements in almost every political, security, and economic indicator in Iraq;
Whereas, in 2007, General Petraeus described Iraq as ‘the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign’;
Whereas, in 2008, as a consequence of the success of the surge, al Qaeda has been dealt what Director of Central Intelligence Michael Hayden assesses as a ‘near strategic defeat’ in Iraq;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge, militias backed by the Government of Iran have been routed from major population centers in Iraq and no longer control significant swaths of territory;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge, sectarian violence in Iraq has fallen dramatically and has been almost entirely eliminated;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge, overall insurgent attacks have fallen by approximately 80 percent since June 2007 and are at their lowest level since March 2004;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge, United States casualties in Iraq have dropped dramatically and United States combat deaths in Iraq in July 2008 were lower than in any other month since the beginning of the war;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge, the Government of Iraq has made significant strides in advancing sectarian reconciliation and achieving political progress, including the passage of key benchmark legislation;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge, the Iraqi Security Forces have improved markedly and approximately 70 percent of Iraqi combat battalions are now leading operations in their areas; and
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge, General Petraeus concluded in 2008 that conditions on the ground in Iraq could permit the additional brigades and battalions dispatched to Iraq in 2007 as part of the surge to be safely redeployed without replacement, and all such brigades and battalions have been successfully withdrawn without replacement: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate–
(1) commends and expresses its gratitude to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces for the service, sacrifices, and heroism that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible;
(2) commends and expresses its gratitude to General David H. Petraeus, General Raymond Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker for the distinguished wartime leadership that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible;
(3) recognizes the success of the troop surge in Iraq and its strategic significance in advancing the vital national interests of the United States in Iraq, the Middle East, and the world, in particular as a strategic victory in a central front of the war on terrorism; and
(4) recognizes that the hard-won gains achieved as a result of the troop surge in Iraq are significant but not yet permanent and that it is imperative that no action be taken that jeopardizes those gains or dishonors the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who made those gains possible.
CJ:
Would you agree that the conditions on the ground immediately prior to the surge implementation contributed with the surge to produce the current result which, as you suggest, "worked?"
We need to tell congress – not to linger in
committee. This does not take much debating
to know this is the right thing to do. They
need to get busy and get it done. You can
forget about Obama, he doesn't honor our flag
let alone our troops.
Harry:
Why do feel Obama does not honor our troops?
CF, are you saying success (which you call "conditions") contributed to success? I'm not sure I understand your question. If you're asking if the surge is not responsible for the success, my answer is no, I do not agree.
CJ,
Did it take you a long time to come up with that double-talking answer?
This resolution is a joke. It's nothing but the so-called "commander in chief" looking for paper validation at the expense of American lives. This is political, not emotional, and dishonorable to those who lost their lives fighting on behest of their country.
Exmil, when you're ready to provide a real argument, feel free to speak up.
Ah, you mean like your non-thinking bs? I'll work on my crap flinging.
Ok, how was that? More your level? Seriously, stating that I don't have an argument is admitting that you have nothing to counter it with.
Again, you still provide nothing. You talk a lot without saying anything at all. It's actually quite the talent you have there. Still waiting on you to come up with something meaningful instead of just empty statements.
Like all liberals, Obama will DENY everything, ADMIT nothing, MAKE counter accusations. Oh yeah, also he will give free health care and money for everybody. Did I miss anything?
Is this serious? This is why our country is going down the tubes. I am suprised that you guys are not blaming Bill Clinton. Can we please come up with some solutions to our problems!! Stop listening to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, ect. and start thinking for yourself!! Do you really believe that Obama hates this country? Come on people, $4.00 gas, crashing economy, is this the best we can do as a country????
There is no evidence that surge, by itself, has worked. Supporting such a resolution would be a fraud. Even General Petraus has agreed that the surge, by itself, is not be recoginized this way. We've paid money to insurgent not to fight, Sunni's turned on Al Qaeda themselves, and violence began the decline before the troops even landed.
I recommend that Resolution 636(b) be supported that recognizes that will we appreciate that troop build up contributed, we recgonize that solider presence was only a small contributor to the decline in violence.
Obama can't make up his mind about anything! He is panicked and doesn't know what to do or say! I support Resolution 636!!! I support our TROOPS!! ~ Your Rightwing GOP Republican! MCCAIN-PALIN 08'
If Obama is going to raise taxes to 50% on people like Bill O'Reilly and so on, then how is that any difference between O'le Vlady's dinasty in Russia and the very communistic objectives which it seems clear to coming from Obama and how he wants to govern the money and control our lousy liberal democratic congress which he will side with and nothing will be done. HAA! Please enlighten me
Dave said: "Can we please come up with some solutions to our problems!!"
Let's hear 'em, Dave! You haven't said anything here to present a solution.
Tim said: "There is no evidence that surge, by itself, has worked."
Another pessimist trying to ignore the facts. Tim, I've written tons of evidence on this site that the surge has worked.
The Surge worked. Get over it, Obama was wrong Bush was right, McCain was right. Double talk? Didnt you just watch the video? I think B. Hussein needs to eat his words and admit, or at least acknowledge he was wrong.
This other video might help sum it all up:
youtube.com/w...ture=related
No evidence the surge, by itself, has worked? You are right! New counterinsurgency tactics implemented by Petraus and Colonel Pete Mansoor. All Al-Qaeda wanted was to kill innocent iraqis, police, govenment officials, among US troops… It took awhile for the Iraqis to realize the US was in it for the long haul. Notably called the "awakening". Awakening movements in Iraq are coalitions between tribal Sheikhs in a particular provinces in Iraq that unite to ensure security. The movement started among Sunni tribes in Anbar Province to become an ad-hoc armed force across the country in less than a year. The rapid growth of the US-funded groups stammered the insurgency. The surge was the final relization that America was staying, this was the only time tribal leaders took America seriously as well as their own future.
Its astonishing to see that some Americans, actually believe that sending our brave troops to possibly die, to protect people that are not willing to fight on our side and a government that is doing nothing politically to settle the problems is a good idea. Our troops are the greatest that is why we must protect them by bringing them home. If you think i am wrong then look up what the surge was suppose to accomplish and see if it has happened. God Bless our troops!
So what is going to happen when the money runs out to pay the SOI? Do you think they are going to keep the guns locked up? We are paying them not to shoot people the Iraqi government is arresting SOI leaders, they will not pick up the tab to pay them and will not absorb them into the army. This resolution achieves nothing except soothe a bruised ego, there are more important issues facing the country.
Instead of McCain saying he supports the troops how about he vote for Vet benefits and the new GI Bill. How about McCain go against Bush and stop blocking the first gulf war POW's lawsuit against Iraq.
Here's your liberal counterpart, Desiree! At least we both admit who we are. Yes- the surge helped to bring down violence in Iraq, and for that I am thankful. Lord knows it was a mess. I can't understand why those on my side of the political spectrum won't just say that. I also don't understand why those on the right can't answer the question around "what next?". The whole point is that we need IRAQ to stand up for IRAQ, and that still isn't happening. Iraq gov't has also started arresting the very insurgents that we managed to move over to our side of the battle- we convinced them to join us, and they did, and now behind our backs the Iraqis are arresting them! The long term strategy still is not right, and I could give a crap what side of the aisle a real solution comes from. I have a nephew in the marines and my concern is that, while he is being loyal to his country and doing ALL that is asked of him, we all bicker about who wears a flag pin, who said "100 years", and who will or won't say the surge worked. Remember who this is about- we are better than this.
I would support this resolution, if those supporting it would support a resolution that starting a war with Iraq to begin with, a country that our own pentagon has ststed, had nothing to do w/ 9/11, was one of the largest strategic and military blunders in American history. McCain can't escape his record on starting the war with Iraq, so he runs to the surge to support his poor judgement.
Please explain what this will accomplish beyond being a tool for the McCain campaign? One idea that may help you is to understand that entertainers such as Limbaugh and Hannity appeal to blue collar thinkers not able to understand the complexity of politics and international diplomatic policy. They are basically carnival barkers getting people of average intellect to throw dull darts at balloons by evoking emotional responses based on an "us verses them" mentality. Which was most recently perfected by a gentleman from Germany during the last World War. Try doing some serious study of history that goes beyond what a high school history book offers. Seek enlightenment and your arguments will be far more compelling than being the " is not , is too " juvenile style of debate.
The less informed need to pick up Michael Yon's excellent book "Moment of Truth in Iraq". It's a quick read.
I hear all this BS about how a political solution is needed, not a military solution. Those that espouse this belief don't understand the role of our military and how a counterinsurgency works to build a nation from the bottom up.
All politics are local and this is how Iraq is being and eventually will be won. The military leaders on the ground understand, through numerous failures and missteps, how to build a coallition with the local leaders in Iraq's cities and small towns. They make a stark contrast between what they can offer Iraqis and what al Quaeda offers. The former is much more attractive than the latter. They are showing these local officials how to step up and take charge of their own situation and they are doing it town by town.
Thank God for the perserverance of the U.S. Military! The cut-and-run's could learn a lot from them.
Give me a break, there is no winning in IRAQ.
You can't fight "Terrorist", anyone who says you can is an idiot.
US army sucks
This is a political joke. Lets spend all of our time trying to get obama to admit something that is only partly true (we still havent seen the political reconciliations that the surge promised, and we are still paying $10bil per month while iraq has a $70bil surplus) … Please people, focus your efforts on something more productive.
I looked at the bill and it is so partisan and the wording is:
(1) commends and expresses its gratitude to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces for the service, sacrifices, and heroism that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible;
(Senator Obama has already agreed and done this)
(2) commends and expresses its gratitude to General David H. Petraeus, General Raymond Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker for the distinguished wartime leadership that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible;
(Senator Obama has already done this too)
(3) recognizes the success of the troop surge in Iraq and its strategic significance in advancing the vital national interests of the United States in Iraq, the Middle East, and the world, in particular as a strategic victory in a central front of the war on terrorism; and
(Senator Obama just recently said that the surged worked, however, this is NOT victory yet. And…the surge was not wholly responsible for the effect of the surge)
(4) recognizes that the hard-won gains achieved as a result of the troop surge in Iraq are significant but not yet permanent and that it is imperative that no action be taken that jeopardizes those gains or dishonors the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who made those gains possible.
I have served as an officer in the military for over 16 years. I am IRR now due to an injury in my civilian life. I supported President Bush and the Republican party since 1976. However, I am suffering now because of this war and the costs and would like to see it ended soon. It is truly time that Iraq take over and they appear to be. So, since this was so partisan I cannot agree that this bill wasn't done to make one political party look bad. I will be voting Democrat for the first time EVER and it was not an easy decision to make. I have put my name and email so that you know this is not a fake. Also, I am female, 52, white, RN and what more can I say.
If the surge worked why do we need legislation to prove it? If the surge worked why aren't the troops home? If the surge worked why are we paying the Son's of Iraq not to shoot us? God Bless our Troops look who their commander in chief is.
As a veteran I would say this. You should take the money you are wasting on this site and on those political ad's on television, and put it to work helping our wounded at Walter Reed Hospital.
I am a vet and I am extremely upset at what has happened to our returning vets. Many are homeless and waiting for benefits. This is all happening under the Bush Admin! I am also upset at McCain's lack of support for the GI Bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan vets. Take the money for the site and send it to the returning vets if you really are concerned about vets being respected.
Every American is entitled to their opinion, but it is ridiculous to call a site, "Soldier's Perspective" like its representative of all Soldiers. I've served two tours in Iraq, and my perspective is that the Iraq War is a pointless and wasteful war the American people were lied into supporting, and I didn't think then and I still don't think the surge was the right move, it was a gamble that just put more Americans in harm's way. And FYI Sen. Obama said the Surge has made progress, using the term "worked" is like saying "winning" and you can't say that in this kind of war, especially since the violence could go back up tomorrow. IF ANYONE NEEDS TO ADMIT ANYTHING, IT%u2019S JOHN MCCAIN AND GEORGE BUSH WHO NEED TO ADMIT THAT THE ENTIRE IRAQ WAR WAS WRONG!!! PUT THAT IN A RESOULUTION!!!
Mcwashtx, what are you talking about? Many are NOT homeless and waiting for benefits. I defy you to prove your assertions.
Secondly, you are wrong about the GI Bill. McCain submitted a GI Bill bill at the same time Webb did. His bill wasn't as good as Webb's bill, but it was better than what we have and included areas Webb's bill didn't initially. McCain was a HUGE supporter of an improved GI Bill package, it just wasn't a Democratic package so you're going to bust his balls about it. But, I'm with you that Webb's bill was better.
This is no different that having a yard of the month competition. My neighbors yard may look infinitely nicer than mine, but does that mean I stop mowing my lawn and root for the competition? No, I keep trying to get mine noticed.
Those are facts. And you obviously know NOTHING about me and where my money goes, so
kindlyshut your yap.Dan,
Okay, genius. Allow me to give you a quick grammar lesson. When you see a singular noun followed by an apostrophe and s, it becomes possessive – but still singular. If the title of this site were "A Soldiers' Perspective" then one could jump to a conclusion that we are "representative of all Soldiers". Instead, I am representative of ONE Soldier and ONE Marine. Perhaps you can tell me where any of us have every spoken for "all Soldiers".
When a plural noun like "soldiers" is followed by an apostrophe, THEN one can easily assume that we are trying to speak for more than ourselves.
You served two tours, congratulations! Go ahead an start your own "A Two Tour Soldier's Perspective" and let's hear about your "pointless" deployments.
Where are you ignorant trolls coming from anyway?
The surge did not work. It was implemented at the tail end of Sunni tribal engagements against the the same force our invasion kick started which destabilizing a country already hanging on by it's fingernails. I'd love to hear an admission of guilt from former administrations for supporting Saddam Hussein as well as using a heartless bombing campaign during the the first Gulf War. Our military was sent bomb a mostly civilian population. The nation's electrical sources and water sources were destroyed and all to go after retreating Iraqi troops and trying to bomb Hussein. to what end? The civilians in Iraq suffered terribly.
Then there's the current war which is responsible for tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of American soldiers' deaths. You want Barack Obama to admit to the vague notion that the Surge worked while ignoring the lies told to put out dedicated men and women in harm's way for no other reason than to assuage some twisted rhetoric used by war mongers in the White House? Something my kids will be paying for their entire lives. How about that? How can you make so much hay over such trivial nonsense with these greater crimes untouched? Lastly, if the surge is such a winning strategy, why aren't our troops coming home? When I think of all the soldiers I met and talked to at Landstuhl, who unflinchingly returned downrange after recovering from their wounds, it made me proud of them, but ashamed of my administration, for taking their sacrifice for granted.
Talk about missing the fine details,
Rick,
Go back to your hash pipe and peace signs. You're in the ignorant minority clinging on to the false notion that the surge failed.
No lies were told, get over it. I've already beaten that argument with facts on this very site. Grow up and get an education.
Wow, I missed so much by not checking the "comments" page on this one.
Oh, and CJ, with all the people who say Bush "lied" going around, you may have to create a special tab above the banner just for them to read all your counter arguments, it should keep them off the standard post for a while… And maybe even change their minds… Then again, I may as well hope that my arse will sprout wings and fly me into space.
BWAHAHAHA Isaac, that was awesome. I'm adopting you as my second little brother.
Marcus,
lol, actually, I first heard it from a funny Prince of Persia retrospective by "Yahtzee" Croshaw. It just sounded so cool I could not get by without saying it again.
CJ here is a link for you. Maybe you should try using Google before you open your mouth and put both feet in. As far as McCain and GI Bill…what planet do you live on? Or maybe you live in a different dimension than the rest of us. In your dimension the war is going swimmingly, we were not lied to and non of our fellow Americans died for a fatuous war.
However, in this dimension some of have lost loved ones in this fiasco. So you should consider this when you tell some to "shut up" or shut thier yap. You sir are a self serving COWARD! Please feel free to extend my sentiment to those you are defending.
nchv.org/back...fm#questions
mcwashtx,
A person who, in your own words, is "defending" people is a "coward"? Nice command of English you have there, and you come from the US, tsk.
Republicans politicizing the surge? Shocking! The surge was billed as the way to "political reconciliation". That aint happened. The decrease in violence in Bagdad cost around 1000 American kids their lives but the goal of the surge has not materialized. Everyone seems to be obsessed with the surges success forgetting that we shouldn't be there in the first place.
As a veteran of this war I am wondering what the ultimate purpose is of this resolution. Probably to your surprise the surge is still ongoing, and we are just a camel's fart away from total chaos again. How about putting the money you are using for this effort to some worth while cause, like the MWR, or Fisher House, or any of the services Relief Societies (yes military families still need help). There are so many places where your money could be used for better purposes. Seems like you are more interested in a self congratulatory piece of paper than you are committed to the serving members and the returning veterans like myself. Maybe if you get it through you can send me a copy, it will help me get over the fact that the new GI Bill (which McCain opposed) won%u2019t kick in until August 2009.
CJ and Marcus Thank you and any vet who has served. But to those who want to bad mouth this situation or this site, may I say how dare you to belittle my son and any other Hero who gave their life so you could have the freedom to be ignorant. This fine soldier and marine are here for their own perspective and to share with those who want to read and respond. If you don't like these things then go tell someone who doesn't care like Obama.
OK, put me down as one NY-based Liberal that says the surge worked. Now let's pull out already. Don't look for the Iraq's to throw us a party. Petreus himself said that its fragile. Let's capitalize on it and get it done.
I'm categorically against this bill because I think its partisan and belittles the efforts of the fine troops who helped try many ways to succeed. You celbrate the inventory of Hienz 57, without giving credit to the inventors of Hienz 54.
NY-David
I am sure that the reason for the surge was two fold. It was to quell the violence SO THE IRAQI'S COULD ESTABLISH A COHESIVE GOVERNMENT SO WE COULD GET THE HECK OUT OF THERE. IT'S ABOUT TIME, DON'T YOU THINK?
SENATOR OBAMA has not admitted to the surge working because it was a two fold reason for the surge and only ONE THING, the violence, has been met. The government is not functioning. The factions are still fighting with one another.
That is why Senator Obama and Senator Joe Biden are not satisfied with the surge.
What is so hard to understand about that.
Both Senators support the troops 100%. Everyone supports troops. That is not the issue.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Do you think by playing your commercial, people will turn against Obama? People are not that stupid. I have heard the Senator explalin his feelings. Most people feel the same way.
Did anyone notice this verbage:
"…it is imperative that no action be taken that jeopardizes those gains or dishonors the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who made those gains possible."
Does "no action be taken" include a troop withdrawl? Is this resolution saying we should keep troops in Iraq indefinately?
There are much better ways to honor the sacrifices of our troops without resolving to never bring them home.
I don't understand how bringing the troops home to be with their families and taking care of them when they get here is considered "not supporting our troops." I support the troops with my heart and soul and I want more than anything for them to come home. Our inhumanity as a people is troublesome.
EW,
Let me help you understand it. You see our job as Soldiers is to protect this country and its interests. Our job is to identify, locate, and kill or capture the enemies of this country. Every Soldier, Marine, Airman and Sailor wants to come home – victorious!
We are dedicated to ensuring that we never have to suffer the way our fathers suffered coming home from Vietnam with their heads hung low because certain people wanted to "support the troops" and bring them home.
When you truly support the troops, you support our mission. Our mission isn't war, it's victory. It's freedom. If you bring us home before we have completed our mission and ensured that the country we leave behind is a better place than we got it, then we don't feel supported.
What I don't understand is how you can't support victory while you're supporting the troops. I want to come home too, believe me. You'd be hard pressed to find one of us that WANTS to go to war. What's inhumane about bringing peace to a repressed people, protecting our national interests and American citizens, and bringing freedom to millions of people? There's nothing troublesome about that.
I, for one, don't feel supported by people like you who want me to leave in failure. If that is your kind of support, please stop supporting me altogether. I'll be better off and this country's image would be better off.
Mcwashtx,
Your link talks about ALL homeless vets, and doesn't specify how many are "returning vets" as you imply. Tell you what though, maybe you should take your own advice and read your own links before you "open your mouth and put both feet in." According to YOUR link, only 17% of homeless vets are from "post-Vietnam era", which accounts for a LOT more than than the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. So, that 17% number is lower for OIF/OEF vets. Our vets today have more support than EVER.
Secondly, your site says that most homeless vets come from "come from poor, disadvantaged communities." So, this isn't just a military problem. The nation needs to come together and take care of these guys that move back to communities that can't support them.
So don't come here with your bias and misunderstandings of something that I AM very well versed in, my friend! After all, I write a blog, so I'm obviously smarter than you are.
EW,
As a person who is going to be a soldier in a matter of a few years, I have to say, accomplishing the mission is a soldier's purpose and strength. We don't need your "support" if all you want is to see us fail.
In what respect, Charlie?
Can't y'all see that this resolution is ONLY a political tool for republicans.
CJ,
While it is true that a soldier's duty is to follow orders without question, and a soldier's mission is to identify, locate, and kill or capture the enemies of this country, on some level there has to be a questioning of the moral correctness of a mission.
If you were told that a school full of 8 year olds was responsible for bombing the World Trade Center and that you are to go in and 'neutralize' the threat, would you? I certainly hope you are more intelligent than you are coming across in your some of your posts.
I was in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm. That was a worthwhile and morally correct mission. A sovereign nation was invaded and they appealed to us for help. Kuwait ASKED to be liberated. Our mission was to go in and kick the Iraqis out and that's what we did. Our mission was NOT to continue on and invade another sovereign nation (Iraq) as some have cited as a failure of our mission.
Now I certainly agree that the United States needs to bring to justice those responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center, but it has been absolutely proven that Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq had nothing to do with that. So why did we invade Iraq?
Well if we follow the money trail we will see that gas prices have more than doubled in the last 8 years. Now two people that I can think of that have interests in the oil industry are George Bush and Dick Cheney. Need I mention Halliburton?
Now let%u2019s assume that we invaded Iraq to liberate and oppressed people. Well that sounds like a worthwhile and morally correct mission, even though the people didn%u2019t ask to be liberated. But in that case, why aren%u2019t we invading Liberia, or Sudan, or Cuba? Don%u2019t all of those countries have oppressed people as well. Oh, but they don%u2019t have any oil resources do they?
So I hope you don%u2019t really blindly obey orders without considering the moral consequences, and I hope you don%u2019t really think people don%u2019t support the troops. American%u2019s absolutely support the troops. They just don%u2019t see that invading Iraq is a worthwhile and morally correct mission.
Fred, I'm not a mindless robot by any stretch of the imagination. Your parallel of 8 year olds is absurd and doesn't compare. I won't even respond to it. Desert Storm was a worthwhile mission, though and incomplete one. What you neglect to mention here is that we DID invade a sovereign nation when we kicked them out of Kuwait. We didn't stop at the border. As a matter of fact, we were almost to Baghdad.
I'm also not going to – again – answer the charges of why the invasion of Iraq was right, morally AND legally. I've explained it ad nauseum on this site. I can't take someone seriously who blames Bush and Cheney for a war based on oil and neglects even a passing mention of Congress.
Your extreme liberal blindfold is clear to me. Please tell me who we should have used to perform the tasks we needed Halliburton and KBR to perform at the level we needed them to perform at. Just name another company that could have done it.
The Iraqi people DID want us to liberate them. It was obvious as I rolled north on 19 Mar 03 and was kissed and treated like royalty all over the place. Then, the terrorists and insurgents took over!
Again, your argument of invading Liberia, Sudan or Cuba is a moot point because you don't want invasion. Would an invasion of those three countries justify our invasion of Iraq in your eyes? If so, let's do it! But, I doubt it will so your argument here makes no sense either.
No, I don't blindly follow orders, but I do follow legal ones, even if you don't agree with them. The war you fought in Iraq and the war I fought in Iraq are two complete different engagements, my friend. Americans do support the troops and they do support he mission. They also see liberating 30 million people from oppression, abuse, and poverty a quite worthy mission (this is where you spout poll numbers).
CJ,
Really CJ, you should post a new tab above the banner reading "To liberals who want to tell me Bush lied" or something listing all you counter arguments to "Bush lied" and all that crap.
Such a political ploy If I were in the military I would be ashamed of Lieberman and company. Yes our men and women in uniform are the greatest in the world and have been assigned a task of dying for a lie and die they have. Obama has said the reduction inviolance has far exceeded beyond his wildest imanigation. But lets be frank here the awakening in Anbar started the process not our military. While being frank the reason for the surge was to give the political process breathing room so they could create their government for all of Iraq. Sad to say this has yet to happen.
I am more than happy the violance is down substantially and to all of our military personnel our debt to you will probably never be paid. I am saddened Lieberman and the other 33 co-sponsores feel it necessary to politize your courageous work. Why could they not praise you and leave the surge out of it? Because it is just not what republicans do. The modern brand of conservatism is corrupt and bankrupt as is demonstrated in the current republican campaign. I am an ex-bullet chatcher and my MOS was 11110 so I understand just how brave you troops are.
Wow. I make a post and this site can't handle the truth. Run for and by republicans I suppose.
Bob, get off your high horse. EVERYONE is moderated their first comment. I apologize that some of us still work for a living and can't spend every waking moment online to moderate. Your comments aren't so intelligent that I need to be frightened of them.
We are the surge. The surge was successful because of us troops fighting it. You can make this about Democrats and Republicans, but the reality is that this bill is a bipartisan effort. If recognizing success in Iraq is a Republican agenda, then I guess we're Republican. Thanks for informing my audience that success and victory is a Republican value. I only wish I were one!
CJ,
Hmm, I see another bump coming…
CJ,
What is this bipartisan effort you speak of? Liberman is the only sponsor of this resolution that is not a registered Republican. Considering Liberman was a speaker at the RNC Convention, that makes him close enough.
This proposal is clearly political showmanship on the part of the Republicans and I can't believe you are falling for such a patronizing gesture. If the Republicans truely wanted to honor our soldiers and vets then they would work towards providing better healthcare and benefits. Instead McCain voted against expanding the GI Bill.
Maybe this is McCain's way of making it up to all those soldiers and vet living in squalor and being neglected at Walter Reed. I'm sure it will ease all of their pain and suffering.
Fred, if you're going to bring it, BRING IT!! But, when you do, make it honest. McCain did vote for expanding the GI Bill, as I've said numerous times but you obviously weren't paying attention.
You brought up the GI Bill and accused McCain, falsely, of not supporting it, so I'm latching right on, bro!! The FACT is that McCain voted for it. Guess which way Obama voted for the bill? "No Vote". Guess how Biden voted for the bill? No Vote".
McCain even had a parallel bill to Webb's that was submitted to improve and expand the GI Bill. Did Obama submit anything? No. I find it interesting that besides the airport bathroom homosexual Craig, the only people abstaining from a vote to expand the GI Bill have a big "D" next to their name. The only person to vote against it was Republican Jim Demint.
When you're able to regain your integrity come back and try again. Now, you tell me who "truely[sic] wanted to honor our soldiers and vets" with expanded benefits!! I won't hold my breath.
CJ,
ROFLMAO!!! Apparently you don't know how to use Google. For your benefit I've included several links to articles mentioning how McCain didn't even bother to show up for the GI Bill vote whereas both Sen. Obama, Sen. Biden, and Sen. Clinton did show up and voted Yea.
So if you want to talk about honesty and integrity, put up or shut up. Or at least do a little research before throwing out wild accusations.
By the way, you didn't address my point that this is not a bipartisan effort as you claimed. I'd be interested, and I'm sure entertained, to hear how you explain that.
Here is the actual vote count:
senate.gov/le...p;vote=00137
Various articles about how McCain missed the vote:
boston.com/ne..._from_obama/
mydd.com/stor...2/143242/649
military.com/...gi-bill.html
news.aol.com/...kipped-vote/
Fred,
You're not talking to a first grader here. You're talking to a college educated constitutionalist AND law student! Your links are to links of an AMENDMENT (see definition of amendment on your own time) to the ORIGINAL bill that was already passed!! So, follow your own damn links and connect the dots. The GI Bill was passed by the Senate (where McCain voted and Obama did not; neither did Chris Dodd) on September 6, 2007. It was signed by the President on June 30, 2008.
So, you may be good at Google, but you're research abilities are lacking!
govtrack.us/c...0-2642#votes
Let me reiterate for those not following here. The GI Bill was contained in H.R. 2642 and S.22 which was voted on by McCain, but not Obama and Biden. Then, the out of control, Democrat-led Congress decided they wanted to add more pork to the already approved G.I. Bill before it hit the President's desk. So, from September 2007 until June 2008, more and more pork was added by both Republicans and Democrats. McCain had already voted on the G.I. Bill, which was passed by both houses of the Senate and only required the President's signature. That is where Fred's bogus link to Amendment #4803 to H.R. 2642 comes in. After seeing that the G.I. Bill was so tremendously supported by virtually everyone, except Obama and Biden, our distinguished politicians though they could slip more crap into it. There were a number of votes and various amendments which failed.
Senator McCain refused to vote on these because the Soldiers' benefits were being used for political purposes at this point. The amendment that McCain didn't agree to was submitted by Mr. Reid and contained the following pork products that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the G.I. Bill:
$850,000,000 in grants to the Foreign Agricultural Service
$4,000,000 for the Office of the Inspector General
$6,648,000 for 'Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities'
$18,621,000 for United States Marshal Service
$247,565,000 for the FBI
$22,666,000 for the DEA
$4,000,000 for the BATF
$9,100,000 for the Federal Prison System
$26,000,000 for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
$400,000,000 for Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health
My gosh, I could really keep going with this!!
CJ,
Based on your previous highly immature response I didn't take you seriously at all. And yes, I only spent a few minutes researching as that is all I felt your response deserved.
I'm still not clear why you are against Obama and Biden for not voting on this bill, but it's okay for McCain to not vote on the amendment that increased GI Bill benefits.
Also, you still haven't explained your 'bipartisan effort' comment regarding resolution 636.
I will read H.R. 2642 and get back to you with further comments.
What?! You didn't read the main part of the bill you're slamming McCain on?! I'm surprised!! Okay, you just caught me in a lie. I'm not really surprised.
Oh, and forgive me for thinking that a bunch of Republicans and a former Democrat, now an Independent, support this bill. But, I guess that highlights that Conservatives are the only ones that want to admit success. It would be devastating if Democrats signed onto this since they've already invested so much time and effort to make the war look like such a disaster and slandered General Petraeus's name in the press and poo-poohed the surge that worked.
You caught me, sort of. If Lieberman hadn't been the sponsor, you could actually call me a liar!
Didn't General Petraeus recently say that he would never use the word 'victory' to describe Iraq and didn't think he ever would?
Fred, what does that have to do with anything? Where did I say victory?