Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics in Iraq. We support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain. Vets for Freedom is the largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization in America. The website is www.vetsforfreedom.org .... Well,...Since it is the largest non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization established BY the combat veterans ...Let's stop cherry picked random sampling and in Batman's words listen to the "damn troops"... It is admittedly non-partisan, so I welcome left and right to visit the site and take the time to listen...Perhaps the tour bus is coming near you. If so, thank them and listen to what THEY want...
Why not support the troops and support what THEY want for a change...? Stop being so self-indulging selfish on what you want and care about what they want. Get educated from the combat veterans! Don't pull out troops, Iraq war veterans say BY JOSEPH MORTON WORLD-HERALD BUREAU http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10305206 WASHINGTON — Iraq war veterans from across the country carried a message Tuesday to Capitol Hill — don't pull the troops out until the mission is over. Among the group was Carl Hartmann, a Marine corporal who has completed three Iraq tours of duty and now serves with a Reserve unit in Omaha. Hartmann said politicians should not be micromanaging the war but listening to the commanders in the field. "I'm not going to tell a brain surgeon how he should operate on one of his patients," he said. "I'm going to take his word for it when he tells me that he has to operate this way to make me feel better." Hartmann and other Nebraskans joined hundreds of members of Vets for Freedom who descended on Capitol Hill as Congress heard testimony from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The two reported uneven but significant progress in Iraq, an assessment that was greeted with skepticism by several Midlands lawmakers. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., for example, pressed Crocker during his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Hagel said, "We're going to continue to see a bloody Iraq," ricocheting from one crisis to another, and questioned the seriousness of the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts. Crocker pointed to diplomatic meetings at which Iraq's neighbors have discussed issues such as refugees and border security. "There is activity," Crocker said. "Does there need to be more activity on the part of the region? Clearly, yes." Crocker and Petraeus also testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., serves. Nelson has proposed requiring Iraq to pay back any money spent by the United States on Iraqi reconstruction. He asked Crocker why the U.S. shouldn't immediately start a tab for repayment. Said Crocker: "There is very much an interest in moving the financing from us to the Iraqis," and the United States has already largely gotten out of the reconstruction business in Iraq. When Nelson pointed to specific spending, Crocker said that was for aid programs important to stabilizing the country. Nelson responded sharply. He said he wants the United States to look at requiring Iraq to repay the U.S. for all sorts of reconstruction services, including the training of Iraqi troops. Nelson said he continues to support a transition of the U.S. mission in Iraq from providing security to patrolling the border and chasing down terrorists. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said Petraeus and Crocker were serving up more of the same Tuesday. "The simple truth is that keeping our brave soldiers mired in the Iraqi civil war is breaking our military, bankrupting our Treasury and making our country less safe," Harkin said. Hartmann and the other veterans urged lawmakers to be patient. They said progress was being made. Hartmann recalled a January 2006 incident in which his unit was helping to sign up Iraqis for army and police forces. A recruiting station had been established at a factory in Ramadi when a suicide bomber hit the area where the recruits were. Many were killed or wounded, Hartmann said, but the Iraqis insisted on reopening the recruiting station within a few weeks. When it did reopen, he said, twice as many recruits showed up as before the bombing. "Al-Qaida wanted to destroy their spirit," he said, "but it had the exact opposite effect, and that in turn inspired us." Armed with such anecdotes, the veterans worked the halls of Congress all day. They highlighted their positive experiences and progress made by Iraqi security forces. Hartmann said the American people and Congress need to have patience and trust the military to get the job done in Iraq. "It's a slow process, but it's working," he said. "This is something you can't rush." Petraeus and Crocker will testify today before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., a member of that committee, said he was pleased to hear of progress in Iraq.
I never said anything to prompt this statement. But it further reinforces my previous sentiment. I could lay out my thoughts succintly - but the debate that encourages is tired, old, fruitless, and maddeningly unproductive.
troops don't define our policies, just like general petraeus shouldn't have been on taking questions from the senate. he's soldier, he does what he is told. we get tatical advise from the military, not political
BINGO The libs would not bat an eye if we lost in Iraq but the libs got voted into power by virtue of their massive public relations campaign to demoralize the troops and undermine our efforts abroad. It's time for a reality check. It's time to ditch the bumper sticker logic that they use (Bush lied, Bring them home, etc) and start thinking about foreign policy and strategic consequences to pulling out and failing to achieve our objectives in Iraq. This is not a simple issue, and therefore it requires significant thought. Not whiny libpig bumper sticker logic.
you idiots who wanted this war including your president don't get to tell the smart people who knew this was a mistake that this is a complicated issue. we knew it was a complicated issue, not you idiots who told us we would be greeted as liberators and the oil will pay for the war.
It would be interesting to get a poll from the troops where they could vote without prejudice to see if they want to come home. DD
Exactly right!...It troubles me that so far in the initial stage of this thread, I am understanding the liberal response to the largest non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization is that their mission statement is a sad irony...and their voice doesn't define policy (i.e. their voice doesn't matter)... Disgusting...
non-partisan doesn't mean without an agenda. They had a mission from the beginning which was to keep the troops in Iraq. So the troops that joined this group would also have the same beliefs that we should stay there. There message should be heard, and respected, but it isn't as if they don't have a bias on this issue. Just because they say they are non-partisan doesn't mean they are unbiased on the issue of staying or leaving Iraq, and approached the issue with no pre-conceived notions. They had their opinion of which way things should go, and formed a group to help push that agenda.
Typical lib response -- look backwards. This issue is about what happens in the FUTURE, not Monday-morning quarterbacking what happened in the PAST. This is Obama's stock answer: The war was a massive strategic blunder. Ok, Balack, then what do we do now? His answer? The war was a blunder. Repeat cycle. No solution, no responsibility, no concern for strategic consequences. Nothing but hindsight whining. That's not leadership, folks. That is NOT leadership. That is also not HOPE, which I thought his campaign was about. What a fraud that guy is. Did you see how ridiculous he looked in front of Patraeus yesterday? Obama isn't qualified to even be in the same room at General Patraeus, much less question him. It's like a child sitting at the adult table at Thanksgiving. He's just in over his head.
no, I'm not saying we told you so, i'm saying you lost your right to tell us what's going on over there. you've been wrong about iraq for five years, you don't get to tell me how it is. you apparently have no idea, regardless of if i do or not.
Government headed by military chiefs? Not at all, and I don't see the logic at how you arrived at that, but I am saying that it matters what troops want...They are people too,...and last time I checked "people" mattered in U.S. government.... Troops matter, Irregardless of what you might say.....
do you really expect us to believe guys on their fourth tours want to stay there till some mission is accomplished that your president can't even define. be for real
then at least LISTEN to the troops. listen to the LARGEST non-partisian Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization. They have the right to the public audience,...and they have earned it. mind you...
It's ironic because what they desire is exactly what they've never gotten from this r****ded administration, you dolt. Not because of some made-up "troop animosity" which you so blindly put in my mouth. "long term national security" my ass.
Says the guy who was scared to go after terrorists inside of Pakistan because mean ol' Pakistan had nukes and was our ally. If Bush had listened to your reasoning the number 3 Al-Qaeda leader would still be on the loose, instead of deceased. Your weak willed frightened ideas of fighting the war on terror just aren't effective. You would have the U.S. be subservient to every other nation out there who claims to want to help us, because you are too scared to upset the apple cart.
