http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/05/01/another-grunts-rant-on-iraq/ [rquoter] George Bush vetoed the surrender bill with a pen given to him by the father of Marine Cpl. Dustin Derga, killed in Anbar May 8, 2005. Robert Derga was in the group of Gold Star families who met Bush in the Oval Office two weeks ago. He wanted Bush to use the pen to veto that bill, and called back to make sure he was going to do it. Larry Gwin, former XO of 2/7 Cav, veteran of the Ia Drang battles of 1965 and author of “Baptism, A Vietnam Memoir,” is very familiar with death in war. He has not been a great fan of this war, but has stated all along that once troops are committed, the nation must be behind them to the end. He circulated the following among some friends the other day and said I could run it. The Democratic-controlled Congress is giving Gwin a flashback. I’m guessing he’s not the only one: -- Another Grunt’s Rant on Iraq Am I wrong, or am I wrong? It looks like there’s going to be a Constitutional crisis on the war in Iraq – a showdown between Congress and the President. Congress has voted to tie military funding to a timetable for withdrawal, and the President has vowed to veto their bill. That will put the burden back on Congress to reconsider legislation that will fund the war, i.e. support the troops, and if they refuse, the Defense Department’s budget is going to take a hit. The Democrats insist that what they’re doing is obeying the will of the people, as demonstrated by the November elections that gave them a majority in both houses. What a crock that is! There never was any referendum on the war– just a straight election for representatives in the House and Senate, some of whom supported the war, and some of whom didn’t. It seems to me that the Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994, now think they can ram a surrender down our throats in the name of the people, even though there has never been a specific referendum on making a stand or withdrawing in Iraq. So, who is right? We’ll see. Whether you like our being in Iraq or not, it’s clear that most of the people want “out.” After all, who would ever want to fight a war? But if push comes to shove, would Congress stop supporting the troops, or vote to cut off the funding necessary to continue the mission, or vote to surrender over there? I doubt it. But that’s what the Democrats are trying to do. They’re trying to pull the plug on our efforts, not by voting to end the war, or expressly cutting off any spending for it, but by suggesting that funding be tied to a specific timetable for withdrawal. And that, in my mind, is surrender. As soon as you tell the enemy that you are going to leave, all they have to do is sit back and wait for you to leave. And, if they really hate you, they can start sniping at you as you go, when you’re most vulnerable to an attack. A retrograde maneuver is one of the most difficult tactical missions an army is ever faced with. A retreat, and that’s what this would be, requires stealth, continual pressure on the forces opposing yours, and lots of political spin. What the Democrats are doing is akin to what we did in Vietnam by signing a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese, tantamount to bailing out on our allies’ without their concurrence, then departing with absolutely no intention of ever coming back, no matter what the North Vietnamese did. Congress also cut off financial support for South Vietnam after our departure. And sure as hell, as soon as we left, the North Vietnamese attacked south in full force, and for two more years, the two sides pounded each other until the more determined North, supported by Russia and China, won the war. And we veterans here at home who had fought and seen so many of our buddies die over there, had to keep our mouths shut and just take it. And we felt the shame of defeat. Not a defeat we’d suffered, but a defeat of our national will. And that enraged me and made me feel ashamed. It took me more than forty years to get over it, and I still simmer when I think about it. And we’re going to do it again, thanks to the Democrats in Congress. On the other hand – and I have to say this to keep my sanity — in a democracy, the will of the people must prevail, and if the majority of our population really want us to leave Iraq, then we should. But has there been a national debate about staying or leaving, fighting or folding, winning or losing? No. Has there been a definitive referendum on the war? No. And have the American people been given a chance, other than anecdotally, to make a statement on whether we want to withdraw from Iraq and face the consequences, or whether we want to tough it out, and win the bloody thing? No. So I ask you, where do the Democrats come up with this national mandate bull****? Whole cloth, baby. Whole cloth. [/rquoter]
What a stupid article. Number one - it equates the cutting of funding with not supporting the troops. Number two - Congress has already voted to fund the war (i.e. support the troops) Bush is the one who vetoed the spending. Congress authorized the funding (i.e. supporting the troops). The president vetoed that funding (i.e. not supporting the troops). Number three - What's wrong with timetables and benchmarks? Many of the few war supporters left don't believe in handing out welfare checks indefinitely. They put conditions on the people who receive them, and for how long they are able to continue receiving them. Right now Iraq is like a giant welfare recipient. What is wrong with putting conditions on their welfare and how long they can continue collecting.
No matter how you try and spin it basso. Democrats did not lose this war. The failed policies of the Bush administration lost this war. keep trying though
"The SURRENDER Bill"?? The Language of Politics is Fascinating Remember when they tried to change Suicide Bombers into HOMICIDE BOMBERS or Freedom Fries *lol* This stuff is so Double + Good Rocket River
I agree that there are Constitutional problems with Congress' approach to ending the war and have stated them in other threads but I have some other problems with the article. The biggest problem I have is with his assertion that here hasn't been a national referendum or debate on Iraq so that Congressional Democrats are wrong to claim they are doing the will of the people. Well we have a representational democracy. We elected representatives to make such decisions and we vote on representatives that we believe will support the issues we care about. The fact that more anti-war representatives got elected, and many who specifically campaigned on the war, does show that the majority of Americans want the war ended. We don't have a system of national propositions on issues like say California so to argue that because such a vote wasn't taken is a mistake since there is no mechanism for doing so. In regard to not having a national debate on Iraq that's been happening for years now. If he is looking for something specific the Congressional debate on the funding bill was specifically a debate on Iraq and whether the war should be continued indefinately or ended at a predetermined point. To claim that there has been no national debate you would've had to be living on a deserted island with no access to the news the last few years. I also disagree with his characterization of the Vietnam War. I can agree that yes the soldiers were treated badly and the US abandoned the cause of winning the war the problem though is you have to make the call about whether such a war can be won. In regard to abandoning our allies the South Vietnam government were less our allies but more our puppets who ran a corrupt government that didn't have very much support of the people. In addition they were a fairly weak fighting force with apparently little capability or will to fight. In this case a dangerous parallel can be drawn with the new Iraqi military that dependency on the US military might not lead to an affective military. Vietnam was no doubt a dark period on US military history but it does point out the importance of civillian control of the military, both when it goes wrong by dragging us into a war that should've been avoided and also when its time to recognize to get out rather than follow a military policy of win at all costs.
President Bush failed our courageous troops by sending them under-armored into a needless war. Nothing the Democrats in Congress do will ever trump President Bush's failure.
It doesn't matter what Bush did, there is no way he could win this "war". Dems have made up in their mind this is an illegal war, so therefore we should lose it, regardless of lives lost.
I'm confused by what you are saying. Are you saying that since lives have been lost we should throw more soldiers in at the risk of their lives?
What are you talking about? The president's party had total control of government for 6 years. The president ran the war exactly the way he wanted with no constraints. Democrats were rendered irrelevant. And now it's the dems fault that the war is lost?
So let me get this straight. Bush wants to attack Iraq. The democrats opose the war. Bush starts the war. The war cost a lot of innocent lifes (people from both the USA and Iraq). and suddenly it is the fault of the Democrats. Am i missing something here I do not have any preference for any of the sides in american politics. But i can say this. This was was a terrible mistake, the USA attacked a country that did not do anything wrong. And in the process killed a lot of innocent people. Iraq seems to be a mess. If i was an american i would be so pissed at the government. (unfortunalty the government of my country at the time supported the war in Iraq, I still hate that, however we did not send troops to Iraq and luckily we have a new government now).
So unilateral withdrawal in August 2008 (announced a year in advance) is what the Democrats are now pushing???? Everybody sing with me now: What could possibly go wrong???
The US Government Lied about a lot of facts, (like the WMDs). So i can understand that people changed their minds. You are right i forgot to add all the untrue facts that were spread by the US government. However you are right that not every Democrat was against the war. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a war based on lies. But like i said you are right. I wasn't 100% correct in my statement.
Of course they did. What were they supposed to do? We were just attacked; the nation was screaming for revenge, it was a couple of months before a midterm election. What were democrats supposed to do? Vote against a war that the president insisted was necessary and risk being branded as a traitor and possibly losing an election? Context Sishir, context...
If you're suggesting the Dems voted to go to war and risk countless lives out of political timidity, and electoral opportunism when they truly believed the war was wrong then that's a pretty damning charge.
Of course context is important. Lets look at the context. Yes the Bush Admin. duped a lot of people but even then you didn't have to be a genius to realize that most of what the Admin. was spouting didn't add up. Also there were Democrats who didn't vote for the authorization. Paul Wellstone was in a relatively close race against Norm Coleman and opinion polls in MN supported the invasion. but he still voted against it. So yes the context was important but that just shows that the Congressional Democrats who voted for it, short of Lieberman and a few others who genuinely supported the war and still do, were either craven because of the election or weren't dilligent and went along and accepted the Admin's line.
Iraq is such a clusterf_ck that every possible option at this point is fraught with extreme risk. Whatever your preferred option, I guarantee it can be plausibly picked a part.
but so true, and now they're doing the same thing, opposing the war when it seems politically expedient to do so.
I don't now Giff....I really don't. I was against this war from the start. But the bigger clusterFck, IMO is how it was mishandled. These skirmishes happen so often in our history...and somehow, there's a relatively quick resolution...declaration of victory or justice....and things continue on. Not here. This one became political FAST...and the admin kept fuelling it more. Was it a mistake to go in? I holler a resounding "YES." But given that...what happened once they got there is even more shameful. What to do now???? I....just....don't....know. I do think announcing your withdrawal a year in advance is pretty foolish. And to do so...and at the same time say "but we're approving the funding as long as you leave by this date, so we're really supporting the troops" is pure politics. I can't imagine any significant good, other than possible political bonus points, coming from it. I'm somehow partial to the back-room, payoff, secret-handshake deals that I imagine often happen in the background. In some ways it's a poker game, and you're laying out all your cards ahead of time. Maybe I read too many novels. I know I'm sick of the political grandstanding that's happening on all sides. And it's not just Republicans and Democrats. It's world wide. The gathering of testimonials to see who *really* supports the troops. LOOK-- the mother of a soldier thinks Bush is a m*ther f****. (Kipee ka yay). Oh she's so right and insightful. BUT WAIT....Here's a father who thinks we're surrounding...and making Vietnamesian mistakes!! (And he should know...he's a vet and his boy was over there). I'm sick of it. The labelling of politicians as warmongers or anti-Iraq. I think we ALL want out of Iraq. Everyone. The pro-iraq group as well as the anti-iraq group. The president thinks more soldiers on the ground is the answer...but we know where his judgement has taken us. McCain...Guglianni...Hillary...they are not in favour of withdrawal...but maybe they can broker some kind of deal. I do think Iraq has been Bush's biggest failure, and for that reason alone, I'm glad he's going. But why limit all options just months before he leaves the Whitehouse. And the timing is bizarre. August 2008. Just enough time before the election for....brace for it...EVEN MORE political grandstanding. If it goes well....expect the Republicans to declare victory..expouse the virtues of their long fought determination and savvy. The Dem's, of course, will take full credit for having pressured a resolution and resolved the mess. If it blows up and chaos follows...well...the Republicans will blame the constraints put on them by the Dems, showcase how it was clearly the wrong strategy and on and on. The Dems, of course will highlight what an absolute mess 8 years of the Republican controlled war produced. So...I'm sick of it. Once in...I think it's a grave error to just leave....without preconditions for departure. I think it is especially wrong to set a public timetable. A year in advance. I think it severely limits the options for resolution. It declares you hand before you're forced to do so. I do agree with some of what the letter writer says. I think he's way off base on public opinion....but am not convinced leaders should necessarily govern by polls. Leader of weather vane? They should be doing what's best for Americans, and the world. And I'm not sure they're doing that. So....I've rambled on enough. The difference between R2K and I, is that I do that a lot....and he's generally a lot more concise and insightful than I am. (That....and the whole Rockets bit torrent thing -- this is a basketball forum, isn't it?).
