Vets See Protests as Attack on Policy, Not on Troops

Nice try, but the panel has rejected your attempt at a third award. I voted yes, but the other judges ruled me out.

McMark had a good question. What do you think of the President's statement.

Another question which you haven't answered, what do you think of the Pentagon and whitehouse vetoing plans that had already been prepared pre-invasion that would have put more than 400,000 Iraq security forces policing their own nation, so our troops wouldn't have to? That is the same plan that already had elections, a constitution, restoring energy, preventing looting, garbage collection, etc. in as well.

Failure to put this plan into place has cost lives, and yet the people who vetoed it haven't been held accountable, and the people responsible for those ideas have been driven out? As someone who claims to support the troops how do you feel about that?

As a supporter of the troops what was your opinion on the soldier who questioned Rumsfeld about getting armor for their vehicles?

 

You guys are so cute. You're like pupils in the classroom, eager to hear their latest bit of instruction by their professor. Well, you're in luck this morning - I'll answer your questions. (liberal pile-on technique noted, however - you guys can only operate in packs, it appears...)

What you mean to say is not people who don't agree with his "war policy", it's people who want to remove our troops from Iraq and go home immediately. I agree that those people are ignorant, do not understand the concept of exit costs, and are not committed to winning the war on terror. That is clear. If we pull out now we will not have had the time to ensure success. We're so close to a constitution! Free elections have occurred! Why squander our gains now?

You're all about second guessing. Please offer forward-looking suggestions instead of simply b****ing and moaning about something that didn't go as planned. You don't have inside information into the thought process behind the change of plans. Neither do I. Who are you to second guess? How do you know it would have been better your way? The answer is you know because you're a genius liberal who sits on his couch listening to Air America learning soundbytes to throw up on internet message boards. That makes you an expert. Congrats, oh wise one...

The US military prioritizes spending decisions. If there was an unlimited pot of money, of course everybody would have every possible protection. Why did your election candidate vote against the $87B? Why do the liberals quickly jump on here and b!tch and moan about the cost of the war, then further b!tch and moan that the troops don't have everything they need? Hey guess what, you can't have it both ways. I support the troops having every protection necessary. If a soldier is not protected, we need to protect him, end of story.

 

No that is not what I mean to say and that is not what the president said. That is exactly how he wants to break down any discussion.

He plainly states (where even you can understand) that if you disagree with the policy, you do not want to win the war on terror.

 

There were people opposed to WWII. The Germans never hurt us other than expressing a desire to do so.... sound familiar?

 

See the liberals/conservatives in the Village
See the liberals/conservatives on MacDougal Street
See the liberals/conservatives in the Village
And they all look just the same
There's a tall one and a short one
And a white one and a Negro one
And they all go to the Village
And they all look just the same
And the boys all wear fill in the blank
And the girls all wear fill in the blank
And they're all non/conformists
And they all dress just the same
And they go to the university
And they major in fill in the blank
And they're all deep thinkers
And they all think just the same
And they all read their fill in the blank
And they all read their fill in the blank
And they all talk about it
And they all sound just the same
And they all like fill in the blank
and they dig fill in the blank
And just like fill in the blank
They all sound the same

 

germany declared war on us.

 

I said they "expressed a desire to hurt us."

Have bin Laden and AQ decared war on the US?

 

Please provide a link to where he said that. I believe that you are misinterpreting what he said. You're filtering it with your liberal lens. I just watched the video clip on cnn dot com again and he was talking about people who want to cut and run. You're exaggerating what he said.

 

It's been provided in this thread. Find it yourself.

So again...

Do you agree with the president that those who disagree with his war policy don't want to win the war on terror?

 

What does bin Laden and AQ have to do with Iraq? Please enlighten us.

Thanks in Advance.

That isn't attacking in packs...thats called the pendulum swinging back. There are more people on this side of the argument now.

 

with their attacks on 9/11, i would say YES.

but you were talking about iraq, who actually never did anything to us and were not involved in the attacks against us.

i know its hard to comprehend, but iraq had nothing to do w/ 9-11. however, the figurehead of the group that is responsible remains free, even though dubya issued his "wanted: dead or alive" declaration almost 4 years ago.

 

It's not hard to comprehend that Iraq played no role in 9/11. There is no particular evidence that is convincing but time may tell us a different story.

In a war on terror, you fight all terrorists. In someone's grand plan Iraq was the place to start.

Bin Laden is heating himself with bat guano; I hardly consider that to be free. Maybe it's better just to keep him on the run and not to capture him so that he could be martyred?

At any rate, I'm more concerend about his operatives than him.

 

The fatal flaw.

Unless if course Dubya wanted to avenge his father and Dick wanted to get rich on stock options.

 

I'll always wonder what went on in those energy task force meetings that set Bush's energy policy we're not allowed to know about.

 

What you are talking about is a disagreement in how to succeed. You said they were ignorant. The president said they don't want to win the war on terror. There is a difference. Do you agree that they want America to lose the war on terror?

It isn't second guessing when the plans were laid out beforehand. These aren't my ideas but the ideas of people like Lt. Gen. Jay Garner who was in charge of Iraq's reconstruction. He was privy to the plans beforehand and also had a unique position of being in charge on the ground in Iraq. He is far more qualified than I am, so I will take his, Gen. Shinsiki(sp?) and their likes word for it.

As a supporter of the troops don't you think that we should know why the plans were changed very clearly, and that someone should answer for anything that needlessly cost the lives of our brave soldiers?

Funny you should bring up the 87billion vote by Kerry. Kerry was proven correct in his judgement on those votes. Kerry voted for 87 billion for the troops that would have accounted for how the money was spent. The 87 billion dollar bill that was passed enabled billions to be wasted, missing, and unaccounted for.

As for someone who is supposedly against govt. waste I would think you would be ashamed to try and nail Kerry for his correct judgement on the 87 billion.

 

What are you talking about? It would be harder to conceive of Iraq joining together with a group that wanted Saddam dead and his govt. overthrown which would be among the goals of Al Qaeda.

But even if that didn't exist going to war because it is hard for you to imagine the two weren't involved together. Going to war based on their own hunch with zero evidence isn't exactly a tough test to measure. Surely you don't take war or the loss of life that cheaply do you?

 

So you admit we went to war on a hunch? And you don't understand why liberals are second guessing?

 

I seriously don't know which quote you are talking about. Provide the link.

 

Anyone else in this thread have a problem finding the quote?

 

I believe you when you post this, texxx. You should believe that everyone here, on both sides of the aisle, support just that, except for Trader_J, unless he's changed his position.

The President's spokesperson said yesterday, "(the President) can understand that people don't share his view that we must win the war on terror, and we cannot retreat and cut and run from terrorists, but he just has a different view."

That's a damned lie, and it has me livid. Until he, or his spokesperson speaking for him, retracts that, then it leaves Bush as a damned liar, defaming millions of Americans who don't support the policies that led to the War in Iraq, but support the War on Terror, and certainly support our troops, and wish they, the troops, had been properly supported by this Administration.



Keep D&D Civil!!