« Sadr Runs To Iran | Main | Quote Of The Day - Injustice For All Edition »

Reaction Of Soldiers In Iraq To Anti-Surge Resolution

ABC News included reactions of soldiers in Iraq in its coverage of the Democrats' non-binding anti-surge resolution. Newsbusters has extensive quotes, pictures and link to video:

Of the broadcast network evening newscast stories Tuesday night on the House debate over the non-binding resolution that "disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush...to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq," only ABC's Jake Tapper included the views of soldiers in Iraq. Tapper's report on World News featured soundbites from two Army Sergeants in Ramadi, and both condemned the resolution. First Sergeant Louis Barnum declared: "It makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat, but when I see that it just kind of makes me sad." Sergeant Brian Orzechoski went even further: "I don't want to bad-mouth the President at all. I mean, to me it's treason."


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reaction Of Soldiers In Iraq To Anti-Surge Resolution:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with House Democrats Ready Anti-War Resolution

Comments (95)

These are the same "halp us... (Below threshold)
Richard Romano:

These are the same "halp us jon cary" soldiers--pretty articulate if you asked me :)

I'll tell you, the bravery these men and women exhibit is amazing...I truly envy our soldiers in Iraq and the world over. God bless our troops!

The American military is am... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The American military is amazing. It is sad to see the Dems try to debase the great accomplishment of our military in Iraq. This is the first step in a series of Dem sponsored legistations in the house to reduce, restrict, and even to cut-off funding for the war in Iraq. The Dems want a repeat of VietNam. They insisted on Vietnamization of the war. When that happened, they cut off the funding. I am afraid of the same "Iraquization" of the Iraq war. Just hope the same despicable liberal legacy won't happen in Iraq.

[Imagined left response] Wh... (Below threshold)
epador:

[Imagined left response] What an obvious subterfuge. ABC could only find two soldiers in all of Iraq who they could quote for mainstream TV to criticise the noble Democrat efforts.

Of course, maybe the other 150,000 or so they interviewed needed such heavy editing for verbal and body language that they could only find two clean enough for TV...

[Imagined left response... (Below threshold)
marc:

[Imagined left response] What an obvious subterfuge. ABC could only... Posted by: epador

Nah... the subterfuge occurred last Friday by some hack NBC reporter standing in Iraq claiming every soldier he spoke with said the war was lost and they wanted to go home.

Oh.. and we shouldn't forge... (Below threshold)
marc:

Oh.. and we shouldn't forget the subterfuge CNN's Cafferty who acts like a reporter, but with full support of CNN is actually a Jihidist loving A-HOLE.

I am a Nam vet and can tell... (Below threshold)
KIm:

I am a Nam vet and can tell you how demoralizing it was how I felt with all the protests while I was over there defending some of these same anti war people who just haven't a clue about this war. It will more than esculate if we don't win in Iraq, it will be worse than the slaughtered masses in Cambodia and Laos. I wish just once that the leftists would act like REAL men and women and support the Commander instead of making this a Bush bashing at every single move that goes on over there. Our troops need our support and that of congress. I know I will start my own grassroots campaign and it will be loud and clear if we pull out. I will make sure all of the people know what will be right around the corner and it sure isn't going to be bird flu.

When the congress finally d... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

When the congress finally decides to excercise its obligations under the law as the FIRST branch of government, all the Bush media apologists can do is cue the violins and use soldiers as they would Poster Children. Or ventriloquist dummies. Pantywaists hiding behind the troops AGAIN. A sort of reflected patriotism, to ease their own guilt for not doing their part in the war on terror, I guess.

bryanD, hogwash.... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

bryanD, hogwash.

Hiding behind the troops? T... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Hiding behind the troops? Those were the troops THEMSELVES, nimrod.

bryanD, hogwash.Po... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

bryanD, hogwash.

Posted by: John Irving at February 14, 2007 08:50 AM

Typical of a right-wing nut job to use Dick Cheney's lame response. The same Dick Cheney who used five (count 'em - five) deferments to keep his own ass out of Vietnam. (And the same Dick Cheney who's now showing his cowardly face again by not testifying for Irving Libby).

Kim, does it hurt you more to know that your own President and Vice President didn't want to go to Vietnam, but let you put your life on the line instead? You whiney righties have become soooooo pathetic. Hahahaha.

The whole "I/They fought fo... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

The whole "I/They fought for your freedoms" is getting old. How is fighting in another countries civil war (Iraq/Nam) protecting my freedoms? What freedom did I lose when North Vietnam won the war?

In Iraq, if troops leave will the fighting stop? If they stay will the fighting stop? If the terrorists strike again, which amendment will I lose. Maybe the first, or will it be the second? Maybe they will just blow-up the bill of rights?

nikkolai, there are free re... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

nikkolai, there are free reading conprehension classes in your area. There may even be a van to pick you up. Be sure to write the destination on your nametag so you won't get irretrievably lost...John Irving, you're a morning bather, then?

maggysturn, balderdash. </p... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, balderdash.

bryanD, points for funny.

"The number of waivers gran... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

"The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show."

From today's wire services. This hurts the troops a LOT more than anti-war protesters.

Why aren't right wing assholes on Wizbang (and Byrd brain) much more concerned about this? Answer: it's easier to blame Democrats, than it is to admit that their beloved preznit sucks.

Barney:If... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Barney:

If the terrorists strike again, which amendment will I lose. Maybe the first, or will it be the second?

Depends, if you're dead you lose all of them.

Herald, do you want to tell... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Herald, do you want to tell me how fighting a civil war in Iraq is preventing an attack here? There are sleeper cells all over the world, and the al Qaeda base is in Pakistan. The funding comes from Saudi Arabia, and Jihadies comes from all over the Muslim world, and some are even home grown.

Well, let's see....We appea... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Well, let's see....We appear to be fighting Al Qaeda, Iranian terrorists, Baathist thugs, and all kinds of sordid butchers IN IRAQ so that we do not have to fight them here.

Herald, do you want to t... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Herald, do you want to tell me how fighting a civil war in Iraq is preventing an attack here?

Wrong question. We went into Iraq to remove Saddam and his noted propensity for supporting terrorists, hence reducing the likelihood of a state-supported major attack executed through cut-outs with plausible deniability. We stayed and are working to rebuild Iraq and set them up as a self-supporting free nation because that's what a liberal republic like the U.S. does after they defeat an enemy regime.

Meanwhile, as noted in a previous post, one of the chief architects of the so-called "civil war" as fled.

Please explain how fighting... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Please explain how fighting and killing the jihadis creates more of them....I never could grasp that concept. Did fire bombing Dresden create more Nazis? Did nuking Nagasaki create more Imperial Japanese? History can be troubling at times--to some people.

"The number of waivers g... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:

"The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show."
This hurts the troops a LOT more than anti-war protesters.


Howso? Because you have a criminal background it mean you are unfit for service? Or are military recuiters too dumb (just like everyone in the military apparently) to tell a real crimminal from someone who got caught shoplifting a pack of gum?

The fact is most of our troops support the POTUS and the WoT. They smart over the fact that US citizens were held for 444 days and we did nothing. In '93 the WTC was bombed and we did nothing. In '96 our soldiers died at Kobar Towers and we did nothing. In '98 our embassies in Kenya were bombed and we did nothing. In 2000 17 sailors died on the USS Cole and we did nothing. 9/11 was the last straw.

The war has been going on for some time folks. It isn't Iraq. It isn't even GWB.

Dan, Scots Irving or Britis... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Dan, Scots Irving or British Irving?

Barney,I think you... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Barney,

I think you've lost your focus. We're not fighting a civil war in Iraq.

We went there for reasons right or wrong (let's not get into it, we've banged our heads together over it already) and as a result we are fighting Al Qaeda and pretty much anyone else there that wishes to take a shot at us or destabilize Iraq (usually both.)

It did not start as sectarian violence, we did not go there to quell it. It is the reality of the situation now, however. Do consider, more hinges on Iraq than one would think.

What message would it send to Islamic extremists if we ran away? That it was an amiable departure..."let's just agree to disagree"?

Whether you want us to stay or to leave, I think we can all agree that untying terrorist's hands, freeing up their resources by leaving the fight, would spell more attacks for us.

After watching the dhimmi's... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

After watching the dhimmi's the past few weeks it is evident most of them were reared as spoiled brats or are mentally retarded (and not mildly). Someone please identify 'one' dhimmi in the United States Congress and one dhimmi running for president that acts like an adult.

I don't know one that has anything on their mind other than 'me', 'me', 'me'. You can find matching mentalities at the local pre-school.

Scrapiron: Webb and Vilsack... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Scrapiron: Webb and Vilsack. And speaking of "children", according to court toad F.Barnes, the Veep will not enter his suite without EVERY light turned on in advance. (Ghosties!)

Dan, Scots Irving or Bri... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:

Dan, Scots Irving or British Irving?

British Irving according to my gramps though I always suspected we were Scots Irvings.

bryanD, he's probably worri... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

bryanD, he's probably worried his hunting buddy is hiding in the shadows waiting to return the favor. . .

Wrong question. We went int... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Wrong question. We went into Iraq to remove Saddam and his noted propensity for supporting terrorists.....
Post by John Irving

Talk about "hogwash"! We were invading Iraq, according to the Bush White House" to prevent a "mushroom cloud" over the US because of "weapons of mass destruction" The right-wingers can't even get their story straight. What a joke.

"The number of wai... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
"The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show."

From above block quote to below conclusion....

"From today's wire services. This hurts the troops a LOT more than anti-war protesters.

What "wire service" is reporting this?

Please post a link that shows today's "hot off the press news' that recruits that requite a waiver hurt the military more than anti-war protesters.

This I have to see.

To learn more about military recruitment waivers, this is a start...

"Some offenses can be waived, and others cannot. Recruiters themselves, do not have waiver approval/disapproval authority. Some waivers can be approved/disapproved by the Recruiting Battalion Commander, other waivers must be approved/disapproved by the Commanding General of the Army Recruiting Command

Military Waivers for Criminal Background

More.............

A waiver is required for any applicant who has received a conviction or other adverse disposition for a serious criminal misconduct offense. The waiver approval authority is the Commanding General of the Army Recruiting Command. I should mention here that while waivers are "technically" possible, serious criminal conduct convictions or other adverse dispositions are rarely waived. Applicants will incur a 6-month wait from date of conviction prior to waiver processing.

Link

maggysturn, bullpuckey. </p... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, bullpuckey.

The troops are certainly en... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

The troops are certainly entitled to their opinion, but we have a long history in this country of not letting the military dictate foreign policy. The troops are on a failed mission, and I understand why they are reluctant to look at it that way. And I'm sure there are many soldiers in Iraq who oppose the war, but aren't going to argue against reinforcements.

I appreciate Sergeant Brian Orzechoski's service, but to me, anyone who claims that "bad-mouthing" the President is treason is not someone who's opinions are worth listening to.

Dan, Scots Irving here, wit... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Dan, Scots Irving here, with a bit of Irish and Welsh thrown in. I was Celtic when Celtic wasn't cool. . . heh.

/end threadjack

I appreciate Sergeant Br... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I appreciate Sergeant Brian Orzechoski's service, but to me, anyone who claims that "bad-mouthing" the President is treason is not someone who's opinions are worth listening to.

There's actually some Constitutional weight to his argument though, that providing aid and comfort to the enemy by demoralizing our troops and attacking the Commander in Chief during wartime can constitute treason. I don't agree with it, but its a valid opinion on an interpretation, so disregarding him out of hand is fairly narrow-minded.

As for "failed mission," let's just say you are not the most unbiased judge, nor has enough time elapsed for a judgement on success or failure to truely be made.

Jumpinjoe:Nice try... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Jumpinjoe:

Nice try at twisting the story. Here's your link.

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=10570

I know it's hard for right-wingers to understand basic information, so let me help you out: why is it that the armed services would need to make all of these waivers if the war is the great idea you blowhards claim it is?

Your point that recruiters don't have waiver authority doesn't even make sense. Who cares? It's a simple fact that the armed services needs to make the waivers because no one else is signing up (including the Bush twins).

C-SPAN just had a morning c... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

C-SPAN just had a morning call-in program about the Surge, taking calls from Iraq War vets and their families only. Caught the last half-hour, but of several calls, only one (from a contract driver) had ANYTHING good to say about the situation there. No suprise. How many years has the airport road been unsecured?

the US because of "weapons ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

the US because of "weapons of mass destruction"
---------------------------------------------------

SO Maggy, you are saying that Clinton and the dems have been lying about Saddam, WMD, and terrorism throughout the 1990s and early 2000s? I agree with you that Bush made one big mistake: he should have treated the dems and liberals as liars and anything they said should be treated as lies including dem president and congress people. Also Bush didn't prepare for the sewage that liberals are willing to spew against him/the US military on behalf of the terrorists.

Thanks for pointing out again that dems and liberals were simply lying about Saddam during the 1990s.

maggysturn, you have to be ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, you have to be a Freeper masquerading as a leftroid. No other commenter here, not jhow, Repukelican, any of them, sounds quite so spittle-screened as you. It's like reading a bad parody of the farthest left talking points.

I now return to the appropriate level of commentary you particularly deserve:

maggysturn, codswallop.

There's actually some Const... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

There's actually some Constitutional weight to his argument though, that providing aid and comfort to the enemy by demoralizing our troops and attacking the Commander in Chief during wartime can constitute treason. I don't agree with it, but its a valid opinion on an interpretation, so disregarding him out of hand is fairly narrow-minded.
Posted by Joh Irving

Puhleaze!

Is lying about WMDs treason (yeah, yeah, we all know your lame story about "faulty intelligence")? Is not supplying enough body armour to the troops treason? Is not supplying the necessary troop levels treason? Is giving Halliburton a no-bid multi-billion dollar contract to enrich Little Dick Cheney treason? Is cutting veterans benefits during a war treason? Is getting five deferments during Vietnam treason? Is getting your daddy to get you into the Alabama Air Nat'l Guard treason?

maggysturn, gesundheit.... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, gesundheit.

maggysturn, you have to be ... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

maggysturn, you have to be a Freeper masquerading as a leftroid. No other commenter here, not jhow, Repukelican, any of them, sounds quite so spittle-screened as you. It's like reading a bad parody of the farthest left talking points.
I now return to the appropriate level of commentary you particularly deserve:
maggysturn, codswallop.
Posted by: John Irving at February 14, 2007 11:32 AM

Isn't that typical of a right-winger? Don't counter my comments with facts, but juvenile and immature name calling. You're a bad parody of a second grader. LOFL.

From what JI said:"W... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

From what JI said:
"We stayed and are working to rebuild Iraq and set them up as a self-supporting free nation because that's what a liberal republic like the U.S. does after they defeat an enemy regime."

So you agree, we are fighting to protect Iraqi's freedoms, and not ours'.

Maggy has been caught red-h... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Maggy has been caught red-handed repeating lies from her liberal sewage already. She will continue to post these lies whether she knows it or not.

maggysturn, first off, you ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, first off, you prove you don't know what you're talking about by calling me a "right-winger." Second, you deserve the same level of attention a Flat Earther gets, for the most heinous distortions of facts in order to give yourself a snuggle blanket to make you feel safe in your opinions. There's not much point in arguing facts with you, you're incapable of recognizing and distinguishing between fact and opinion, and you didn't use facts or reason to arrive at your position to begin with.

Incidentally, I'm familiar with most internet acronyms, but LOFL is new. Laughing on Floor Laughing?

maggysturn, baka.

Nice try at twisti... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Nice try at twisting the story. Here's your link

Squeeze Me? Where in your NY Times piece does it say those recruits that require a waiver are hurting the military more that protesters?

Or was that your opinion posted as fact?

I also read this in your link.......

In many cases, Mr. Carr said, the applicant may have committed the crime at a young age and then stayed out of trouble.
"If the community backs them, we are willing to take a hard look," Mr. Carr said, referring to the waiver process, which includes checks of local, state and federal records.
The majority of moral waivers are for serious misdemeanors, most often committed by juveniles. As Douglas Smith, the public information officer for the Army's recruiting command, said, "We understand that people make mistakes in their lives and they can overcome those mistakes."
So you agree, we are fighti... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So you agree, we are fighting to protect Iraqi's freedoms, and not ours'.
-------------------------------------------------
The two are not mutually exclusive. Thanks for another example of liberal hypocrisy when they supported the US intervention in Bosnia, Serbia in the European backyard and other interventions that have nothing to do with America security.


Jumpingjoe:Where d... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Jumpingjoe:

Where did I say that the harm to the troops was was part of the post? Nowhere? Like I said, I know it's hard for right wingers to understand basic facts, but you're today's winner of the dumb award. Congrats!!

CrisO,Anyone who s... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

CrisO,

Anyone who says "The troops are on a failed mission" when that is so far from the truth, is not someone who's opinions are worth listening to.

maggysturn, first off, you ... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

maggysturn, first off, you prove you don't know what you're talking about by calling me a "right-winger." Second, you deserve the same level of attention a Flat Earther gets, for the most heinous distortions of facts in order to give yourself a snuggle blanket to make you feel safe in your opinions. There's not much point in arguing facts with you, you're incapable of recognizing and distinguishing between fact and opinion, and you didn't use facts or reason to arrive at your position to begin with.
Incidentally, I'm familiar with most internet acronyms, but LOFL is new. Laughing on Floor Laughing?
maggysturn, baka.
Posted by: John Irving at February 14, 2007 11:41 AM

John:

Examples of my "distortion of facts"?

Where did I say th... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Where did I say that the harm to the troops was was part of the post? Nowhere? Like I said, I know it's hard for right wingers to understand basic facts, but you're today's winner of the dumb award. Congrats

Yo, dingbat....This is what you wrote on this thread.

From today's wire services. This hurts the troops a LOT more than anti-war protesters

I was assuming you had some sort of hard data that said that by allowing more recruits to enter the service with waivers, that there must be something written out there to back your conclusion that their service is harmful outside of opinion.

Is there a study that shows those with waivers are committing crimes or committing atrocities like some on the left are alluding to?

Posted by: Jumpinjoe at Feb... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Posted by: Jumpinjoe at February 14, 2007 12:02 PM


You're a real moron, aren't you? Read my post again. The quote I provided was from the wire services. If I were including the comment that it was more harmful for the troops, it would have been prefaced by a ":". Get an education, my friend.

What happend to John Irving... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

What happend to John Irving? I asked for examples of my "distortion of facts", and he's disappeared. Hmmmm. Cue the sound of crickets....

maggysturn, okay, I'll give... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, okay, I'll give you a fair shake.

We were invading Iraq, according to the Bush White House" to prevent a "mushroom cloud" over the US because of "weapons of mass destruction"

You stated this as a sole "casus belli," but in fact multiple reasons were stated by Bush in his 2003 SOTU speech, among others. In fact, the ultimatum given to Saddam immediately prior to the invasion made it clear that the number one priority was removing Saddam from power.

Is lying about WMDs treason ?

Saddams failure to allow 100% inspections was sufficient, even without the leftover material discovered since the invasion that, despite their age, were still prohibited to him under the terms of his cease-fire agreement with the U.S. So, no lying, and yes there was some poor intelligence concerning the state of readiness, but the evidence seized indicates Saddam was intending to rebuild and utilize his chemical, bacteriological, and nuclear weapon programs.
Is not supplying enough body armour to the troops treason?
Body armor was provided for every combat troop. However, more than combat troops were deployed, and even among the combat troops many preferred to go without the bulky, hot, and still-vulnerable body armor. Weapons are almost always better than the defenses against them, thats why there's a saying that the best defense is a good offense.
Is not supplying the necessary troop levels treason?

We had more than sufficient troops for the invasion. The rebuilding efforts have had to adjust to changing conditions, and no one has a perfect crystal ball as to what those conditions would be. I didn't hear anyone, right or left, predicting al Sadr would flee upon news of a surge.
Is giving Halliburton a no-bid multi-billion dollar contract to enrich Little Dick Cheney treason?

Do you know any other companies with the capabilities Haliburton has? Name one that had the resources and capacity to engage in such a project on short notice.
Is cutting veterans benefits during a war treason?

Veterans benefits have increased. They did not increase as much as originally requested, but an increase is not a cut, by any measure.

Is getting five deferments during Vietnam treason?

As noted elsewhere, it was three (with two extensions), and I really don't care. I didn't care that Clinton avoided the Viet Nam war, I didn't care that Kerry did not, or that Bush served but did not deploy to Viet Nam.

Is getting your daddy to get you into the Alabama Air Nat'l Guard treason?
Bush served in the Texas ANG, with a TDY to Alabama. His father, being a Connecticut Republican, had little to no influence over heavily Democratic Texas at that time.

maggysturn, happy?

maggysturn, dont strain so ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, dont strain so hard to hear crickets, because that was a loud one I just fired across your bow.

It takes time to type out that much fact-checking, particularly when one is at work and keeping up there as well.

Posted by: John Irving at F... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Posted by: John Irving at February 14, 2007 12:14 PM

Hahahahahahahaha. Completely lame, and full of right-wing (or is it libertarian blather?) talking points. Crickets would have been more convincing than that apologistic nonsense. You shouldn't have wasted your time. Hahahahahaha.

Poor John Irving - another fool that can't admit he's been screwed for supporting the dope-in-chief.

maggysturn, thank you for p... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, thank you for proving my point exactly.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what you consider a right-winger, except for "someone who disagrees with me and beats me in an argument." By the classic definition, I'm about as right wing as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair.

Hmm... maggysturn has resur... (Below threshold)

Hmm... maggysturn has resurfaced yet again, after being busted for sock-puppetry a while ago. now, though, it appears that "maggysturn" is limiting him/her/itself to the names "jesus," "janew," "changedmymind," "bushsucks," "vietvet," and "jerzeygirl."

"maggy," I remind you that sock-puppetry (even if you don't specifically "agree" with yourself) is a capital offense around here. Find one name and STICK WITH IT.

J.

"The GOP budget resolution ... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

"The GOP budget resolution contains reconciliation orders requiring the House Veterans' Affairs (VA) Committee to cut benefits or to tax veterans by increasing their fees. The VA Committee must identify $155 million in benefits cuts or increased fees; and $798 million over the next five years."

From http://veterans.house.gov

So much for an increase.

John, you seem rather insecure. I couldn't care less how right-wing you are. It doesn't matter to me. I just think it's really sad that you would even entertain the idea that being against the war somehow constitutes treason.

By the way, since you're so supportive of this war folly, I'm confident that you're writing your posts from your base in Baghdad, right?

I came to read some comment... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I came to read some comments and discussion about an important issue and I see that a cat fight has broken out. What's the point maggy and John?

If I were includin... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
If I were including the comment that it was more harmful for the troops, it would have been prefaced by a ":". Get an education, my friend

Good Lord, either you are dingbat of the first degree or you are just deflecting away from what you can't back up.

I know it was a long, long time ago, but you asserted earlier in this thread that by allowing more waivers, it was harming the military.

Now, I ask again, where is your proof the military is harmed outside of opinion? After all you spent enough time remarking about those waivers and obviously you thought you had a point.

Waiting...............


Hmm... maggysturn has resur... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Hmm... maggysturn has resurfaced yet again, after being busted for sock-puppetry a while ago. now, though, it appears that "maggysturn" is limiting him/her/itself to the names "jesus," "janew," "changedmymind," "bushsucks," "vietvet," and "jerzeygirl."
"maggy," I remind you that sock-puppetry (even if you don't specifically "agree" with yourself) is a capital offense around here. Find one name and STICK WITH IT.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at February 14, 2007 12:31 PM

Poor Jay Tea. Busted for sock puppetry? Isn't John Irving capable of defending himself? Sounds to me like you're John Irving, and you just got busted. Talk about "sock-puppetry".

Jay Tea - didn't you also get busted awhile back for writing a completely stupid post about the "coalition forces" and then were forced to restate your dumb position when it was shown by another poster that the overwhelming majority of troops were from the US? So lame.

The whining of the right just keeps getting louder. Sucks to lose, I guess.

Jumpingjoe:Are you... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Jumpingjoe:

Are you asserting that allowing criminals in the military is a good idea? Please prove it. That's very patriotic and supportive of the troops, huh? In fact, it shows you don't give a rat's ass about the troops.

maggysturn, my time of serv... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, my time of service was the early 90's, in support of Operation Desert Storm, among others. I was not deployed, but was on a volunteer roster that turned out not to be needed, as short as that conflict turned out to be.
And no, while Jay tea lives almost exactly where I wish I was, I am not he, nor is he me.

Hugh, nothing much, it started as a joke between bryandD and myself, and maggysturn got involved, and well, you know. By the way, I'm taking your agreement to agree to disagree, it went past a polite reminder to pointless needling, and I apologize. Pax?

I'm sure maggysturn, among others here, is just great in person and would be fun to have a beer with and argue these points over and over. On the net, though, you're limited to what you have the time and opportunity to type out.

I just think it's reall... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I just think it's really sad that you would even entertain the idea that being against the war somehow constitutes treason.
maggysturn, ooookay.

Read what I posted back there again. I said I disagreed with the view, I just didnt think it was a completely invalid interpretation. I'm for continued debate and discourse, even of the radical variety.

Interesting link, you might be right on one (1) of my rebuttals. I'll have to look it up when I get home and research.

John Irving, while it's tan... (Below threshold)
troll:

John Irving, while it's tangental to the overall point, maggysturn's mention of Halliburton's no-bid contracts deserves more scrutiny from people who purport to be advocates of a "free market". Whether or not Halliburton is the only company that could provide the required services is moot--other companies from within the US and abroad ought to have been given a fair shake at securing some of the work. And the way Halliburton (and by fiat, KBR) has handled much of the responsibility does a disservice to the people in uniform.

It's heartening to see supporters of the war begin sentences with "Things have not gone perfectly, but...". The next step is to eliminate the buts, and the ellipses. Demand some accountability from the government and its proxies, for fuck's sake! It's not unpatriotic--it's the exact opposite.

Are you asserting ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Are you asserting that allowing criminals in the military is a good idea? Please prove it.

Um, dingbat, it was "YOUR" assertion that after the stringent military wavier process was conducted for certain individuals, that those that make the cut are harming the armed forces.

Why assert it if you didn't have proof that there are studies showing these individuals are now committing crimes in the military or committing atrocities in combat zones. That is the lefty assertion, I know.

Sheesh.........

John:I'm sure that... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

John:

I'm sure that you too would be fun to sit and have a beer and to debate the issues. Perhaps it's time for posters on this site to stop viewing those who disagree with them (and the war) as the enemy. They're falling for the propoganda of the White House.

There seems to be a level of anger here that's displaced. The anger should be at the person (think GWB) who got us into this mess, and now seems eerily disinterested in getting us out.

Posted by: Jumpinjoe at Feb... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Posted by: Jumpinjoe at February 14, 2007 01:03 PM

No Joe, it's you who must prove that it's not harmful. If things were going well in Iraq, it would be my obligation to prove my opinion, but they're not going well. The onus is on you.

You've shown that you're more interested in protecting the president than you are in supporting the troops.

maggysturn, while I'm not a... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, while I'm not as hostile to W as many might be (never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence, inadequate information, or bureacratic shielding), it's not a deal-breaker for me on my friends.

Anyway, in another year and a bit we'll have a whole new person unready for the challenges of the Oval Office (regardless of party or person) to kick around.

What--is it recess at DU of... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

What--is it recess at DU of dailyKos? Charming visitors, those...

What--is it recess at DU or... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

What--is it recess at DU or dailyKos? Charming visitors, those...

troll (odd handle, as the q... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

troll (odd handle, as the question was anything but trollish), good point. The key part, of course, is that Haliburton is relatively unchallenged in the large construction/support biz. It has no Apple to its Microsoft. Addressing that is going to take more than an entrepeneur-level effort, too, but OTOH I'm nervous about anything Congress sticks their nose into.

John:The dislike I... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

John:

The dislike I have of the president is that it was his incompetence that has led to the deaths of so many heroic young American lives. Other than the opinion of future generations (which he probably doesn't really care much about), Mr. Bush has sacrificed absolutely nothing, while so many thousands have sacrificed so much - including their very lives.

I hope that whoever becomes our next president (regardless of party) is more capable of handling the job. Can the country withstand 4 or 8 more years of this? I really don't think so.

maggysturn, I don't necessa... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

maggysturn, I don't necessarily agree with you, but as I've said before, it's a valid viewpoint concerning the troops. It will take history to determine how effective we are in Iraq, and while our losses have been historically low for a conflict of this size and duration, every loss is a sacrifice that bears respect.

Over time, most of the world has become more liberal, in the classical sense of letting people decide what to do with their own lives. If we instill that, in any perceivable measure, in the Middle East, we will have succeeded for the long run.

Depends, if you're dead ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Depends, if you're dead you lose all of them.

Wrong. Rights live on, as long as people still hold them dear. Some people care more about preserving the Constitution, even if it carries an increased risk.

John:I respect you... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

John:

I respect your opinion, and your right to have it. You and I seem more alike than either one of us may have initially suspected.

Unlike so many on Wizbang, I see no point in trying to suppress the opinions of those who disagree with me. The irony is that those same people consider themselves to be examples of shining patriotism. Apparently, they weren't paying attention in their American History classes.

Have a great day, and thanks for the spirited debate.

as a result we are fight... (Below threshold)
Brian:

as a result we are fighting Al Qaeda

More right-wing myth perpetuation. AQ represents 3-5% of the fighting in Iraq, and Iraqis hate them. I'm tired of pointing this out.

Have a great day, and th... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Have a great day, and thanks for the spirited debate.

maggysturn, you too.

Hi Brian:... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Hi Brian:

Wrong. Rights live on, as long as people still hold them dear. Some people care more about preserving the Constitution, even if it carries an increased risk.

I didn't mean it philisophically, I meant it quite literally..i.e., dead people dont enjoy freedom of speech because they cannot speak, nor the freedom of religion, as dead people do not attend church...etc.

But I agree with what you said in any case.

More right-wing myth perpetuation. AQ represents 3-5% of the fighting in Iraq, and Iraqis hate them. I'm tired of pointing this out.

Brian, who are you arguing with? I didn't say we are fighing x % of Al Qeada, I mentioned we are fighting them and everyone else.

It's kind of a waste of energy to rebut a point that I never made.

"The number of waivers gr... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show."


What's the matter Maggy, affraid the Military is going to change these people into responsible patriotic Americans?

85% of felons vote Democrat. Not enough for you?

Why is that 85% of worst crime commiting criminals vote Democrat and the vast majority of our Soldiers/Military vote Republican?

Answer that if you dare Maggy.


No Joe, it's you w... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
No Joe, it's you who must prove that it's not harmful

Oh....I get it....a lefty makes an assumption based on what they read in a lefty blog, then when challenged on data backing up that assumption, others must prove you are wrong instead of "YOU" proving you are right.

Very typical and very lefty of you.

"My proof" is I cannot find any data anywhere that supports your propaganda. The only places where you can find anything remotely backing you up are lefty opinions in lefty web sites. Obviously that is where you crawled in from before posting here.

I know about the wavier procedures and it's tough to get past it. I spent 20 years in the Army and last fall I spent a lot of time with the local Army recruiter when my son enlisted. We spent a lot of time talking and I guarantee you what you are blathering about is pure propaganda and you fell for it because it's anti-military and as a lefty you cannot resist the temptation to denigrate the armed forces.

I never realized one of the tenets of liberalism is the un-forgiveness for youthful infractions. Yep, make a mistake when you are young and the left wing condemns you for life. I guess they want to keep you down and on public assistance so they will vote for Democrats to continue throwing them government crumbs.

You've shown that you're more interested in protecting the president than you are in supporting the troops

This is pure lefty goose-stepping. If a leftist makes something up and it's anti President Bush or anti military then everyone "MUST" go along with the propaganda or you don't get to join in the intellectual left parties. Count me out.

I'll be supporting at least one troop tomorrow after I drive to Fort Benning to pick up my son for his 4-day pass from his second week of Airborne School.

We found out last night his follow on assignment is 4th Brigade 82nd Airborne Division and he will be deploying this spring to Afghanistan. I will be supporting the troops unlike those misinformed lefties that enjoy spreading lies about those that serve.


I guess that if 100% of the... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I guess that if 100% of the people we're fighting in Iraq are not part of Al Quaeda, than that means that none of them are Al Quaeda.

At least that's the opinion of those who do not want the U.S. to succeed...

John IrvingThere i... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

John Irving

There is absolutely no constitutional argument to support what Sergeant Orzechoski said. Members of Congress "bad-mouthing" the President can never be considered treason. Are you kidding me? Do you really make the argument that once we enter a war, the President is so supreme that he's above any criticism? Remenber, Sergeant Orzechoski's comments regarded the debate in the House over the surge. So Congress fulfilling its oversight duties can be construed as treason? I'm sorry, but that argument is completely unsupportable. If you want to argue that the Democrats are undermining troop morale, I don't agree, but that's your argument to make. But the notion that there's even a hint of treason has zero merit.

And Heralder, you're being more than a little disingenuous when you try to claim that al Qaeda was just one of the forces you were referring to. You said "we are fighting Al Qaeda and pretty much anyone else there." Identifying by name the faction that only represents about 5 percent of the enemy, then claiming that you weren't singling them out, is just weasel words. Admit it, you were using the al Qaeda boogeyman to try and justify our actions in Iraq. Geez, at least stand behind your words.

It is one thing to think th... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

It is one thing to think that this war was wrong and be opposed to it. That is an opinion. That is not treason.

Wanting the US to fail is unpatriotic. Not wanting the US to succeed is unpatriotic.

Telling lies that benefit the enemy is treason. Reporting only the successes of enemy and ignoring the successes of the US is treason. Revealing classified information that benefits the enemy is treason.

I didn't say we are figh... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I didn't say we are fighing x % of Al Qeada, I mentioned we are fighting them and everyone else.

Oh, please. So let's just say the Republican party comprises James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and everyone else.

Brian,Oh,... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Brian,

Oh, please. So let's just say the Republican party comprises James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and everyone else.

Okay.

That's fine if you just don't want to bother typing out a whole slew of different people.

However, if you want to refer to them as a majority like I clearly didn't, we throw percentages back and forth.

The fact that we are fighti... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

The fact that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq really seems to reaaly anger members of the fabricated reality based community.

Of course that's par for those who say that terrorists from all over the middle east are pouring into Iraq, the war in Iraq is creating terrorists, AND the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

What color is the sky in your world Chris & Brian?

I don't think it has anythi... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I don't think it has anything to do with arguing percentages. It's simply blasphemy (in the mind of a lefty) to mention that Al Qaeda is in Iraq.

However, if you want to ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

However, if you want to refer to them as a majority like I clearly didn't,

Don't get weaselly. You clearly meant to suggest that. It's reasonable to assume that you would list the largest group by name, and save the smaller ones for "and the rest". Notice that it wasn't "The Professor, Mary Ann too... and the rest".

The fact that we are fig... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The fact that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq really seems to reaaly anger members of the fabricated reality based community.

Not really "anger". More like "makes us shake our heads in disbelief".

Of course that's par for those who say that terrorists from all over the middle east are pouring into Iraq, the war in Iraq is creating terrorists

Well, if terrorists are not entering Iraq, and Iraq is not creating new terrorists, then were are all these supposed Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq coming from? Hmm?

What color is the sky in your world Chris & Brian?

Blue. You should come visit reality sometime. It's quite lovely.

It's simply blasphemy (in the mind of a lefty) to mention that Al Qaeda is in Iraq.

If by "blasphemy" you mean "untrue", then I agree with you.

Brian, It doesn't t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
It doesn't take much brain to know that the bad guys in Iraq are: AlQ, the former Baathists, and the Iranian proxies like Sadr. The majority of Iraqui people want to have a functioning democracy and want the US troops there. Only in the liberal virtual reality that the Iraqui people want to live under these thugs.

One thing we know for sure ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

One thing we know for sure that the majority of the Dems and liberals want the bad guys, including AlQ, to win in Iraq.

Well at least I'm glad, Bri... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Well at least I'm glad, Brian, that you seemed to admit the Iraq IS part of the war on terrorism. (If only by omission, but still...)

Still you admit and then deny that Al Qaeda is in Iraq in the same thread... Bi-polar, perhaps?

It doesn't take much bra... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It doesn't take much brain to know that the bad guys in Iraq are: AlQ

No, it just takes an inability to read.

Only in the liberal virtual reality that the Iraqui people want to live under these thugs.

Oops! Your straw man is showing!

Well at least I'm glad, ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Well at least I'm glad, Brian, that you seemed to admit the Iraq IS part of the war on terrorism. (If only by omission, but still...)

Uh, nope... don't see it.

Still you admit and then deny that Al Qaeda is in Iraq in the same thread... Bi-polar, perhaps?

No, I never said they weren't there. I explicitly said they were 3-5% of the fighting. Which simply makes them not the boogeyman in Iraq that you are making them out to be.

And don't think I didn't notice that you dodged explaining your illogic.

Brian,Don... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Brian,

Don't get weaselly. You clearly meant to suggest that. It's reasonable to assume that you would list the largest group by name, and save the smaller ones for "and the rest". Notice that it wasn't "The Professor, Mary Ann too... and the rest".

"Weaselly"...which by your definition apparently means not playing along with you to cover for the fact you tried to attack me for an argument I didn't make.

If that's what you got from my post, Brian, excellent. See what you want to, but try and stop short of telling me what I clearly meant to suggest.

Between aRepukelican trying to tell me what I can say, and you telling me what apparently I have said, one begins to wonder if you are actually capable of debate.

Now, if we're done with this semantical circus, do you have any actual points about my post you wanted to discuss?

Causalties are about the fi... (Below threshold)
Wayne Bird:

Causalties are about the first thing the evening news reports. Let's put it into perspective.

In 5 years we have lost a little over 3000 troops
Sad of course but:

WWII, 450,000 We could fight Iraq for 450 years and still not lose 450,000 men
Korea, about 68,000 We could fight Iraq 68 years and still not lose 68,000 men
Vietnam about 59,000 We could fight Iraq 59 years and still not lose 59,000 men.
Numbers might be a little off but comment is right on tract. All three of these wars were started by democrats




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy