Odom: Supporting The Troops = Withdrawal
From someone who knows firsthand what combat does to a soldier to a bunch of chickenhawks too cowardly to put themselves on the line but all too brave with other people's children and spouses.
Every step the Democrats in Congress have taken to force the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq has failed. Time and again, President Bush beats them into submission with charges of failing to "support the troops."
Why do the Democrats allow this to happen? Because they let the president define what "supporting the troops" means. His definition is brutally misleading. Consider what his policies are doing to the troops.
No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.
DUDE!!!!
Bush and his puppets are more then happy to use, abuse and sling aside those who are in the armed services.
I mean why would Bush or cheny care? Both somehow or ´´another´´ slinked thier asses out of vietnam, with deferments and other various tools used only by the ubber rich.
And when someone calls them on such actions being imposed on the troops today? oh yeah,, it means you dont support the troops and are a terroist lover.
IS THAT THE BEST THE REPIGS CAN DO? play that card from how many yrs ago, in a differnant war, during differant times?
The answer is,, Yes! and sadly idiots are falling for it, time and time again.
What happened to the repeated statemets that enlistments and re-enlistments are up and the military are meeting or exceeding their goals.
They must have run out of older volunteers and those without a High school education and or felony convictions.
What next? Turn loose death row?
Bush has never been playing with a full deck ♣♥♦♠
He never showed for his full term of service, but wants our young men to serve several.
Doolittle just flipped too.
Sorry, here the link
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/258865.html
Bush and Cheney should visit this place.
http://www.peaceheroes.com/PeaceHeroes/arlingtonwest.htm
While I agree with Odom, it should be pointed out that he never served in combat. And that Duncan Hunter did experience combat in Vietnam, and has a son that is serving in Iraq. And Duncan Hunter supports the war in Iraq. I disagree with Hunter, but he is no chicken hawk.
Id really like to ask John MCcain the same question during the vietnam war.
I wonder if powder man could sit there and lie thru his teeth and say everything was better during vietnam.
Right johnny. If a reporter had come to say siagon, stood there and said ,, ´´everythings safe here to take a stroll ´´ Iam quite sure MCcain would have flipped a fry!
Thats the problem even with the FEW ppl running for office that served thier country. To this day they still lie , cheat and steal , to get thier hidden agenda thru.
Does anyone here think that Johnny boy would wish what happend to him , happen to his own kids?
Wait,, dont answer that one.
By the likes of most ppl in office today, all of whom havint served thier country ,be it burning shit barrrels in kuwait or actually boots on the ground in various wars from yrs past, not one of them has ever held a open debate with former soliders from foreigen wars!!
Forget dick cheney or bush. they both brought thier sorry asses out of harms way and let the ´´others´´ do thier dirty work.
These are the ppl that time and time again, without having served thier country,, or did and came back knowing full well what a illegal war smells like,,these are the ppl that use the famous,, ´´terrorist lover´´!! when one cant agree on the current iraq war.
Kinda reminds me of the south when civil rights was making a attempt to take hold and if you dared opened up your mouth in favor of it,, well you were called a ........lover!!!!!!!
my how THINGS have not changed at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
File under "What you can do" - some beautiful pictures from freewaybloggers travelling through the desert:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2007/07/across-great-southwest.html
our shit-for-brains president considers our troops POWS and will only allow them
home in body bags.
Woody @ 8:
What to you want to bet that his son is safely ensconced for the duration in the green zone?
#8-Woody
While Hunter may have served in Vietnam, he seems to have ignored the lessons of that debacle, which is that the United States should never have attacked and invaded a country that, like Iraq, was never considered a threat to anyone in these United States. Because the U.S. committed the egregious error of sending troops into Vietnam, close to 60,000 American service personnel ended up losing their lives for a less than noble cause. Now hawks like Hunter and McCain are trying to make up for what they view as the failure of the United States to "win" in Vietnam by somehow winning in Iraq, as if the United States has any kind of moral ground to stand on in again invading and in this case occupying a country [Iraq] which, like Vietnam, was never remotely a direct threat to anyone in the United States, much less a threat to its neighbors.
Ya know I just do not think the 'Democrat' Party is quite this stupid. After all if I, a rude uncivil blogger, could figure out a way to reframe the 'support the troops bullshit' why then I'm absolutely sure all those smart folk in Congress could do something similar.
Nope....
I'm afraid something else is in play here and you'd have to call what it is...deep seated rot. The 'Democrat' Party is doing as it is paid to do.
Time to 'Take out the Trash'.
Support the Troops can now be amended to Kill the Troops.
Libby already spilled the beans!!!!:
http://www.cafepress.com/vivace737.147778195
It just burns me up whenever I think of all the unnecessary hell that our genius Decider is putting our troops through. The man has absolutely no respect for the sanctity of life, and not enough brains to know that he doesn't. The U.S. armed forces as we once knew it is gone, thanks to the Moron-in-Chief and his bullsh*t slurping acolytes. It's going to take decades to even begin to undo the damage that the GOP has wrought on this country and the world. At some point this slow-motion train wreck has to come to an end, and it's not going to be pretty. Be prepared for years of hand-wringing and mea culpas. The situation as it is now is begging for impeachment proceedings.
The link from usliberals.about.com titled Mike Craigs blog, The Void that Binds is now here
Later folks and thanks for a good time here too at C&L!!
talk to you later. Have a good night where ever you might be too.
Danke john too for a cool ´´blog´´!
regards
The baker.
Guten Nacht C&L bloggers!!
danke for a great time here,, this week :) Take care folks and heres to a excellent friday too.
Regards,,
The Baker.
Republicans:
We were for the war before we were against it!
Flip Flopers!
If the Armed Services contributed to Republican campaign cofers, you can bet that Bush would withdrawl troops!
They know what they should do, but do not want to. They don't want to so badly that they are willing for us to think they are being duped, "beaten" by * at each turn. The part that fries me the most is that they are probably right. There are way too many who want to think there are good guys and bad guys in office. There are a bunch of bought-off invertebrates who don't care for a thing so much as their own social standing in office. The only way to get them to work for a decent world in fact is to make them afraid to do anything else. That is, in a sense, what motivates them to keep selling us, and the world, out, too.
I never thought I would see a president as moraly and intellectually VACANT
Sorry about that, as I was saying, I never thought I would see a president as morally and intellectually vacant as bush. It saddens me to see my country held hostage to an embicile like him and his cronies. What to do? Apparently NOTHING. We have Dems in control now that are spinless jelly fish. We have Madame Speaker Pelosi Blinking her way to a win in 2008 without regaurds to what is happening to our troops
We voted in the Dems to do SOMETHING, and they have failed us. Seems to me they are more concerned about winning in 2008 than actually doing something NOW. Our country is a mess, and we (most of us) sit by and let it happen. (sorry about the many posts, I keep hitting the WRONG key)
The "Nam statement is somewhat misleading. Troops didn't usually spend extended time in the bush, though some units did far more and far longer than "intermittent." The problem with both 'Nam and Iraq and Afghanistan is the same one-- no matter where you are, you are not safe. In WW II and for the most part, Korea, when troops were withdrawn for the combat arena they were relatively safe. No so in 'Nam, or for that matter Thailand. Troops were always in danger. The fear of the short-timer was a real thing and the military worried about it too. Iraq and 'Nam are similar in that it is and was constant stress all the time.
Oh yeah. Impeach Bush.
Daniel Broadway @ 26:
I agree. All the lackeys that choose corporate interests over individual interests need to go away.
The reason the Dems allow this is the same reason they voted for the war and how they got into office in the first place- they are beholden to Defence and its contractors.
America is waking up, that can be very dangerous for every Rep. running for office in 2008. My best bet withdraw before April 2008 with bills signed for partial withdraw..........
dont speak their language at all!
the first iraqi that died by our hands is enough to indict them all as murderers!!
I believe some of you are unduly harsh on Democrats. They can only do so much and need:
1. All Democrats to be with them
2. Some republicans for a majority as required - a total of 60 Senators to break republican filibusters and 67% in both Houses to override vetoes.
Republicans have now started politicising the war, in other words they are now changing positions, especially those Senators who will run for re-election in 2008# 2.5 Republican incumbent races
* 2.5.1 Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
* 2.5.2 Saxby Chambliss of Georgia
* 2.5.3 Norm Coleman of Minnesota
* 2.5.4 Susan Collins of Maine
* 2.5.5 John Cornyn of Texas
* 2.5.6 Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina
* 2.5.7 Pete Domenici of New Mexico
* 2.5.8 Michael Enzi of Wyoming
* 2.5.9 Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
* 2.5.10 Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma
* 2.5.11 Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
* 2.5.12 Pat Roberts of Kansas
* 2.5.13 Jeff Sessions of Alabama
* 2.5.14 Gordon Smith of Oregon
* 2.5.15 Ted Stevens of Alaska
* 2.5.16 John Sununu of New Hampshire
Dominici is the latest to make a move, but watch for the rest of them
only people in need of money are enrolled since there is no draft.
the rich can dodge the draft too! hence the fate of the troops is
scantily discussed by 'Republicans' and 'Democrats/ libs' not on an American platform. this makes the approval ratings of people in power irrelevant.
When the administration has advocated "Support the troops", they have meant only one thing, which is "Support the mission (in Iraq)". Since the mission was ill-conceived, and required lying in order to get it undertaken, it seems that in order to "support the troops" it would be necessary to complete the mission and withdraw the troops. I seem to recall the president himself has concluded the mission accomplished.
The Iraqis have themselves supported a troop withdrawal. I seem to recall the Iraqis supporting a phased troop withdrawal taking about a year. They were supporting this a year or more ago. So, it's way past time to get going, out of Iraq.
I'm sorry, none of this textual analysis is why we're getting beat. The people, by a large margin, don't believe this crap anymore. The polticians, all but the real loons, don't believe it either. But the crucial thing is that the 15 Republican votes we need are not arriving. That's not linguistics, that's power politics, and until we find a way to do that, we'll just be floundering around like turtles out of their shells.
I've been saying this for years. Supporting the war is NOT supporting the troops.
Supporting the war is supporting the MISSION given to the troops.
Considering the length of their deployments, the lack of length between tours, the lack of funding to military services such as health care (see Walter Reed), housing, and morale issues, supporting the war is saying to the troops, "we just don't care about you, your life, your family, or your happiness."
I know this. I was one of the troops for 14 years and I still work on a military base. I see it every day.
PEACE
What I can't believe is that efforts to eliminate funding the war is defined by the complicent Shills in the MSM as "not supporting the troops."
These Hacks always hold up the spector of U.S. soldiers running out of ammo, or even transportation home if the money is cut off by Congress! What bullshit! The troops would lack nothing that they have now if the funds are cut off by a certain date, but the warmongering cowardly Decider would be breaking the law if he kept spending government money without congressional action. In essence, it would (officially) turn GWB into a thief, and quite probably give him the dubious "honor" of being the 3rd Resident to be impeached.
In addition, if Bush actually was stupid enough to make hostages of our own troops and cut off their supplies and blame congress, it would be the most outrageous cowardly abandonment of an army since Napoleon decided to invade Eqypt. Perhaps conviction by the Senate isn't so far fetched after all?
I don't understand how you support the troops by sending them to an illegal war. I support them by taking them out of harms way and maybe saving their lives.
I'm curious why Iraq's government doesn't issue a statement to the effect of, "Thank you, United States, for everything you have done but we want you to leave NOW."
It would be hard to refuse such a request. After all, if we stayed, we would be completely condemned, even by our friends (the few that are left).
Oh, wait, that's right. Iraq's government is our puppet. So, such a request will never, ever happen. Silly me.
Bill Maher has been making the same point as Odom for months now, so good to see a military man take that position for once. I think this also exposes the BS of Lugar, who claims to want to end our occupation but hides behind the line of "we can't cut off funds because it would leave our troops vulnerable". What a crock! NO ONE who wants to end this disgrace is calling for us to leave the troops high and dry. We can get out in a carefully planned way that wouldn't hurt the troops at all, and Lugar knows it. He's just being intellectually dishonest (as he has been all along, since he voted for a surge he doesn't really support).
...which has been my response every time a wingnut told me i did not "support the troops."
but even when our troops return home, we will still have another uphill battle, one that i'm afraid won't dredge up much concern once the military occupation: economic occupation. the profiteer-ers are going to continue to profit and rob the iraqi people. first they've robbed them of their lives, now they will impoverish them.
Danial Broadway @ #24
"I never thought I would see a president as morally and intellectually VACANT"
There is a more serious deficiency with George.
Maybe a week ago I saw a short clip of Bush on TV ( BBC by the way ) , which was part of a phone in discussion .
Bush was sitting at a table at the G8 Conference with Merkel ( German Pres.), and I think the presidents of Japan and France.
On the table in front of George was a beer bottle ( European beer) and an empty glass.
George picked up the beer bottle and started to dump it into the glass without even holding the glass to incline it .
Merkel glanced at him in "stunned amazement".
By the time the glass was half full of beer the suds had overflowed all over the table.
Merkel tried to ignore the mess.
" I never thought I would see a president that could not pour a glass of beer."
Bush and his fanatics support the war, not the troops. The two are actually mutually exclusive.
Why do the Democrats allow this to happen? Because they let the president define what “supporting the troops” means. His definition is brutally misleading.
EXACTLY!!! Do the Democratic Leadership in DC have a strategic bone in thier bodies?
Abuse and disregard.... If this was a man on woman situation in the context of some kind of relationship, experts would call it physical and mental abuse. And chargable under law! And all this mental and physical anguish and abuse done with a blatent disregard for the concerns of the abused...our sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, fathers, mothers of the previously proud, now tattered working class of America.
Ya want to frame this differently? Ya want to reset the parameters of the discussion and take Chimpy's one little club away from him? Call this goddamned war what it is and stop being whipping boys for this amoral moron and his pack of thievin criminals!!! That's what ya need to do dems, or is it dims......JD
First President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when he ignored the international inspectors reports on WMD in Iraq.
Secondly President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when he ignored the United Nations Security Council advice and ignored the overwhelming lack of international support for the invasion.
Thirdly, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when he bogusly ramped up tensions in the no fly zone to solicit attacks from Saddam.
Fourthly, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when he went to war based on lies; into a country which was not an immediate threat. By failing to never put them in harms way in the first place without an absolute necessity.
Fifthly, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when he ignored and demeaned the State Department and refused to allow them any meaningful contribution to the post war planning. Leaving only the military to address what was clearly a joint responsibility.
Sixth, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS by ignoring sound, learned advice from the military, as to how many troops would be needed in post invasion circumstances.
Seventh, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when he refused to allow the international community to assist in reconstruction and training of Iraqi troops which was offered post invasion.
Eighth, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when the order did not come down from on high to secure weapons cashes, leaving them available to be exploited by insurgents and others.
Ninth, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when he did not provide the best equipment available to all our service people.
Tenth, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when word did not come down to the street level that Iraqi assets were to be protected, to stop looting, and protect National Treasures in museums. Respect was lost and distrust set in with the Iraqi people.
Eleventh, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS by requiring multiple deployments, because of his failure of having the proper number of military forces trained and available to execute this failed policy.
Twelth, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS the minute he condoned torture and rendition; truly Un-American acts which fomented hatred of Americans around the world. It is shameful the face this administration has put on our American troops and Americans in general. This stripped our soldiers of their honor in the eyes of the world.
Thirteenth, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS by ignoring The Iraq Study Group whose advice would have gone a long way to help mend international tensions and step up State Department activity that is much needed.
Fourteenth, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when his own little ego refused to allow him to recognize his own failures.
Fifteenth, President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS when he made it policy to not give the honor due our fallen soldiers by not allowing the return of their caskets to be viewed openly by the public. It is as if their deaths are some dirty secret this administration wants to hide. (To this day I do not believe the numbers of the dead reported by this administration, I fear the number is much, much higher than this administration would ever divulge to the public. They never wanted the number of dead to steer any discussion regarding deployment in the future, as happen during the Viet Nam era. Just as when Katrina hit and Homeland Security took over the collection and count of the victims of that disaster I believe they manage it all in secret.)
And paramount President Bush FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS most egregiously when he vetoed time tables for withdrawal. By spitting in the face of the troops and saying to them, even though I was wrong, you have to stay there until you make me right, even though the task is not militarily possible. How sick is that?
How can anyone say that the actions of this President regarding this war is not an impeachable offense. He broke his Oath of Office by ignorantly placing this country at high risk, both from attack and financial strain. What a loser.
BUSH LOST THIS WAR. PERIOD. NOT THE MILITARY. HIS FAILED POLICY AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS FAILED THE TROOPS AND THIS NATION!
THE TROOPS DESERVE A HEROES WELCOME HOME FOR THEIR SERVICE TO AND FOR THIS NATION REGARDLESS OF THE IDIOCY OF THEIR COMMANDER OF CHIEF; OF PLACING THEM IN A NO WIN SITUATION.
Marple;
Yep, pretty much covers all the details... Too bad the dems in congress don't listen much....JD
Somebody else, not W, who also wears a cowboy hat famously sang, "You gotta know when to hold'em; know when to fold'em"
Even though I mistyped COMMANDER IN CHIEF, in my comment, I realized it is actually interchangable, Bush being the Commander IN Chief and Cheney is the Commander OF the Chief. Both culpable.
Not to mention, at least in Vietnam, crappy as that war was, there were at least SOME diversions from the action (booze, drugs, and hookers), that were readily available.
What do our soldiers have? Thanks to the War on Drugs and random testing, I'm sure none of the privates are getting to sample any fine hashish to mellow out. Pop a cold can of brew or toss back a couple of shots. Forbidden by Islam, and we don't want to offend our "host" countries, so alcohol is out. And hookers? In the Middle East? Even if you could get her burkha off, and she wasn't fugly underneath, you'd wind up getting stoned for adultery.
Oh well, between 15 month combat rotations, there's probably no downtime for fun anyway. Who needs it?
Yes, the least we could do for the troops is legalize prostitution and send them some decent hoes.
My brother in law is a ditto-head war supporter who was in the guard. He was in both gulf wars as a supply sgt. After his gulf 2 tour in kuwait he immediately retired. Its probably the smartest thing the numbnuts ever did.
I've got scores of reasons to hate this disgusting war and want to bring the troops up, but General Odem summed up my #1 reason perfectly:
"No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq."
My grandfather was drafted to serve in WWI (never fought due to being quarentined with the Spanish Flu). My father was drafted in 1957 to serve in the "Cold War". I never grew up with the idea that it was my destiny to fight for my country, but I believed that at least if there were ever a sustained need for manpower during wartime I would be drafted. I thought that over very carefully before I registered for selective service. Now I wonder why I even bothered!
Anyone who can support continued engagement in Iraq but oppose conscription does not support the troops. Its as simple as that.
[Deleted. Tin foil hat too tight?-Sitemonitor]
We democrats allow the republicans to define what "supporting the troops" means because our democratic leadership sucks at 'spin'. They're nice people, and I wholeheartedly support the democratic platform -- but jesus we've got some awful politicians. The republicans run circles around the democrats in the media. I've been wondering about this "support the troops" issue from day one, just waiting for a single democrat to go head to head with this particular piece of republican spin.
Not to mention the fact that cutting funding IS WHAT CONGRESS DOES. The power of Congress is the "power of the purse". The check and balance against the executive branch is "to defund". The republicans accused the democrats early-on of threatening to "defund the troops" and rather than say "Of course", we caved!
Time and again I'm forced to accept that our democratic leadership is a bunch of pussies. Sad. Very sad.
Thanks General Odum for succinctly stating the obvious!
Supporting the troops means bringing them home!
Supporting the war means bringing them home in body bags!
We need simply ask the tremulous Republicans whether they support the war!
To support the war means that they still believe that the war can be won and that what's left of American substance should be invested there. As they crawl nearer the cliffs of political obivion following the decider guys every command, they will sense the difference!
I think this says it all.
http://www.miamiherald.com/569/story/163895.html
Comments are closed on this entry