PDA

View Full Version : Does Criticism of the War Undermine Troop Morale?



DrMaddVibe
12-09-2005, 08:17 PM
By James Joyner Published 12/09/2005

One of the lessons of Vietnam taught to American officer cadets is that successful prosecution of a long-term war requires support from the people, the government, and the military. It is considered axiomatic that, if any leg of Clausewitz' Remarkable Trinity[1] falters, a war effort is doomed.



This dictum came into focus again recently when Congressman John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, called for a rapid pull-out of all troops from Iraq in a provocative speech that dubbed the war "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion." He was immediately lambasted for suggesting that the United States "cut and run" and for strengthening the resolve of America's enemies.


White House press secretary Scott McClellan compared Murtha to Michael Moore. Vice President Dick Cheney proclaimed that, "A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America." President Bush agreed that, "An immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq will only strengthen the terrorists' hand in Iraq and in the broader war on terror."


Further, many argued that such talk was undermining the morale of our soldiers in harm's way. Vice President Dick Cheney dubbed withdrawal talk "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asked viewers of ABC's "This Week" to, "Put yourself in the shoes of the American soldiers who are losing lives and losing limbs and believe that it is a noble cause."


A recent Washington Post poll suggests the Republicans are getting the better of the argument, with 70 percent agreeing that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale and 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot." Even among self-identified Democrats, 55 percent think criticism hurts morale while only 21 percent say it helps morale.

Some anecdotal evidence also suggests that the troops themselves are angry. For example, Sergeant Mark Russak, an infantryman serving in Iraq, sent a blistering letter to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review castigating Murtha,

"How dare you, Mr. Murtha -- a Vietnam veteran -- sell out soldiers in combat right before the end of a successful mission! Your behavior is inexcusable. You should be ashamed. I am sure the terrorist insurgency is grateful to you for announcing our defeat days before yet another victory in this country. You owe every American soldier a formal apology."

As obvious as it may seem that criticism by politicians would undermine troop morale, though, the evidence is scant. Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon is actually quite concerned by the disconnect between popular opinion on the war and the attitudes of those who are fighting it:

"Increasingly, civilians worry that the war is being lost, or at least not won. But the military appears as confident as ever of ultimate victory. . . . The military's enthusiasm about the course of the war may be natural among those four-star officers in leadership positions, for it has largely become their war. Their careers have become so intertwined with the campaign in Iraq that truly independent analysis may be difficult. But it is striking that most lower-ranking officers seem to share the irrepressible optimism of their superiors. In talking with at least 50 officers this year, I have met no more than a handful expressing any real doubt about the basic course of the war."

Congressman Jack Kingston, Vice Chairman of the House Republican Conference, reported back from his trip to Iraq that,

"First and foremost: the war that we saw is not the same war that we are reading in the media everyday. In fact, our soldiers are very frustrated that the media is only reporting the bad news instead of highlighting the progress being made.

"Our troops are in high spirits and are doing well. Their morale is high, and they are proud of the work that they are doing." [Emphases in original]


Even Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, in a speech Monday criticizing the press for harping on the negative, asked the rhetorical question, "Which view of Iraq is more accurate, the pessimistic view of the so-called elites in our country, or the more optimistic view expressed by millions of Iraqis and by some 155,000 U.S. troops on the ground?"

Soldiers are a remarkably resilient group. Indeed, I am always impressed when I run into people I served with as a young lieutenant -- who are now lieutenant colonels (yet, surprisingly, not nearly as old as lieutenant colonels were when I was a lieutenant!) at how optimistic they are compared to most of us. This includes men like Lanier Ward, severely wounded in one of the first IED attacks in Iraq in June 2003, who has spent more than two years recovering from his injuries and will never regain full use of his once-dominant right arm yet is raring to go back to Iraq to lead young men. Appearing on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" a few months later from the hospital, he told the host:

"Most of the soldiers you'll come upon today will tell you three things: That they were very proud of what they were doing, they were very proud of the units they were in, and they'll tell you if they could go back they could."

This isn't just a West Pointer giving the party line. He has said essentially the same thing privately the two times I've seen him since, at his promotion to lieutenant colonel and at a reunion of his old cadet friends in Chicago last month.

While Ward's attitude is exemplary, it is by no means unique. Those who volunteer to be soldiers in a society without a draft are just different. I recall being out on maneuvers in Germany shortly after reaching my first unit in 1989 when Operation Just Cause broke out in Panama. To a man, the lieutenants were all frustrated that we were stuck in Europe doing peacetime work while others "got" to go to war. Four years later, when I was in graduate school, I was sarcastically referring to it as Operation Just 'cause.

Similarly, when our unit got mobilized for deployment to Saudi Arabia for what would become Operation Desert Storm, virtually all of the officers and men were proud to be going over to help liberate the Kuwaiti people from their invaders. Again, as a cynical grad student, I opposed going to war in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and elsewhere on the grounds that there were "no vital American interests at stake." (Joining me, as Michael Kinsley points out, was Dick Cheney, who had apparently not developed his qualms about criticizing policy with American troops on the ground.) The soldiers who served in those campaigns, though, were almost universally enthusiastic about them and, to the extent they had qualms, such were about not being allowed to do more to accomplish their mission.

Another thing to bear in mind is that soldiers in a war zone are perhaps the least attuned among us to what's being said on television. During Desert Storm, my parents anxiously watched CNN several hours a day trying to keep up with what was going on. Meanwhile, I was focused on the mundane duties of a platoon leader, making sure my troops were taken care of and that we were ready to fire rockets down range when called upon. The only news I got was from my nightly operations briefs and from days-old copies of the Stars and Stripes when the mail got delivered.

Soldiers ultimately decide for themselves whether their mission is "worth it." To the extent that they are concerned with political debates in Washington, it is mostly about the small picture: ensuring they get the tools and equipment they need to survive and get the job done. While they may be interested in grand strategy, it seldom motivates them to risk life and limb. They may agree or disagree with establishing a foothold for democracy in the Middle East but they fight for their comrades-in-arms, out of genuine concern for locale villagers whose situations they empathize with, and for hundreds of other reasons unique to each soldier.

James H. Joyner, Jr., Ph.D. is a former Army officer who writes on national security affairs at the Outside the Beltway weblog.

[1] This theory is almost universally mistakenly attributed to Carl von Clausewitz and his classic On War. In fact, it originated with Harry Summers' On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (1982). See Edward J. Villacres and Christopher Bassford "Reclaiming the Clausewitzian Trinity," Parameters, Autumn 1995.





My feelings after reading this is that a book is closing on those that wish ill on the troops and disparaging towards leadership while troops are deployed. Its a tactic designed to win favor but will blow up in the faces of those delivering the message. We learned an important lesson with Vietnam. Don't spit on a soldier and call them a baby killer (or terrorist) because they served. Those soldiers were drafted, and now its an all volunteer military.

thome
12-09-2005, 08:29 PM
It matters what the People your fighting for -Thinks- about you.

However, when the Sh@t hits the Fan the soldier no matter what Branch
of service will -Do His Duty- cause its his ass out there in the fire zone.

LoungeMachine
12-09-2005, 11:12 PM
Does sending men and women into battle whithout proper protection hurt morale?

Does paying the private contractors 10X the soldier's salaries hurt morale?

Does hearing your SOD say "sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" hurt morale?

Does redeploying troops longer than promised hurt morale?

Does cutting benefits and combat pay hurt morale?

Does watching the "coalition of the willing" leave hurt morale?

Does listening to REPUBLICANS such as Hagel talk about how poorly the war was planned hurt morale?

Does not finding the WMD which the SOD said he KNEW EXACTLY where they were hurt morale?

Does being put under the command of private contractors as drivers and security hurt morale?

Does driving down raods KNOWN to be littered w/ IEDs in an unarmored vehilce hurt morale?


Take you time....

Warham
12-09-2005, 11:18 PM
And worst of all, does the Democratic party saying you have no chance to win in Iraq hurt your morale? They support you though, don't forget that, even though they think you terrorize Iraqi women and children.

FORD
12-09-2005, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Warham
And worst of all, does the Democratic party saying you have no chance to win in Iraq hurt your morale? They support you though, don't forget that, even though they think you terrorize Iraqi women and children.

Yeah keep on taking Dean and Judas both out of context. That will make everything better... :rolleyes:

Warham
12-09-2005, 11:35 PM
I'll just have to quote what Dean said so we'll see if I'm taking him out of context...

"I supported this President's war in Afghanistan, but I do not believe in making the same mistake twice. And America appears to have made the same mistake twice. I wish the President had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we'd gotten in there. The idea we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."

DrMaddVibe
12-09-2005, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Yeah keep on taking Dean and Judas both out of context. That will make everything better... :rolleyes:

Kinda hard when they're both backpeddling and eating their words to understand what they meant...I guess you must have some Democratic party decoder ring that enables you and only you to decipher their true meaning.

FORD
12-09-2005, 11:36 PM
So what was wrong with Dean's statement?

How do you win a civil war where NEITHER side backs the occupation?

Warham
12-09-2005, 11:38 PM
In other words, Dean is saying our troops can't get the job done. Liberals said the same thing during the Vietnam War.

Speaking of Vietnam, how did McGovern, who was the anti-war candidate, do in the 1972 election?

FORD
12-09-2005, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Warham
In other words, Dean is saying our troops can't get the job done. Liberals said the same thing during the Vietnam War.

And they were right. How many THOUSANDS of lives could have been saved if LBJ had listened. Or if Nixon had ended the war, as he promised he would.

58,000 Americans dead for no good reason. How many of those would have lived if they would have pulled the plug in 1968?

And how big of a granite wall do you want this time?

Again, for NOTHING.

Warham
12-09-2005, 11:54 PM
It's not coincidence that since the end of the Vietnam War, Demcrats have lost control of their power in Washington DC.

Hardrock69
12-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Of course. The Republicans will do anything they possibly can to stay in power.

Lie, Cheat, Steal murder. Commit High Treason. Genocide. And Conspiracy to commit all of the above.

Man. That is all way beyond just a simple "hanging offense".

Cathedral
12-10-2005, 03:03 AM
Sounds like it's time for the people to chuck their whole political system and clean sweep the ranks.

Who's government is it anyway?

It sure as hell isn't mine because i don't recognize it, and it isn't just the politicians, it's everyone breathing.

Everyone is an individual, and thinks that way, that's the problem.

Nickdfresh
12-10-2005, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Does sending men and women into battle whithout proper protection hurt morale?

Does paying the private contractors 10X the soldier's salaries hurt morale?

Does hearing your SOD say "sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" hurt morale?

Does redeploying troops longer than promised hurt morale?

Does cutting benefits and combat pay hurt morale?

Does watching the "coalition of the willing" leave hurt morale?

Does listening to REPUBLICANS such as Hagel talk about how poorly the war was planned hurt morale?

Does not finding the WMD which the SOD said he KNEW EXACTLY where they were hurt morale?

Does being put under the command of private contractors as drivers and security hurt morale?

Does driving down raods KNOWN to be littered w/ IEDs in an unarmored vehilce hurt morale?


Take your time....

Exactly, it's funny how guys who never really served are always the first to worry about "troop morale" (chickenhawk CHENEY, short-timer jet-jock RUMMY, ANG BUSH). Translation: "we don't want our peon middle class cannon fodder to get upset with our use of highly paid mercenaries and contractors in the war zone, or the fact we've fucked up so badly."

Also interestingly, most documentaries/interviews I see have soldiers talking about HOW THE WAR SHOULD BE DISCUSSED at home.

Also, the biggest hit to morale is often the feeling of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen is that general populace in blissfully unaware of what the fuck is going on over there and that there really is no homefront in CONUS, nor feeling here that a war is actually going on at all.

BECAUSE THEY'RE BEARING ALL OF THE BURDEN!! NOT YOU GUYS HERE ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD, AND NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

Nickdfresh
12-10-2005, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by Warham
It's not coincidence that since the end of the Vietnam War, Demcrats have lost control of their power in Washington DC.

Why do you guys always make these retarded statements never backed up by any facts?

Really?

Nickdfresh
12-10-2005, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Kinda hard when they're both backpeddling and eating their words to understand what they meant...I guess you must have some Democratic party decoder ring that enables you and only you to decipher their true meaning.

Oh, really? Who's "backpedaling?" Then why is the Pentagon set to withdraw US troops after Dec. 15th?

I guess you have some magic decoder ring to decipher what US troops believe....

Oh, and the four IRAQ War vets running as Democrats?

thome
12-10-2005, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Does sending men and women into battle whithout proper protection hurt morale?

Does paying the private contractors 10X the soldier's salaries hurt morale?

Does hearing your SOD say "sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" hurt morale?

Does redeploying troops longer than promised hurt morale?

Does cutting benefits and combat pay hurt morale?

Does watching the "coalition of the willing" leave hurt morale?

Does listening to REPUBLICANS such as Hagel talk about how poorly the war was planned hurt morale?

Does not finding the WMD which the SOD said he KNEW EXACTLY where they were hurt morale?

Does being put under the command of private contractors as drivers and security hurt morale?

Does driving down raods KNOWN to be littered w/ IEDs in an unarmored vehilce hurt morale?


Take you time....

Only if your a major pussy and we -got no- pussies in our service.

Challenge a couple to a bar fight next time your in Ft.Hood.

DrMaddVibe
12-10-2005, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh, really? Who's "backpedaling?"

Dean Claims Iraq War Gaffe Taken 'Out of Context'

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Thursday his assertion that the United States cannot win the war in Iraq was reported "a little out of context," saying Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there.

Seeking to clarify a statement in a Texas radio interview that Republicans harshly assailed and some Democrats questioned, Dean said, "They kind of cherry-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq."

Dean was questioned on CNN about an interview he gave Monday to radio station WOAI in San Antonio. "The idea that we're going to win this war is an ideal that unfortunately is just plain wrong," the former Vermont governor and unsuccessful 2004 presidential candidate said.

His Republican counterpart, Ken Mehlman, called Dean's prediction "outrageous" and said it "sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy, and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections."

On Thursday, Dean stressed at several junctures in the interview that Democrats support U.S. troops struggling to secure Iraq. He seemed to be striving to counter charges that statements by some Democrats suggesting a pullout are having the effect of undermining U.S. servicemen and women.

Democrats have been struggling to find party unity on Iraq. Dean's broadside Monday, likening Iraq to the Vietnam experience, went beyond an earlier call by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to begin to pull troops out. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., embraced Murtha's position Wednesday. But other Democrats have been more cautious about second-guessing President Bush on this issue.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said earlier this week that Democrats "undercut the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

Asked Thursday to defend his statement in the Texas radio interview, Dean said: "It was a little out of context. ... We can only win if we change our strategy dramatically. ... We want to serve our troops well. They're doing a fantastic job in Iraq."

Dean charged that Bush is "going in the wrong direction. We'll go in the right direction and save soldiers lives while we're doing it."

"We can and we have to win the war on terror," the Democratic Party chairman added. "We can't do it with this kind of approach."

Asked about Lieberman's statement, Dean replied, "I am not as worried about the president's credibility. ... We need to redeploy our troops and stop making our troops the target over there. We believe that talking about the president's failed strategy is not unpatriotic. It may undercut the president but it does not undercut the troops. We are for the troops and we are going to support the troops."

He acknowledged, however, that Democrats "may have some small disagreements" on the timing of any withdrawal.

© 2005 Associated Press.


John Kerry Blames Rush Limbaugh for Iraq Blooper

Failed presidential candidate John Kerry blamed top conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh Friday morning for the uproar over his claim that U.S. troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children.

"You know, the only people who are trying to make anything out of that, to be honest with you, are Rush Limbaugh and a few people on the right," Kerry told radio host Don Imus.

On Sunday Kerry told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there was "no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs - Iraqis should be doing that."

Asked if he meant to say that American soldiers were guilty of terrorism, Kerry claimed: "Obviously not."

What he meant to say, he insisted, was: "After three years, Iraqis ought to be capable of searching a home ... It's inexplicable that when the biggest killers in Iraq are suicide bombers and IEDs, improvised explosive devices, that we're still on the front lines going into homes and going out in the dead of night. And it scares people."

The one-time top Democrat said that he'd like to see U.S. troops redeployed "in a way that accomplishes the goal but does it without needlessly putting troops at risk and incurring greater difficulties in feeding the insurgency."

Citing a year-old Washington Post report that claimed Iraqis resented home searches by U.S. troops, Kerry said his "terrorizing" comment was meant to be constructive.

"That resentment hurts our soldiers," he told Imus. "I'm trying to help our soldiers. We all are."

Asked if Iraqis soldiers wouldn't be "terrorizing" the same homeowners when they take over the searches, Kerry replied: "Hopefully not."

But in the next breath he added, "They're going to resent being terrorized if that's what happens."



Kinda hard to NOT call this backpeddling.

BigBadBrian
12-10-2005, 09:42 AM
http://aarons.cc/i/dean-surrenders.jpg

Nickdfresh
12-10-2005, 11:00 AM
December 10, 2005

For Troops' Families, War Debate Not a Major Morale Issue
By Maura Reynolds and Faye Fiore, Times Staff Writers (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-morale10dec10,1,3249562,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true)

WASHINGTON — Jacqui Coffman lives literally in the shadow of Ft. Stewart, Ga., headquarters of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division. She can see the gates from the windows of her house.

Her husband, Maj. Ross Coffman, is gone these days, serving his third tour of duty in Iraq. Every month she gathers with other military wives to talk about what's on their minds: kids, money, their husbands' safety overseas.

Not once, she said, has a wife expressed concern that public support for the troops was flagging. Not when Cindy Sheehan staged her protest near President Bush's ranch in Texas over the death of her son. Not when Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) called for a swift withdrawal of troops, setting off a firestorm on Capitol Hill last month.

With public support for the war on the wane and anxiety in Washington on the rise, lawmakers and policymakers have opened a cautious debate over one of the touchiest subjects in America: when and how to end the U.S. operation in Iraq.

In Washington, as elsewhere, the consensus seems to be that debating the war is appropriate. President Bush and members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — add that the discussion should be careful not to undermine troop morale.

Where agreement ends is on how to do both at the same time — debate the war and support the troops.

For some people, especially those with painful memories of the Vietnam era, keeping the two separate can be hard.

"In case people have forgotten, this is the same thing that happened in Vietnam," Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), a Vietnam veteran, said during the heated House debate on Iraq last month. "Peaceniks and people in Congress and America started saying bad things about what was going on in Vietnam, and it did a terrible thing to troop morale. I just pray that our troops and their families can block this noise out."

But Coffman said she considered words tossed around in Washington far less important than the support she feels daily for herself and her three young daughters from the community around Ft. Stewart.

That support has been so evident and unwavering that Coffman said she considered the growing debate over the war a healthy exercise in democracy.

"Everywhere you go, people thank you for your service to this country, and I think that the debate itself has not changed that support for the soldiers," said Coffman, 37. "I think that's the difference. When you go back to Vietnam, you were looking at the American public actually disliking the American soldier. That isn't true anymore."

Recent interviews with service members, their families and those who work with them suggest Coffman's view is common.

Although opinions vary, the people most concerned with the welfare and morale of troops overseas — their families — don't seem to mind if lawmakers in Washington question the war, as long as they continue to support the men and women in uniform materially and morally.

"It's the yellow ribbons on the cars; it's your child's teacher and what they say about the war; it's the discounts at local restaurants for military families," said Joyce Wessel Raezer, an official with the National Military Family Assn. "You need communities to wrap their arms around these families."

As for the soldiers themselves, they say they focus on their unit and their mission.

To suggest that soldiers are demoralized by public discourse is to misunderstand their training, said Army Capt. Jeremy Broussard, 28, who helped provide fire support to Marines and special operations troops in Iraq.

Soldiers are responsible for tactical goals — securing a location or controlling a district. The broader strategic goals are the responsibility of the White House and the Pentagon — and those, Broussard said, are what critics question.

"The soldiers and Marines are still accomplishing their tactical goals. If there is a problem with the strategic goals, that's not the fault of the soldiers, and they know that," Broussard said.

He added: "Soldiers are not distracted or losing their lives because of what's in the opinion polls."

Still, dissonance between a soldier's personal experience and the national discussion can affect morale on the margins, retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Randall L. Rigby said.

"We have a group of soldiers now who are event-oriented. They get the school built and 400 kids have a place to go — well, that's all they see," Rigby said. "They don't look at the fact that [bombings by insurgents] are up fivefold.

"They come back saying the press never reports what's good; it chips away at a feeling of accomplishment."

But Rigby said he believed such effects were usually minimal and were usually outweighed by the importance of a national discourse on Iraq.

Former Army Staff Sgt. Marissa Sousa, 27, who served two tours in Iraq, said debate at home was hardly a pressing concern in the field.

"For soldiers on the ground … their main objective, regardless of what the Pentagon or Bush says, is to take care of themselves and their friends," she said. "They want that ticket home."

Sousa said the debate over Iraq was essential.

"Questioning the war isn't unpatriotic — not questioning it is unpatriotic," she said.

Raezer said that military families, especially spouses, were more likely than troops to be affected by war dissent that they hear, but that spouses "are not looking at the news; they are just trying to get themselves and their kids through the day."

By contrast, parents of service members tend to be more engaged in public debate, Raezer said, in part because they are older, more established in their communities and less dependent on the military for their well-being.

"There's a reason why you have parents like Cindy Sheehan out leading antiwar marches but the spouses stay in the background," Raezer said.

Patty Saunders leads a spouse support group at Ft. Polk, La. Her husband, Army Sgt. Charles Saunders, has been in Iraq almost a year with a transportation unit.

She said the spouses had expressed no concern about debate undermining morale either at home or in the field.

"Talk is cheap. They can talk all day, and they do talk all day," she said, referring to Congress. "As long as they never say our soldiers are doing wrong — that they are causing more bad than good — then it's just another debate. It's like the budget. You don't pay much attention."

One of the trickiest questions in public debate is whether calling for withdrawal risks sending a message that the sacrifices already made — including the deaths of more than 2,000 troops — have been in vain.

Saunders said talk of withdrawal earned spouses' attention, but not for that reason.

"When they talk about withdrawal, my little ears perk up because that means he might be coming home," she said. "And when they talk about sending more troops, they perk up because that means he might have to go again."

Nickdfresh
12-10-2005, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Dean Claims Iraq War Gaffe Taken 'Out of Context'

.....


Kinda hard to NOT call this backpeddling.

I never said he didn't, but there is a lot of backpedaling going on, and BUSH and his cronies are amongst it.


http://aarons.cc/i/dean-surrenders.jpg
--I have to admit this is actually kinda' funny, completely untrue and simplistic, but it is funny...

DrMaddVibe
12-10-2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I never said he didn't, but there is a lot of backpedaling going on, and BUSH and his cronies are amongst it.




Funny, you ignore your party's gaffes and concentrate on the Republican party.

There's a word for that.

FORD
12-10-2005, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Funny, you ignore your party's gaffes and concentrate on the Republican party.

There's a word for that.

Is it the same word you would use for those who ignore the constant lies and backpedaling of the BCE while they try to blame their fuckups on Dean or Kerry or whomever?

Did Howard Dean invade a country that was no threat to the United States of America?

Did Judas IsKerryot lie about a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

Did John Murtha claim that the "smoking gun" of Iraqi WMD's would be "a mushroom cloud over New York City"??

I think not.

LoungeMachine
12-10-2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Funny, you ignore your party's gaffes and concentrate on the Republican party.

There's a word for that.

Well, shucks

Don't leave us in suspense.

Tell us what TheWord is before we all start singing from Jesus Christ Superstar :D

Wayne L.
12-10-2005, 06:07 PM
I don't think the troops care if anybody is against the Iraq war or for it since they have differing opinions as well but my sniffing Saddam Hussein's feet WAS way over the line into treason.

Cathedral
12-10-2005, 09:30 PM
Ok, who rattled the cock gobblers cage?

Shut yer pie hole, Wayne...when we want shit from you we'll pull you off yer moms tits.

Leg Humper!

Um, as for this idea that Dean was taken out of context, bullshit, but that's beside the point which he proved in that comment.
People, especially Democrats, don't speak responsibly.
The comment was clear, he didn't make distinctions in that statement because he flat out said, and i quote, "the idea that we can win in Iraq is simply wrong".....So what part is out of context?

I didn't hear any exceptions in that, so one can only take it at face value, right?
He speaks before he thinks, and he does it often.

Now if he'd said, "If there isn't a change in course and a new direction taken in winning the peace in Iraq, then the idea that we can win is simply wrong".....Now that would have been ok, he would have clearly been referring to Bush's failures and gotten his message across.
But he didn't say that, did he?

No, what he said is, "the idea that we can win in Iraq is simply wrong", and "we" means the troops in his own context.
So, just like any good Democrat he claims he's been taken out of context when he didn't put his word IN the proper context to begin with.

I might have some respect for the guy if he just came out and said he fucked up and chose the wrong words, but Nooooooooooo, he claims us big bad conservatives are twisting his words, which is clearly bullshit if you know how to fucking read and can hear at all.

I'm not stupid, and all i'll add is that he had better start thinking before he opens his fucking mouth. I know what he said, I know his motivation, and i know he has shown no respect to a single soldier with that statement.
Fuck Howard Dean...with Fords dick. ;)

LoungeMachine
12-10-2005, 10:43 PM
That must be some good shit, cath...

Cathedral
12-10-2005, 11:37 PM
:)

Warham
12-11-2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why do you guys always make these retarded statements never backed up by any facts?

Really?

How many liberal presidents have we had since 1973, Nick?

Nickdfresh
12-11-2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Warham
How many liberal presidents have we had since 1973, Nick?

The War officially ended in 1975. How many "conservative Presidents" have we had, and how many years of control did they have (NIXON's handoff to FORD doesn't count).

Oh, and by the way, Does President GORE count too?;)

Oh, and who controlled congress for over 40-straight years?