Support The Troops

Cancel7

Banned
Let's juxtapose two stories. The first one is about our soldiers who are actually in Iraq. Not the myth, the men. I remember reading once that the guys who fought in WWII, most of them didn't have any real feel for being in a big battle of civilizations, for the destiny of the United States of America. But rather, they wanted to do their duty, put in their year, and then they wanted to come home. That always rang true to me. Of course, then you fast forward to Vietnam and pretty much everybody just didn't even want to go, never mind come home. But in Vietnam most did only one 12 month tour. The ones who had to do two, had a 24 month, that's a two year, rest period in between tours.

Does anyone understand just how radical the Iraqi war is being fought? Four tours???? Extremely short rest periods?

They want to come home. All of the platitudes in the world about not withdrawing because it might hurt the troops morale, is the biggest crock of self-justifying bullshit that I've ever heard.

Still, what may have been the worst moment of the war for Joe and Kelly came in April, when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that U.S. Army tours would be extended from 12 months to 15.

“His exact words were: ‘It better not be us. I will f---ing lose it,’” recalled Kelly. “And I thought, ‘Oh my God, is something in his brain going to snap?’”


Gut Check: Iraq war’s impact at home
Repeat deployments, extended tours add uncertainty to hardship of service
By Kari Huus
Reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 9:12 a.m. ET Sept 19, 2007
MIDLAND, N.C. - While generals and politicians debate strategy and funding for the Iraq war on Capitol Hill, the cost of the conflict is tallied in places like this quiet subdivision, where Kelly Bridson each night listens to her 10-year-old son’s bedtime prayers for his stepfather’s safety: “The light of God surrounds you. The love of God enfolds you. The power of God protects you. …”

Army Spc. Joe Bridson is stationed in the volatile city of Samarra, Iraq, about 80 miles north of Baghdad. The prayers could well be goodnight hugs if not for the vagaries of military service in the era of the volunteer army: Joe Bridson is now in the 14th month of what originally was to have been a four- to six-month deployment in Iraq.

Bridson’s situation is hardly unique. Scores of readers of msnbc.com’s Gut Check America project wrote of loved ones in similar situations, either repeatedly deployed to the combat zone or languishing there months after their deployments were to have ended.

Their stories put a human face on stark statistics showing that the U.S. military — a small force by historical standards — is stretched thin after more than four years in Iraq and six in Afghanistan. Repeated deployments of active military members and reservists and diminishing “dwell times” between postings to the war zone have taxed soldiers and taken a growing toll on the home front.

“Families are truly exhausted,” says Patricia Barron, who runs youth programs for the National Military Families Association. “They are starting to feel the stresses of separation more acutely.”

Kelly and Joe’s story is but one of thousands that illustrate how the lack of resolution plays out on a personal level.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20822561/
 
I just read that Webb's amendment was defeated yesterday, that would extend stateside leave for troops sent to Iraq. They had 56 votes, but with a promised Bush veto, it wasn't enough...
 
Now let's get to our second story.

Republicans fillibuster the Webb amendmant which would have given these guys real rests between tours like they have ALWAYS had before. And they claim they are doing it to support the troops.

It's ok to vote like this, but you come out and you say why. You are screwing the majority of the troops. They hate you. They would probably frag your ass in two seconds if you were in uniform in Iraq, but of course, you won't find these guys in uniform in Iraq will you?

They are being used by these human slimes.

You want to support the troops? Enlist. Give one of them a rest.
Lieberman can send one of his grandkids.
Effort to Shift Course in Iraq Fails in Senate
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — A proposal that Democrats put forward as their best chance of changing the course of the Iraq war died on the Senate floor on Wednesday, as Republicans stood firmly with President Bush.
With other war initiatives seemingly headed for the same fate, Senate Democrats, who only two weeks ago proclaimed September to be the month for shifting course in Iraq, conceded that they had little chance of success.
They said their strategy would now focus on portraying Republicans as opposing any change and on trying to chip away support for the White House as the war continued.
The proposal that failed Wednesday fell 4 votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster and would have required that troops be given as much time at home as they had spent overseas before being redeployed.
There were 56 votes in favor, including 6 Republicans — one fewer than the 7 Republicans who joined the Democrats in July, when the measure, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, also fell 4 votes short.
Supporters of Mr. Bush’s war strategy declared victory, saying they had firmly beaten back legislative efforts to change course.
“It means that Congress will not intervene in the foreseeable future,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Independent who has voted with the Republicans on war issues. “The fact that it didn’t get enough votes says that Congress doesn’t have the votes to stop this strategy of success from going forward.”
The Senate vote was a crucial test of the war plan that Mr. Bush put forward last week, calling for only gradual reductions in troop levels in Iraq from their current high, and leaving intact by next summer a main body of more than 130,000 troops, about the same number as last February.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/w...gin&adxnnlx=1190292562-DOZe5G6dmna15w66FLzBNA
 
I just read that Webb's amendment was defeated yesterday, that would extend stateside leave for troops sent to Iraq. They had 56 votes, but with a promised Bush veto, it wasn't enough...

Oh yeah, that was my second story, I probably should have posted them in the same post. I'm really upset about yesterday's events. It's just so frustrating becasue you have to listen to what you know is total bullcrap.
 
Oh yeah, that was my second story, I probably should have posted them in the same post. I'm really upset about yesterday's events. It's just so frustrating becasue you have to listen to what you know is total bullcrap.


It's absolutely sickening. They play the "supporting the troops" card in the most cynical way, for nothing but political advantage. When it comes down to actions that will REALLY support them - like giving them extended leave when they're strung out, or hey, how about not putting them in harm's way in the 1st place unless our security is at stake? - they're absent.

At the moment, they're putting Bush's legacy above the welfare of the troops, with every vote they cast. Bush's legacy! A flunkie who drank his way through one failed business venture after another and bailed when he had a chance to serve is in line ahead of people whose bravery & sense of duty I can't even comprehend.

They're nothing but canon fodder to the admin...
 
It's absolutely sickening. They play the "supporting the troops" card in the most cynical way, for nothing but political advantage. When it comes down to actions that will REALLY support them - like giving them extended leave when they're strung out, or hey, how about not putting them in harm's way in the 1st place unless our security is at stake? - they're absent.

At the moment, they're putting Bush's legacy above the welfare of the troops, with every vote they cast. Bush's legacy! A flunkie who drank his way through one failed business venture after another and bailed when he had a chance to serve is in line ahead of people whose bravery & sense of duty I can't even comprehend.

They're nothing but canon fodder to the admin...

You said it really well.
 
this is merely anecdotal, but a military wife called into cspan last week, and said that even though she is a lifelong republican who's always voted GOP, she's voting democratic - not because she even likes democrats - but because she wants her husband to stop doing multiple tours in iraq.

Unless iraq magically gets much better, the 2008 election is going to be about iraq. Not about medicare adminstrative costs, not marginal tax rates, and certainly not about hugo chavez.
 
this is merely anecdotal, but a military wife called into cspan last week, and said that even though she is a lifelong republican who's always voted GOP, she's voting democratic - not because she even likes democrats - but because she wants her husband to stop doing multiple tours in iraq.

Unless iraq magically gets much better, the 2008 election is going to be about iraq. Not about medicare adminstrative costs, not marginal tax rates, and certainly not about hugo chavez.

Oh, I think you are underestimating the American people's reaction to what Chavez is teaching in Venezuelan schools. I know a lot of people who are enraged about it. I can't even get a word in edgewise about the big Paul Krugman news around the water cooler. It's all Chavez all the time.

People are just steaming. And they blame liberal democrats for the whole debacle, so...it doesn't look good.
 
I just read that Webb's amendment was defeated yesterday, that would extend stateside leave for troops sent to Iraq. They had 56 votes, but with a promised Bush veto, it wasn't enough...

Yeah I read a couple of news articles on that and the word fillibuster was not used in any of those articles. I guess only Dems fillibuster.
Darn liberal media!
 
Back
Top