On a seperate website called "zimbio" under the category "war in Iraq" I have been posting my most recent articles as a means of reaching more people. One of my articles, "Bush: The Boy In The Political Bubble" recieved some feedback from a very conservative blogger. I will include our humble debate here on my blog because I think it is valuable in the sense that it reveals a little bit about some of the conservative views in America today and how I respond to them. I would suggest reading the article posted on my blog before reading the following debate.
4-5-07
Jason: Didn't anybody tell you not to drink the Kool-Aid? Wake up and face the facts. President Bush did not lie. If he did so did numerous members of the now anti-war left. Just to break it down for the slow among us, Saddam and his regime had nothing to do with September 11th, 2001. But that is not the point, the point is that we realized who we were up against and we began to take action 1 regime at a time. Remember, Germany never attacked us either.
4-6-07
P.R.: First of all, for the slow among us, Germany did not attack us but Japan did which was part of an alliance known as the axis of evil. Sound familiar in modern times? Second of all, what gives the United States the right to "take action 1 regime at a time"? That must be some kind of prick with his hand on the red button. Also, President Bush did lie and it is a poor defense to say, "well if he did so did the anti-war left". This war is a joke and those who support it need to wake up and face the facts. And the Kool-Aid pun was a flop.
4-7-07
Jason: PR, Just listen to what you are saying. Yes, of course we all know about the tripartrite treaty and the flow of world events there after. Also, it is not a poor defense to say that President Bush along with the leaders of 6 other major, industrialized countries and numerous members of the US Congress all saw the same intel reports. Great Britian was the largest contributor with dossier that was over 200 pages in length with intel as recent as FEB 2003. Now, I will assume that you have not been to Iraq and are thus blissfully ignorant as to what is really happening there. I have been twice and will be returning in mid-2008 so I have just a bit of first hand knowledge. What was the lie, specifically? WMD? Ties to terror groups? Paying the families of suicide bombers? All facts and all true. Wait, wait, wait, you say we found no WMD. All that I can speak to is what has been declassified. Abu-massab Al-zarquawi was operating a terror camp in northeast Iraq before the war SF troops took it out in the opening minutes of the war. Terror group ties? Proven. Saddam paid the equivalent of $25,000 to the families of every suicide bomber to pull the cord in Isreal. Proven fact. Now as for the WMD. No, we did not find it. But in the last several weeks, there have been at least 4 attacks using...gasp...chlorine gas. Also, I was a part of a special security mission in which we had to wear all of chemical defense gear to secure a certain site in a remote area of Iraq. So far as what is declassified there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Check with Syria, they should know more. In fact maybe Speaker Pelosi could have asked while she was consorting with our enemies. So you can read what you will in whatever left wing rag you choose, or as I said before, get actual factual information before making such inflamatory remarks. Also, some new lines of criticism would be nice the "Bush lied and soldiers died" crap is pretty old.
4-7-07
P.R.: First, I would like to address that I am proud of your service to this country. Second of all, I never used the term, "Bush lied and soldiers died" so pin that line on someone else with limited rhyming capability. Yes, there have been ties to Saddam and suicide bombers in Israel. But that wasn't what this administration and others used to as the main point for going to war, was it? The chlorine gas wasn't used in Iraq until we invaded. WMD's, the reason we went to war, were never found. The intel wasn't what was bad unfortunately. The way it was interpreted by those with war agendas in the White House, though, was bad. As for being blissfully ignorant, I wish I had that luxury...but I don't. And though I haven't been to Iraq it does not mean that I am wrong. My opinion is as valid as yours and the only difference is ideology and not facts. And to answer your question, "What was the lie, specifically?" the answer is WMDs. Whether other reasons for invading Iraq are noble or not, what remains undisputed is that this administration used WMDs to convince America to go to war...not links to Palestinian suicide bombers...WMDs. I do not believe that we have the right to play political God and decide who holds power and who does not. The entire argument for war with Iraq has holes in it and I don't think that we should be there. Saddam was an ass, yes. But was he a threat to America as Bush claimed, no. Perhaps the reason Bush lied was because he knew it wouldn't strike a patriotic cord with Americans to have brave soldiers like you dying for oil profits? Either way, if you feel that being in Iraq is where we belong then I am glad you are there fighting for America and I wish you the best of luck and a safe return.P.R.
5-8-07
Jason: I appriciate the fact that you find my service to our country noble. I have decided that no matter what proven facts I write here or which clear inferences should be drawn, there will always be those on the left whose ideology differs a great deal from mine and is therfore used to spin inaccurate and even made up information into "truth". Try as I may I can never convince such people that what they are saying and thinking is actually wrong and even damaging to our country. Those who think being blissfully ignorant is a luxury. So having said that I need to go talk to my accountant about the obscene profits I am making from this "oil war" thanks to a President who "lied for me" and his gang of co-conspiritors who also "misinterpreted" very clear intel reports. In all seriousness though, I truly hope that those on the left see the light before it is too late and terrorist pacification leads to destruction of our country. I will pray that those who will defend us are eventually elected to all governmental offices. Let's not repeat history by not learning from it. I love my country and I want it around for several thousand more years.
4-8-07
P.R.: It is true that convincing people of something they do not believe in is difficult and sometimes even impossible. I have remained as open as I can for some time and I am yet to find information persuasive enough to deter me from my beliefs. I am sorry that you feel that any ideology that does not match yours is used to "spin inaccurate and even made up information into 'truth'". And unfortunately for you, your accountant will have some bad news because those in power making the profits care little for those giving their lives for them. I, too pray that people will soon see the light but with so many differing views, I'm afraid they will be blinded from all the bull crap floating around. And if we are not to repeat history, perhaps we should not elect those with war in their veins to "all governmental offices". I believe we have already seen what that can accomplish. If America is to survive for several thousand more years then we should focus less on making distant enemies and more on waging peace. Either way, this debate has been productive as far as I'm concerned and I wish to thank you again for your service to our country and while I may not support this war, I support you.P.R.
Continued...
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Biting The Hand And Freeing The Heart
Tuesday was a productive day for insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. A female suicide bomber killed 16 people and injured 33 in a town northeast of Baghdad. Six people were killed and 21 wounded in a gun battle in some of the neighborhoods within Baghdad. A car bomb exploded at the University of Baghdad killing 6 and wounding 11. And a Katysusha rocket killed a six-year-old boy and injured 17 others. This all came one day after Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told his people to double their efforts in pushing the Americans out of Iraq but at the same time not killing each other. No American soldiers were reported as being killed in today's fighting.
Now I feel the need to explain the difference exactly between the insurgency in Iraq and the terrorism. While many of the tactics are the same, the ideology behind them are certainly not. The terrorists such as al-Qaeda wish to attack the U.S. and other coalition forces from western civilizations because they feel that their religious beliefs conflict with the west's sociological values. The insurgents in Iraq fight the occupation forces to drive them out so that Iraqis can govern themselves as a sovereign, independent nation. Muqtada al-Sadr leads the insurgency in Iraq and for the sake of progress in a war that is already confusing enough, should not be confused or linked to al-Qaeda.
If anything, today's violence has shown us that the security crackdown in Baghdad is only somewhat working with stiff resistance and the Iraqis have more at stake in this than we do and are thus far more willing to go to extremes if necessary to expel the "American occupiers". Diplomacy requires an open mind and that is something this administration has lacked in.
One of the main issues dividing al-Sadr from the Iraqi government is that he opposes the presidential administrations because they were forged from American hands and then voted on by Iraqis. The Bush Administration opposes al-Sadr because he opposes the government that they have backed. This Iraqi presidential administration is more closely allied with Bush than he is with Iraqi leaders. Iraq has adopted a Bushonian Democracy in which democracy is based on all parties supporting the presidential administration being accepted while anyone who disagrees with certain policies set forth by the administration is considered a threat to national security. Someone with al-Sadr's credentials and public backing has every right to be a part of Iraqi government and could probably be a valuable if not fundamental figure in stabilizing peace within the country.
But the Iraqi presidential administration will not allow this because he threatens their power that has been backed by the U.S. military. The system seems to be that the Iraqi government controls the use of its oil and so the U.S. protects those interests via the military so that that doors to the oil fields remain wide open. And why would the Iraqi government bite the hand that feeds it by allowing an opposing view to enter the political ring? In Iraq, they are enjoying the same sort of democratically-veiled dictatorship that the Bush Administration enjoys here in America.
Now I feel the need to explain the difference exactly between the insurgency in Iraq and the terrorism. While many of the tactics are the same, the ideology behind them are certainly not. The terrorists such as al-Qaeda wish to attack the U.S. and other coalition forces from western civilizations because they feel that their religious beliefs conflict with the west's sociological values. The insurgents in Iraq fight the occupation forces to drive them out so that Iraqis can govern themselves as a sovereign, independent nation. Muqtada al-Sadr leads the insurgency in Iraq and for the sake of progress in a war that is already confusing enough, should not be confused or linked to al-Qaeda.
If anything, today's violence has shown us that the security crackdown in Baghdad is only somewhat working with stiff resistance and the Iraqis have more at stake in this than we do and are thus far more willing to go to extremes if necessary to expel the "American occupiers". Diplomacy requires an open mind and that is something this administration has lacked in.
One of the main issues dividing al-Sadr from the Iraqi government is that he opposes the presidential administrations because they were forged from American hands and then voted on by Iraqis. The Bush Administration opposes al-Sadr because he opposes the government that they have backed. This Iraqi presidential administration is more closely allied with Bush than he is with Iraqi leaders. Iraq has adopted a Bushonian Democracy in which democracy is based on all parties supporting the presidential administration being accepted while anyone who disagrees with certain policies set forth by the administration is considered a threat to national security. Someone with al-Sadr's credentials and public backing has every right to be a part of Iraqi government and could probably be a valuable if not fundamental figure in stabilizing peace within the country.
But the Iraqi presidential administration will not allow this because he threatens their power that has been backed by the U.S. military. The system seems to be that the Iraqi government controls the use of its oil and so the U.S. protects those interests via the military so that that doors to the oil fields remain wide open. And why would the Iraqi government bite the hand that feeds it by allowing an opposing view to enter the political ring? In Iraq, they are enjoying the same sort of democratically-veiled dictatorship that the Bush Administration enjoys here in America.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Iraq: More Than A Shiite Hole
On Easter Sunday, six U.S. soldiers were killed and nothing about it was in Monday's newspaper. I don't know if the news simply didn't reach the Florida Today or if that just wasn't as important as little Johnny finding colored eggs in his front lawn. And meanwhile, marking the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad (coincidentally the same day as the fourth anniversary that Baghdad was still a violent s#*t hole), tens of thousands of Iraqis including members of Iraq's very own police and military participated in a mass demonstration demanding that the U.S. leave Iraq. Amazingly, no violence ensued during the peaceful protest. And what kind of man could organize such a successful sign of progress? Not George W. Bush but his arch nemesis Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Oppressed severely by the regime of Saddam Hussein, al-Sadr grew up in an Iraq where survival meant protesting tyranny underground. The reason Bush has declared him a menace to success in Iraq is because al-Sadr has denounced the government set up by America in his country and wishes that the Iraqis had more of a choice in who was nominated for power. In a way, Iraq is becoming a mini-state of the U.S. with Bush appointing public officials even in other countries. And while the Iraqi people did vote for their president, they had no choice in who the candidates were. It seems as though al-Sadr wants the people to have more of a say in their government. And with Iraq split between Shiites and Sunnis predominantly, why shouldn't al-Sadr have a political seat?
He has proven that he can rally tens of thousands of followers to protest peacefully in a country riddled with bullet holes. And in April of 2003, al-Sadr filled in the public service vacuum in Sadr City that the government could not by providing health care, food and clean water to his people. And sometime later, on August 30, a peaceful disarmament of al-Sadr's men was reached between him and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. But only a day later, the prime minister backed out and the fighting continued. In his most recent speeches he has told his people not to harm other Iraqis and focus on pushing the Americans out.
Now I rigidly disapprove of any encouragement of violence especially to my own American soldiers. But if for a moment we could look aside the threats and at the bigger picture we may see something valuable. This is a man with immense political potential who has been yearning for stability, peace and unification within his country since the beginning. And only when his voice goes unheard and doors are kicked down while gun barrels are pointed in the faces of his people does he fight back. So ask yourself whether or not you would do the same in his position? We have no right to be occupying Iraq any further. He has no connections to terrorism although insurgency would be a more appropriate word (focusing not on al-Qaeda but anti-occupation fighters) . He has shown that he has what it takes to lead his people and I think he should be given a chance to speak in the Iraqi government.
If this administration truly wanted peace and stability in Iraq, they would look aside American loyalty, as they have here in America shown party loyalty, and see that if the people are going to stop the violence they need a leader of the people in power and not someone chosen from halfway around the world. But perhaps with these views in mind I might find myself an enemy of the Bush Administration. I simply want what is best for America and Iraq and only when we let them be a sovereign nation of their own people will peace and stability reach the country. And I believe that if pro-Bush agendas were set aside and the people of Iraq were taken into consideration, maybe Muqtada al-Sadr could be seen as an asset to peace instead of a catalyst to war. But hell, who am I kidding...Bush doesn't even put his people first in his own country.
Oppressed severely by the regime of Saddam Hussein, al-Sadr grew up in an Iraq where survival meant protesting tyranny underground. The reason Bush has declared him a menace to success in Iraq is because al-Sadr has denounced the government set up by America in his country and wishes that the Iraqis had more of a choice in who was nominated for power. In a way, Iraq is becoming a mini-state of the U.S. with Bush appointing public officials even in other countries. And while the Iraqi people did vote for their president, they had no choice in who the candidates were. It seems as though al-Sadr wants the people to have more of a say in their government. And with Iraq split between Shiites and Sunnis predominantly, why shouldn't al-Sadr have a political seat?
He has proven that he can rally tens of thousands of followers to protest peacefully in a country riddled with bullet holes. And in April of 2003, al-Sadr filled in the public service vacuum in Sadr City that the government could not by providing health care, food and clean water to his people. And sometime later, on August 30, a peaceful disarmament of al-Sadr's men was reached between him and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. But only a day later, the prime minister backed out and the fighting continued. In his most recent speeches he has told his people not to harm other Iraqis and focus on pushing the Americans out.
Now I rigidly disapprove of any encouragement of violence especially to my own American soldiers. But if for a moment we could look aside the threats and at the bigger picture we may see something valuable. This is a man with immense political potential who has been yearning for stability, peace and unification within his country since the beginning. And only when his voice goes unheard and doors are kicked down while gun barrels are pointed in the faces of his people does he fight back. So ask yourself whether or not you would do the same in his position? We have no right to be occupying Iraq any further. He has no connections to terrorism although insurgency would be a more appropriate word (focusing not on al-Qaeda but anti-occupation fighters) . He has shown that he has what it takes to lead his people and I think he should be given a chance to speak in the Iraqi government.
If this administration truly wanted peace and stability in Iraq, they would look aside American loyalty, as they have here in America shown party loyalty, and see that if the people are going to stop the violence they need a leader of the people in power and not someone chosen from halfway around the world. But perhaps with these views in mind I might find myself an enemy of the Bush Administration. I simply want what is best for America and Iraq and only when we let them be a sovereign nation of their own people will peace and stability reach the country. And I believe that if pro-Bush agendas were set aside and the people of Iraq were taken into consideration, maybe Muqtada al-Sadr could be seen as an asset to peace instead of a catalyst to war. But hell, who am I kidding...Bush doesn't even put his people first in his own country.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Life Imitating Art Or Art Imitating Life?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This was a little collage I did that acts like a slide-out image from a pop-up book. Rated for
children 17 or older seeing as that is the minimum enlisting age for the U.S. military with parental consent.
If The Streets Of Baghdad Could Talk
When it comes to the reason we're in Iraq right now, it doesn't take a top notch detective to figure out that the motives our government has given us are all wrong. Even if by some incredibly small chance this administration did in fact receive faulty intelligence from the CIA and went to war with the best intentions of relieving Saddam from his weapons of mass destruction, Bush's actions speak louder than words. Even after it was proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq, we are still there fighting harder and longer than ever before. If the previous scenario were true, wouldn't this administration have realized the intelligence was wrong and shifted strategies? But because we are still there for the same reasons it makes me think that this war was going to happen on any terms and the lie of WMDs was merely a smokescreen. Now that we're there, Bush figures who cares now...we're there and we need to focus on victory and nothing else. But whether we leave is partly determined by why we came. That we may never truthfully know. And while I may not have Bush's account number the Saudi royal family is depositing money into, that scenario seems more likely than the one saying that oil has nothing to do with why we're in Iraq. Our military is merely protecting big oil interests at this point.
Also, I find that the only real experts on Iraq are the Iraqi civilians. They have no political agenda or warped perception of patriotism. Their only agenda is to survive. And what is best for the minority is clearly not always best for the majority. Perhaps we should listen to what they have to say about how the war is really going. Perhaps they know better than anyone we could send because they live among the violence everyday while their own friends and families are put into jeopardy. In my opinion, their voices speak the loudest; not the soldiers, not John McCain and not the Bush Administration--the voices of victims...the voices nobody are listening to.
Also, I find that the only real experts on Iraq are the Iraqi civilians. They have no political agenda or warped perception of patriotism. Their only agenda is to survive. And what is best for the minority is clearly not always best for the majority. Perhaps we should listen to what they have to say about how the war is really going. Perhaps they know better than anyone we could send because they live among the violence everyday while their own friends and families are put into jeopardy. In my opinion, their voices speak the loudest; not the soldiers, not John McCain and not the Bush Administration--the voices of victims...the voices nobody are listening to.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Good War Business (G.W.B) What Else Shares Those Initials?
After reading Time Magazine today, I found out that "the Army is once again getting the smallest share of Pentagon funds", recruits include high school dropouts and convicted felons, mid-level officer positions and military intelligence officers are in high demand with little supply and suicides among soldiers is increasing. With facts like this reaching me, little is left to the imagination as to why I feel that this war is a total bust. And with 13,000 National Guard troops scheduled for deployment to Iraq by next year, Americans are getting tired of the death tolls. And as this administration provokes even further conflict in the Middle East with Iran from sending in carrier groups to run "drills" in the Persian Gulf, making threats against Iran's policies and pointing blame at Tehran for the roadside bombs in Iraq, it seems as though war is the only word on President Bush's lips these days. How did the insurgents get their automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other weapons? Why doesn't the government look into that? Why are they so interested in Iran? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Iran produces the world's largest supply of oil. Hey, if war with Iran comes about prices will skyrocket and Bush's pals, the Saudis, will make a fortune. And I'm sure none of that "luck" will rub off on George W.
Hell, even John McCain who has taken a beating from his stance on the war in Iraq, jeopardizing his rise to presidency, has been seeing benefits to playing the right hand of the devil. "And McCain's top finance officials say the senator's position on the war has, if anything, helped him with many of his wealthy donors," reported Michael D. Shear of the Washington Post. No one can argue that there is money to be made in war. I only wish that our very own presidential administration didn't have their hands stuck in the cookie jar. The Saudi-Bush connections have been made and oil is the binding factor here between the Middle East and why we give a damn about Iraq.
And with polls showing numbers scattered all over the place, it is difficult to see where many Americans stand these days unless you can cut through all of that political grime. In the Washington Post-ABC News' most recent poll, 64% of those polled said "it [war in Iraq] was not worth fighting." But then in the same poll, "70% of republicans said the Iraq war has been worth fighting." The only thing to figure out is how many Americans consider themselves republican. What this poll tells me is that republicans need to pull their heads out of their chair warmers and let go of their violent blood lust. If they want to fight our "enemies" so badly, then why don't they join the Army and fight? I'm sure they'll be accepted. With the Army taking even convicted felons I can't imagine that war hawk republicans would be denied. Maybe they would shoot better, though, if they could see straight!
Also in the news was John McCain's speech trying to convince Americans to give General David H. Patraeus more time. "This gives him an opportunity to put a marker down on what his foreign policy vision will be and how important it is to win the war in Iraq..." said McCain.
Of course his foreign policy vision will be coming from the standpoint of a military general and so I doubt it will involve the Army leaving any time soon. Job security is on the line, you know. And as far as I'm concerned the war is over and won. Saddam is out and now all that is left is a civil war we have no business being in militarily.
And to finish up probably one of my longest articles; if I hear a sharp-nosed republican saying "if we leave Iraq now the terrorists will follow us home" one more time I am going to vomit. Does anyone honestly think they need a bread crumb trail left behind the U.S. Army to tell where America is? They can look on a f**king map! Having our troops home will ensure a better defense instead of having them thinned out halfway around the world making more enemies.
I hope people try to see the signs everywhere that change needs to be made soon and it needs to be dramatic. The world is becoming impatient with this administration's stubbornness and the only progress being made right now is that the hole we're digging ourselves into is becoming deep enough to fit George W.'s ego.
Hell, even John McCain who has taken a beating from his stance on the war in Iraq, jeopardizing his rise to presidency, has been seeing benefits to playing the right hand of the devil. "And McCain's top finance officials say the senator's position on the war has, if anything, helped him with many of his wealthy donors," reported Michael D. Shear of the Washington Post. No one can argue that there is money to be made in war. I only wish that our very own presidential administration didn't have their hands stuck in the cookie jar. The Saudi-Bush connections have been made and oil is the binding factor here between the Middle East and why we give a damn about Iraq.
And with polls showing numbers scattered all over the place, it is difficult to see where many Americans stand these days unless you can cut through all of that political grime. In the Washington Post-ABC News' most recent poll, 64% of those polled said "it [war in Iraq] was not worth fighting." But then in the same poll, "70% of republicans said the Iraq war has been worth fighting." The only thing to figure out is how many Americans consider themselves republican. What this poll tells me is that republicans need to pull their heads out of their chair warmers and let go of their violent blood lust. If they want to fight our "enemies" so badly, then why don't they join the Army and fight? I'm sure they'll be accepted. With the Army taking even convicted felons I can't imagine that war hawk republicans would be denied. Maybe they would shoot better, though, if they could see straight!
Also in the news was John McCain's speech trying to convince Americans to give General David H. Patraeus more time. "This gives him an opportunity to put a marker down on what his foreign policy vision will be and how important it is to win the war in Iraq..." said McCain.
Of course his foreign policy vision will be coming from the standpoint of a military general and so I doubt it will involve the Army leaving any time soon. Job security is on the line, you know. And as far as I'm concerned the war is over and won. Saddam is out and now all that is left is a civil war we have no business being in militarily.
And to finish up probably one of my longest articles; if I hear a sharp-nosed republican saying "if we leave Iraq now the terrorists will follow us home" one more time I am going to vomit. Does anyone honestly think they need a bread crumb trail left behind the U.S. Army to tell where America is? They can look on a f**king map! Having our troops home will ensure a better defense instead of having them thinned out halfway around the world making more enemies.
I hope people try to see the signs everywhere that change needs to be made soon and it needs to be dramatic. The world is becoming impatient with this administration's stubbornness and the only progress being made right now is that the hole we're digging ourselves into is becoming deep enough to fit George W.'s ego.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Overhead Luggage In Over Head
It has recently come to my attention that for much of the war in Iraq, the bodies of our fallen soldiers were being handled by the same undergraduates who lose my luggage at the airport every year. Unloaded by civilian personnel from a commercial jet by either a mechanical belt or forklift, the bodies of sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives were presented to their families in a disgraceful act that objectified those who gave their lives for this country.
It wasn't until a father of a son who fell in Iraq lobbied for change that in January the bodies of our soldiers began coming home via charter jets and met by the honor guard for a proper and respectful return home. The main reason for this dishonorable treatment was because of--what other--money. It cost nearly $1.2 million last year to transport the bodies of our soldiers home via commercial jets whereas now the winning contract for six months for a more appropriate return costs about $11 million (according to the associated press). But with billions of dollars floating around from the war funds, who cares about soldiers who aren't able to go back into the fight, right? That seemed to be the opinion of the Pentagon. Whether it be conditions at Walter Reed or simply the treatment of the deceased upon arriving home to loved ones, it has become evident that this administration only values those who can fight their war.
"Regardless of what the reality was, there was a perception there that the proper respect was not being provided to those who made the ultimate sacrifice," said Pentagon spokesman Maj. Stewart Upton.
It is sad that this issue was seen as merely an misperception and not a real problem. It may be an unsettling concept for war strategists and politicians but Americans do in fact care about their soldiers before, during and even after they return from war.
I can only hope that the number of our brave soldiers who fly third class home dwindles to zero soon. in this pathetic administration's war And if this administration continues to wage war perhaps they should begin making it a habit to tag their luggage so that it doesn't get confused with my suitcase at the airport. And if finance becomes a problem, maybe the president can make room on Air Force One right next to his golf clubs.
It wasn't until a father of a son who fell in Iraq lobbied for change that in January the bodies of our soldiers began coming home via charter jets and met by the honor guard for a proper and respectful return home. The main reason for this dishonorable treatment was because of--what other--money. It cost nearly $1.2 million last year to transport the bodies of our soldiers home via commercial jets whereas now the winning contract for six months for a more appropriate return costs about $11 million (according to the associated press). But with billions of dollars floating around from the war funds, who cares about soldiers who aren't able to go back into the fight, right? That seemed to be the opinion of the Pentagon. Whether it be conditions at Walter Reed or simply the treatment of the deceased upon arriving home to loved ones, it has become evident that this administration only values those who can fight their war.
"Regardless of what the reality was, there was a perception there that the proper respect was not being provided to those who made the ultimate sacrifice," said Pentagon spokesman Maj. Stewart Upton.
It is sad that this issue was seen as merely an misperception and not a real problem. It may be an unsettling concept for war strategists and politicians but Americans do in fact care about their soldiers before, during and even after they return from war.
I can only hope that the number of our brave soldiers who fly third class home dwindles to zero soon. in this pathetic administration's war And if this administration continues to wage war perhaps they should begin making it a habit to tag their luggage so that it doesn't get confused with my suitcase at the airport. And if finance becomes a problem, maybe the president can make room on Air Force One right next to his golf clubs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)