Supportive Bush?

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:45 pm

Not sure of the source of this as it was sent to me:

It is interesting that certain people act like if you don’t support a current war that you are unpatriotic and Bush asks us to support the troops but what he is really saying is support my decision to go to war. Then he is not capable of supporting the troops with the equipment they need. I think we should all demand that HE support the troops. Otherwise it makes it look like he considers them expendable.

Another factor that gripes me is that a whole lot of experts were telling us what could happen prior to our going to war. Bush and Co. ignored them and now they are saying didn’t expect, failed to anticipate, didn’t have a policy. How could they be so unaware? Is this more collective wishful thinking by people who equate dissent with disloyalty or was it willful intent to proceed no matter the consequences. Remember the guy who got sacked for suggesting it would take 200,000 troops and tons of money.

Also, George Bush was born on July '6', 194'6' at 7:2'6' AM.[/u][/i]

lifeloyalsigmsu · Post by **lifeloyalsigmsu** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:11 pm

iaafan wrote:Not sure of the source of this as it was sent to me:

It is interesting that certain people act like if you don’t support a current war that you are unpatriotic and Bush asks us to support the troops but what he is really saying is support my decision to go to war. Then he is not capable of supporting the troops with the equipment they need. I think we should all demand that HE support the troops. Otherwise it makes it look like he considers them expendable.

Another factor that gripes me is that a whole lot of experts were telling us what could happen prior to our going to war. Bush and Co. ignored them and now they are saying didn’t expect, failed to anticipate, didn’t have a policy. How could they be so unaware? Is this more collective wishful thinking by people who equate dissent with disloyalty or was it willful intent to proceed no matter the consequences. Remember the guy who got sacked for suggesting it would take 200,000 troops and tons of money.

Also, George Bush was born on July '6', 194'6' at 7:2'6' AM.[/u][/i]

Another failure to remove the tin foil hat by whomever sent that to you.....

Beaker · Post by **Beaker** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:05 pm

It is interesting that certain people act like if you don’t support a current war that you are unpatriotic and Bush asks us to support the troops but what he is really saying is support my decision to go to war. Then he is not capable of supporting the troops with the equipment they need. I think we should all demand that HE support the troops. Otherwise it makes it look like he considers them expendable.

I'm another of the two or three of us on this board that is in the military, and I can give you some much-needed, first-hand perspective on this. "Supporting the troops" but despising the President because of the actions he decided to take in our nation's best interests is diametrically opposed viewpoints--you can't have both viewpoints at once.

To all those who are on this board but don't support the war--don't claim you support the troops. You don't, and any statement to the contrary comes across as patronization. All you're trying to do is be "PC"--the nome de guerre of the Left. Spare us the "we support the war, but..." drivel.

Another factor that gripes me is that a whole lot of experts were telling us what could happen prior to our going to war. Bush and Co. ignored them and now they are saying didn’t expect, failed to anticipate, didn’t have a policy. How could they be so unaware? Is this more collective wishful thinking by people who equate dissent with disloyalty or was it willful intent to proceed no matter the consequences. Remember the guy who got sacked for suggesting it would take 200,000 troops and tons of money.

The liberation of Iraq went better than expected. Naysayers were telling all who would listen that the Iraqi army was going to bog the coalition down. Wow. If we were bogged down, imagine how much faster it could have been than the month it did take...

No one is perfect, not even those in this world that deride our President for making a tough call--and not turning the liberation campaign into a "popularity contest," a la Kerry. That said, the have been some mistakes in the planning and execution of the restabilization effort. That said, however, it is not the President's fault. We are not a military that takes every breathing order from the President. It's called "decetnralization" and it is was keeps us from being a military like Saddam's was. I don't know the innermost workings of the planning staff at US Central Command--I doubt anyone on this board does. Unless you've got a source on the inside, I suggest you find some facts that support your theories.

Also, George Bush was born on July '6', 194'6' at 7:2'6' AM.

And?

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:22 am

Beaker wrote: I'm another of the two or three of us on this board that is in the military, and I can give you some much-needed, first-hand perspective on this. "Supporting the troops" but despising the President because of the actions he decided to take in our nation's best interests is diametrically opposed viewpoints--you can't have both viewpoints at once.

To all those who are on this board but don't support the war--don't claim you support the troops. You don't, and any statement to the contrary comes across as patronization. All you're trying to do is be "PC"--the nome de guerre of the Left. Spare us the "we support the war, but..." drivel.

First I will say I do not support this war. I won't get into my reasons as this is irrelevant to what I want to say.

I DO support the troops, what else would I do? Would you rather me send you guys hate mail? Get on the radio and talk about how stupid our troops are for being in Iraq? You think I want our boys over there dying? Whether I want this war or not, the fact is our troops ARE over there. I support them, I don't want them dying. If they have to be over there, (last time I checked, they do), they have my support in doing the best job they can.

I could not disagree with what you said anymore than I do.

Beaker · Post by **Beaker** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:34 am

First I will say I do not support this war.

I want this war or not, the fact is our troops ARE over there. I support them, I don't want them dying. If they have to be over there, (last time I checked, they do), they have my support in doing the best job they can.

If you don't support the war; that's fine, you're entitled to your views. What I'm telling you is from my perspective--and all the people that I work with actually in the military--you can't "support the troops" and be against the war. It's like being patted on the back, and then stabbed in the same motion. To me, to us, telling us you don't support the cause makes the "support" of the troops you claim meaningless.

I would rather the PC bit stop, and people make a stand for once in their lives. If you're supporting us and the war, fine; glad to have you aboard. If you're not supporting the war, stop the patronizing silliness and move to Canada.

DCC2MSU · Post by **DCC2MSU** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:28 am

I too would disagree with you on this one. I don't agree with the war, but I feel the troops deserve to be trained properly, equipped properly, and manned properly. I don't see how that equates to me patronizing them. I don't go off on polital rants and blame anyone for this. We are over there now, so the troops should be put in a situation where they have every advantage we can give them. To me, saying that you have to support the war to support the troops is turning it into the popularity contest. If someone didn't support the troops (and I really think there are few if any out there) they wouldn't care about those things. I don't know if we are undertrained, equipped, or manned; but I expect those things to be constantly evaluated - not just when we are at war. I think it is insulting to say that if you don't agree with what the president says you should, then you are against the troops. I thought that was one BIG difference between democracy and other governments was the obligation to question governing decisions and not just fall in line.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:01 pm

Beaker wrote:I would rather the PC bit stop, and people make a stand for once in their lives. If you're supporting us and the war, fine; glad to have you aboard. If you're not supporting the war, stop the patronizing silliness and move to Canada.

You kind of forgot your diplomacy on that last paragraph beaker, and apparently posted what you really thought. You should have stopped when you were ahead in the first paragraph where you at least conceded that it was okay for people to disagree with the actions of the government in this country. This last paragraph suggests something much, much different, and is frankly kind of a scary and close minded statement. I hope that after some more thought, you come to realize how statements like that truly run counter to what America is all about.

And, for your information, it truly is possible for people to be very concerned about the well being of the troops while not supporting the war. It's not PC crap -- it's sincere. A person doesn't have to wish harm to the troops in order to wish that they weren't in Iraq. In fact, if you really think about it rationally, the exact opposite conclusion is much more likely.

From the sounds of it, Rumsfeld is the one who doesn't care about the troops. And from the sounds of the reaction at the press conference, a lot of the soldiers in the field tend to agree.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:02 pm

DCC2MSU wrote:I too would disagree with you on this one. I don't agree with the war, but I feel the troops deserve to be trained properly, equipped properly, and manned properly. I don't see how that equates to me patronizing them. I don't go off on polital rants and blame anyone for this. We are over there now, so the troops should be put in a situation where they have every advantage we can give them. To me, saying that you have to support the war to support the troops is turning it into the popularity contest. If someone didn't support the troops (and I really think there are few if any out there) they wouldn't care about those things. I don't know if we are undertrained, equipped, or manned; but I expect those things to be constantly evaluated - not just when we are at war. I think it is insulting to say that if you don't agree with what the president says you should, then you are against the troops. I thought that was one BIG difference between democracy and other governments was the obligation to question governing decisions and not just fall in line.

Well said DCC2MSU -- I should have read your post first and then posted "ditto" instead.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:06 pm

A question to beaker: Have you supported the decisions of every President on each and every military campaign this country has ever entered into throughout the history of this country?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:25 pm

As another quick follow-up, I was having drinks with a guy who was on leave from the army and had just served in Iraq actually throwing grenades and shooting at people. I asked him how he felt coming back to San Francisco, where about 90% of the people are openly against the war, yet seem generally friendly to guys in military uniforms (from my experiences wandering around the city). He said that it didn't bother him in the least, and that he separated his job (the army) from his politics, and he still respected people's various opinions on the war itself.

Now granted, if somebody would have come up and said something negative about him personally or the troops themselves, it would have been a different story.

Beaker · Post by **Beaker** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:56 pm

And, for your information, it truly is possible for people to be very concerned about the well being of the troops while not supporting the war. It's not PC crap -- it's sincere.

Apparently my point is not being conveyed clearly. You may think it's all well and good to "support" the troops and despise our President for sending us in harm's way for a valid cause. What I'm telling you is to me, it's pandering to both sides of the issue--a bit like Candidate Kerry, wanting to please both sides at the same time. I would rather you not say you're supporting the troops if you don't believe in the cause in which we're sent. I never have said you can't have your views on the Iraq campaign, BAC--the bit about "moving to Canada" was apparently a bit too sarcastic.

Have you supported the decisions of every President on each and every military campaign this country has ever entered into throughout the history of this country?

I can say that I have supported our President's decisions--even President Clinton's--when it comes to military campaigns. I have questioned them before we were sent in, but once we're there, I have always defended our President's decision sending us there. I think that just comes as a part of the job.

He said that it didn't bother him in the least, and that he separated his job (the army) from his politics, and he still respected people's various opinions on the war itself.

I guess he's either able to seperate issues better than anyone else in the military I've talked to, or he's putting a nice face on the issue for your sake.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:28 pm

Beaker wrote:
Have you supported the decisions of every President on each and every military campaign this country has ever entered into throughout the history of this country?
I can say that I have supported our President's decisions--even President Clinton's--when it comes to military campaigns. I have questioned them before we were sent in, but once we're there, I have always defended our President's decision sending us there. I think that just comes as a part of the job.

I wasn't only limiting the question to events during your tenure in the military. I was asking about the history of our country. Because apparently, in your mind, at any point you claim that you disagree with the President regarding a military engagement, you are then anti-military (which is how it comes across when you say that we can't support the troops but oppose the war).

I would find it hard to believe that you would say that our military has always been used appropriately throughout history. Although, at the same time, I would find it hard to believe that you would consider yourself to be nonsupportive of the military that was acting under those orders. Take a second, separate your emotions from what you consider to be your job, and let me know what your true thoughts are about being able to separate the support of the troops from the support of the President.

And just so you know, it is just a touch offensive to be accused of "pandering" when one expresses sincere concern over family members and friends. I would have assumed that you, with your oft-mentioned insight into the military, would realize the human cost that we are all (regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the President) acutely aware of. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not running for office, and I don't really need to be pulling votes from the hawks. If I say that I support the troops, yet disagree with the President's decisions, that's exactly what I mean.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:24 pm

I think what all these "anti-war" people are saying beaker, maybe best summed up this way:

"We hated Bush (because he wasn't REALLY elected) before the war started but the war gives us what we feel is a legitimate front to attack him on. We are AGAINST the war (because we despise Bush & ANY decisions he makes) and we really wish our troops weren't in Iraq; 'supporting the troops' essentially means we hope no more of them die in action (but when they do, it really helps our anti-war efforts...)."

Honestly, what the heck does "supporting the troops" mean anyway? How many members of Congress (like former Pres. Bill Clinton & Sen. John Kerry) have a LONG history of slashing the military while simultaneously professing to "support the troops"?

Here's the point: Bush made a decision based on data compiled over more than a DECADE. I, for one, support his decision to invade Iraq based on that data & ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT CONGRESS (who also had access to most of the intel.) VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOR OF GOING TO WAR WITH SADDAM.

Was the intel. wrong? Apparently. Do I now bash Bush & protest the fact that we ever went to war in the first place? Absolutely not.

Beaker, you DO have my support; my nephew is somewhere in Iraq and I've helped out with a # of local drives to send various items to our troops overseas. The men & women of the military are doing a fantastic job in a very tough environment & I hope that our leaders have what it takes to FINISH the job properly. I would much rather see more $$ spent supporting our troops in Iraq and throughout the world than spending those same $$ expanding Hwy 2 to four lanes or building a bypass around Kalispell or any of the other THOUSANDS of worthless & meaningless ways the folks in DC WASTE OUR MONEY...

Semper Fi

Beaker · Post by **Beaker** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:16 am

I wasn't only limiting the question to events during your tenure in the military. I was asking about the history of our country. Because apparently, in your mind, at any point you claim that you disagree with the President regarding a military engagement, you are then anti-military (which is how it comes across when you say that we can't support the troops but oppose the war).

I can't speak about those campaigns that occured prior to my entrance into the military--I wasn't there, and can't offer first-person driven opinion. Any opinion I may have of any of the campaigns would have no factual basis except for that which is found in history books--and we all know the winners write the history books.

I will tell you one thing for sure, though: I completely agree with the Revolutionary War, unlike Jimmy Carter (whose ridiculous words can be found here).

El Gato: thank you.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:17 am

When the troops came home from Vietnam, they were badly treated. We all now see that as an unfair mistake. The war was a mistake, but we should have thanked the troops even more for their sacrifices, for that reason. I support the troops and hope they succeed, even though the invasion of Iraq was a mistake which is unlikely to benefit our country. Humpty dumpty comes to mind.

Stay safe, troops.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:20 am

Seems like some are saying this is a black-n-white issue. And those are the same people who confuse similarities and coincidences with statements.

Like saying Bush has a lot of 'similarities' with Hitler. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. What makes this hard for some to accept is that when they think of Hitler they, fairly, think of the Holocaust. Bush, of course, isn't doing anything of that horrorific magnitude. Most people who don't like Bush, don't like him for a mix of a variety of reasons. The corrupt nature of which he took control of our country is one. Combine that with the ecomony. Or put unemployment with Iraq. Or Iraq alone. Or his refusal to denounce the Swift Boat group. The list goes on and on, how one picks and chooses their reasons is a little more complicated.

Bush went to great extents to be in the White House and now that he is in control, the USA is under his watch. While it's true that his decisions are based on information he receives from a number of sources, he's still ultimately responsible.

His idea of supporting the troops seems to be to spend a disproportionate amount of those billions of dollars he asked for on his friends at Halliburton.

"Support Our Troops" can be taken many ways. You can support them with better equipment, prayers, bringing them home, care packages, bumper stickers, or cheering them on among others. So I'm not sure what to think when I see that.

I, too, supported Bush in going to Iraq. I told the Dems to quit whining after the first election. I was hoping that Bush was right in his decision and I still want him to do well. I still hope he makes, and is making, the right decisions. He was wrong and he's doing poorly. Now that I consider what I feel is an overwhelming amount of evidence I just can't be supportive of Bush actions any longer. He needs to prove himself worthy of that as this is no matter for applying blind faith.

Beaker, you in the military DO have my support. I have a neice in the Navy and I hope all goes well with her. I have an uncle who died in the Bataan Death March, a brother who got some unknown chemical all over his body in Vietnam and almost didn't make it home. A close family friend who died in Vietnam. Any one who has ever joined the military has nothing but my utmost respect, because by doing so they are saying they will die for our country among many reasons. I also have a huge respect for those enlistees who come from impoverished, forgotten areas and neighborhoods in our nation. The ones who have been systematically abused, yet who come forth to serve this country. It is a huge statement they make. I would much rather spend the money on the military personnel than on Halliburton and hope that the way our gov't allocates money doesn't have a negative impact in bringing you all home safely and feeling that your sacrifices were worthwhile.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:46 pm

Beaker wrote:
I wasn't only limiting the question to events during your tenure in the military. I was asking about the history of our country. Because apparently, in your mind, at any point you claim that you disagree with the President regarding a military engagement, you are then anti-military (which is how it comes across when you say that we can't support the troops but oppose the war).
I can't speak about those campaigns that occured prior to my entrance into the military--I wasn't there, and can't offer first-person driven opinion. Any opinion I may have of any of the campaigns would have no factual basis except for that which is found in history books--and we all know the winners write the history books.

I will tell you one thing for sure, though: I completely agree with the Revolutionary War, unlike Jimmy Carter (whose ridiculous words can be found here).

El Gato: thank you.

Well, now knowing that you are unable to draw conclusions on a topic based only on the written word with no first-hand observational proof

, I just spell out my point. I think your (understandable) emotional attachment to your job is making you less flexible in your acceptance of the opinions of others, especially on this whole "supporting the military" thing. If you viewed it more objectively, which is clearly hard to do when you are actually in the military and have to deal with the war on a very literal level, I think you would see that it is possible for the President to be wrong (history gives us some strong examples of this), and that it is okay to call them out when one sees them. That doesn't make one anti-military, however. Being supportive of the military and supportive of the decisions of political leaders are two very different things.

Did you read through that Carter interview you linked? His point was that the British shouldn't have fought the war (and that they should have just given the U.S. their independence) -- not that the U.S. made a mistake in seeking its independence. He actually made quite a bit of sense, and I'm sure the British leaders, in retrospect, agreed with his assessment. I'm confused as to where your criticism of his words comes from.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:01 pm

El_Gato wrote:I think what all these "anti-war" people are saying beaker, maybe best summed up this way:

"We hated Bush (because he wasn't REALLY elected) before the war started but the war gives us what we feel is a legitimate front to attack him on. We are AGAINST the war (because we despise Bush & ANY decisions he makes) and we really wish our troops weren't in Iraq; 'supporting the troops' essentially means we hope no more of them die in action (but when they do, it really helps our anti-war efforts...)."

It might be best if you stick to explaining your own points and let "all of these" other people explain their own positions in kind. I don't think you are quite getting anyone else's opinions expressed quite right. Of course, what you are shooting for is a caricature of an opinion that you disagree with, and you aren't honestly trying to sum up anyone's true opinions. It's so much easier to discount those opposing opinions that way.

That's good talk radio form, anyway.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:52 pm

I'm sorry, bay, you're right; I should have prefaced that section this way: Beaker, in my opinion, this is what is truly going on in a lot of the Bush-basher's, er, I mean, anti-war people's heads when they profess to "support the troops"...

Next:

iaafan wrote:...Like saying Bush has a lot of 'similarities' with Hitler. Like it or not, that's just the way it is...

So then when I state that Clinton has a lot of 'similarities' with Larry Flynt, you have to agree with it because, like it or not, that's just the way it is?

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:47 pm

A little off subject but I felt like I'd chime in.

Kerry was blasted for not wanting to protect soldiers enough (body armour) in his campaign run.

Now we're hearing about Humvee's not having enough armour, and soldiers asking Rummy why (I liked his horrible response too

).

Don't tell me it's because of Libs like John Kerry, our legislative branch and Exec. office is in the Republican Majority, these guys pumped themselfs up on the fact that they watched out for the soldiers. How could this have happened?

Guess we could just write another check...fall further in "the hole"

Supportive Bush?

Supportive Bush?

Re: Supportive Bush?