For Those Who Refuse to Support our Military

Scott J-

Good point. Though they never carried it out, regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton Administration.

 

With complete agreement in the house and senate.

 

I think you give them way too much credit. But that is just my opinion.

Joseph Botwinick

 

All the walls in the world will not keep us safe when we have offended the Allmighty with our national sins. We should be mourning the loss of our willingness to fight for what is right. But fighting for what is wrong is even worse. Our nation doesn't deserve to live in peace, because we have not followed God. Our children will suffer for the sins of the previous generations, unless we stop shedding innocent blood and repent. Otherwise we will be judged just like every other godless nation that went before us and God will be just for doing so.

 

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]January 26, 1998[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear Mr. President:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<snip>[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Sincerely,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

 

True, but with an important difference - the Clinton Administration was working for change from the inside by funding democratic opposition groups rather than forcing it from the outside.

Bit of a difference, that.

 

Well, I've thought about it all day and read all the posts and decided to make a small statement instead.

Yippie! Yeah I know.


To me supporting the troops means giving them everything they need to do their duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution and protect the people of the United States of America and then giving them full support after their duty is done. Most importantly that includes the unvarnished truth, unfortunately we have few people in our government that are willing or courageous enough to give them that basic necessity and even fewer citizens willing to listen on the rare occasions it's spoken.


Okay thats my little statement, and now here's the words of one man that is brave enough to speak the truth. For those who would listen. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

 

That may be true for you, but someone I trust may be wrong and someone I do not trust may be on the right path (for the time being).

Actually, no, America has not always fought against tyranny - we generally fight for whatever we consider our self-interest to lay.

We stood against Germany after they declared war on us and after we were bombed by their ally, Japan. Invading a country and causing the deaths of a hundred thousand in only a couple of years may not be as big a favor to its citizens as you claim - it is eerily similar to the claims of "saving the village by burning the village" used in Vietnam. It is hypocritical and false to claim that we invaded them for their good and not because we wanted a military base and a fine source of non-Saudi oil.

Doubt may be a by-product of truth, but I don't think that lying to avoid it is supportive. I would rather trust our troops to be able to figure out things for themselves than lie to them. Pretending that our leadership is anything other than what it is would be disrepectful of our troops.

So you actually are equating criticism of the bad actions of a few to treason.

It seems to me that you are the one trying to silence honest opposition through the intimidation of very serious accusations. You said those who didn't support the troops in the only way you approve will go to hell as traitors.

Hmm, yeah -that's rather disingenuous to accuse those who criticize or even comment on wrongful actions of being traitors while crying that you are the victim.

No, I think you are trying to bully those with whom you disagree by accusing them of a serious crime against their country and against God.

 

Not exactly. Bush carried on what Clinton wanted to do. See this:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

 

An earlier post on this thread referred to the fact that today we have an all volunteer military. Of course, that wasn't always the case.

I well remember the days of the draft. In my case, I successfully evaded the draft.

I enlisted in the military.

My biggest bone of contention with most of these political pundits you see or hear or read about (be they left wingers, right wingers, centrists, Republicans, Democrats, or what have you) is if they are really as all- fired supporters of our troops as they claim to be, why don't they prove it by enlisting in the military themselves?

In these past 4 - 5 years, I can think of very few examples of people in the public eye who have boldly proclaimed their 100% support of our troops that have actually left their homes, their jobs, their families, etc., and signed up for the military.

'nuff said.

ktn4eg,
USAF / ANG (ret.)

 

For someone to enlist in the armed forces today they would be very foolish indeed. I don't see how anyone in their right mind would put themselves under this Commander-in-Chief and take the chance of going to Iraq with this Administration's failed policies of war.

 

I don't think these are failed policies Terry. If we look at how empires have been expanded and maintained in the past it looks like Bush and the neocons are doing alot of things right. Being the followers of Machiavelli and Malthus they see deception as being noble. Not exactly a Christian principle but one that many "princes" have often adhered too.

 

Now might be a good time to post this email I received today:

 

Ok, my mistake.

Your idea that refusal to criticize Bush or comment on war crimes supports the troops is, in my opinion, a betrayal of what America stands for and what the troops are fighting for.

Bush is not America. Why would I trust a, um, politician like Bush? Further more, it is against American policy to commit war crimes and in keeping with her policy to prosecute them.

I am angry because you wantonly accuse people of treason for dicussing what happened or may have happened. If I understand you correctly, you are equating criticism of Bush with subverting the country, acknowleding the misbehavior of some military with betraying them all.

Claiming that expressed disagreement with your point of view re Bush's war and leadership constitutes treason, a serious crime, is an attempt at bullying. You didn't mention names and I didn't think your post was directed at me, but I don't like seeing other people falsely accused of treason, either. It makes me angry.

 

Subject: WHO Took Us To War ?!?!?!?
Things that make you think a little:
So you're screaming IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED US.......

The air strikes were retaliation for specific acts. Bush did get the inspectors back in - an excellent thing, but then he blew it by taking them out again and invading.

Hmmm, who is screaming here, in BIG red letters no less?

Yep, and Germany declared war on us soon after, whereas Iraq did not declare war on us until after we invaded them. That one is totally bogus.

All that is true, but somehow Grenada, Panama, Iraq (which hadn't attacked us then, either) got left off the list.

We didn't attack Bosnia either, we intervened in the slaughter of the Bosnians by the Serbs.

I'd like to see the evidence on that one. Clinton did order missile strikes against bin Laden in Afghanistan in '98 - which was laughed at by the same sort of person that emails junk like this.

Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly liberated, unless you consider the absence of civil order to be liberating somehow. They are both still actively engaged in war. The Taliban, which Reagan helped fund still makes occasional comebacks in Afghanistan. Bush and his invasion of Iraq increased donations and recruitment to al-Qaida. The nuclear inspectors are a good thing - kudos to Bush for that. Kudos as well for capturing Saddam Hussein and bringing him to trial.

 

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/impeachment/violations_documented.pdf

 

Hmmm, Daisy. Did you even read the CNN article? It plainly states:

I find it interesting though that when Clinton was Prez, Mr. Spector stated only Congress has the constitutional prerogative to authorize war. That seems to have gone out the window when it came to Prez. Bush and Iraq.

The author of the email. Not me.

Perhaps.

I wasn't aware we attacked Grenada or Panama. Perhaps I was too busy back then to pay attention?

I seem to remember differently, like there was a big to-do about one of our missles hitting the Chinese embassy.

Oh, yes except the strikes against OBL were scrapped when it was discovered some Saudi princes were around him. Yep, I remember that one.

Agreed. Plus the drugs from Afghanistan (poppy fields) going through Iraq to Europe and the West as well as human trafficking (children sex slave industry, etc.) have become a big problem which is not covered in the press, even the liberal press. You'd think they'd be screaming it.

Agreed.

 

This same crowd sent the same letter to Gerge Herbert Walker Bush and were turned down.