DC Vote to Defund the War is Treason; an editorial by Ralph Peters

[sws4420]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02172007/photos/news008b.jpg

February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.

And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."

We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.

Yes, some members voted their conscience. But does anyone believe they were in the majority?

This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.

And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.

This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.

If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?

Now that Donald Rumsfeld's gone, the Democrats are doing just what they pilloried the former Secretary of Defense for doing: Denying battlefield commanders the troops and resources they need.

Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?

As a former soldier who still spends a good bit of time with those in uniform, what infuriates me personally is the Doublespeak, Stalin-Prize lie that undercutting our troops and encouraging our enemies is really a way to "support our troops."

As for bringing them home, why not respect the vote the troops themselves are taking: Sustained re-enlistment rates have been at a record high.

And our soldiers and Marines know they'll go back to Iraq or Afghanistan. And no, Senator Kerry, it's not because they're too stupid to get a "real" job like yours or because they're "mercenaries." Some Americans still believe in America.

If our troops are willing to fight this bitter war, how dare Congress knife them in the back?

On Thursday night, I was in Nashville as a guest of the 506th Regimental Combat Team - with whom I'd spent all too brief a time in Baghdad.

The occasion was their welcome-home ball, complete with dress uniforms spangled with awards for bravery. Proud spouses sat beside their returned warriors.

Of course, those soldiers were glad to be home with their loved ones. But they also know they'll go back to one theater of war or another - and no one complained.

They share a value that Congress has forgotten: duty. They're willing to bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Because they know that freedom has a price.

As you entered the ballroom for the event, the first thing you saw was a line of 34 photographs. A single white candle softly lit each frame. Those were the members of the 506th who didn't come home.

Soldiers honor their dead. It's the least Congress could do to honor the living men and women in uniform.

You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/02172007/news/columnists/cowards_give_up_on_gis____give_in_to_evil_columnis ts_ralph_peters.htm

[BigD]

There certainly are politicians guilty of treason in the United States right now.

Those politicians are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice.

These are the people that lead the U.S. to war under false pretenses, hid intelligence that hurt their desires, and highlighted intelligence that they knew to be false.

In Dick Cheney's case, he also profited handsomely from this war through his Halliburton conections, and likley will profit even more after he leaves office.

No one is voting to de-fund the war. They are trying to find a way to end Bush's treasoness war.

The President screwed up-ROYALLY. The question now is how do we get out of his mess?

[sws4420]

They'll defund the war. More soldiers will be killed because they'll be undermanned. Then it'll be pinned on Bush.

Fucking retards.

[BigD]

Bush started the war!

Who should we blame it on?:mellow:

[sws4420]

So the fact that he started the war (which is fucking bullshit) gives the Democratic leadership the freedom to leave the military over there without the funding for the proper equipment they need?

[BigD]

Every one of us has a patriotic duty in this instance, and that duty is NOT to keep funding a stupid war, it's to get our troops the hell out of there ASAP.

There are soldiers there that have had their tours extended three times already-involuntarily! These people went there with a date that they would be leaving and then their return date was changed, not once, not twice, but now three times!

We have to get these people home to their families. That is how we should be supporting our troops!

To blindly follow our idiot leader and cheer RAH! RAH! Support the troops! while leaving them stranded over there so Dick Cheney can make another billion is treason.

And our troops have never had the equipment they've needed, not from day one! To say that the Democrats are stopping them from getting what they need is just another Bushit lie.

Be a patriot-open your eyes and remember what America is supposed to stand for.

[sws4420]

They volunteered to be in the military. As far as I know, there isn't anyone in the military that didn't want to be there. So as far as sympathy for the soldiers that are over there for a long time, it isn't there. If you didn't want to be sent somewhere other than your house you shouldn't have signed up for the military. Sure, you get money for school and you get trained to do certain things, but there's also the part of the job that they're doing that is part of those benefits.

I'm not going to sit here and argue the politics of a war with some hippie that chooses to see only the things he chooses to see. It's lik pissing up a rope. If you want to sit there and pick out the negative parts of fighting a war, so be it. There are positive things happening over there, but unfortunately that news doesn't sell papers or cause people to be glued to the evening news. Sensationalization of the negative things that happen do. It's a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.

I am a patriot and don't you ever question that for one second.

[Cutesunshine]

Doesn't America stand for freedom? Choice? Democracy?

Isnt that what we're there in Iraq giving them?

i do believe the soldiers over their on their tours of duty are ASKING for a surge of troops. They want the help to get the job done quicker and sufficiently so they can come home.

[BigD]

America stands for OUR freedom and democracy.

How did it become our responsibility to spread democracy to Iraq? If Iraqis want freedom then they have to rise up and take it themselves.

If an enemy attacks us I'll run to the beach and defend our country with my life but I have absolutely no responsibility to go to Iraq so we can try to establish democracy there.

What they do in Iraq is not my problem.

I am a patriot, one who believes that we, as Americans, have a Constitution and that our current President has done all he can to trash that document while the idiot masses stand by and cheer.

I hope you like your Iraqi war because you, your kids, and your grandkids will be paying the bills from it for the rest of their lives.

For what? So Iraqis can "try" to figure out democracy?:duh2:

There are Americans in America that need help and they should come before the Middle East, always.

[Cutesunshine]

There are American citizens who sit on their ass not helping their own man in their own country.
We were attacked on 9/11, and we all know in our heart of all hearts, Saddam played an enormous role in it.
You say that Bush is this horrendous president, and he's not helping our own people... But look at our unemployment rate, Its at an all time low. Anything is is "you can lead a horse to water, but cant make it drink" the people here needing help are generally the ones who dont WANT to help themselves. Fuck them too.

I'd rather be paying for a war for a couple decades, than deal with another 9/11... bigger and more destructive the next time around.

[sws4420]

As the world's only superpower we accept the responsibility of doing what we can to help make the world a better place. Whether you agree with that statement or not is irrelevant. It's the way it is.

But it's always nice to see hippies piss and moan about the war but offer no solution themselves. Pulling out isn't a solution.

I, for one, would rather have a president with a set of balls on him and a s0lid set of morals than some wishy washy homo whose opinions and morals sway with the latest polls. But if that's the kind of person you want in the office of the President, I urge you to vote for that person.

THAT'S democracy.

Meathead.

[BigD]

Wow! What an intolerant piece of crap you just showed yourself as...

If you feel so strongly about this war then why are you sitting here playing on your computer? Why aren't you in Iraq fighting for their freedom?:huh:

Did I miss something? Is China not a superpower in your world?

And yeah, those folks in New Orleans are just "sitting on their asses". Those folks paid taxes here. For what? To help Iraqis? Bushit again.

SADDAAM PLAYED NO ROLE IN 9/11. PERIOD. NADA. NONE. YOU WERE LIED TO.:duh2:

[Cutesunshine]

Saddam played zero role in 9/11 yet he had NO problems have a beautiful mural painted on his wall on his palace of our tragedy? Something tells me he helped financially play a part in it.
New Orleans? You mean the black welfare rats who are now inhabiting Texas and bringing down their economy, making their streets unsafe? The same ones who robbed walmart for big screen tv's and shot at police. Yes, They deserve a ton of my tax dollars to help make them lazier than ever.
You're entitled to your own opinion of the war... the world, and the united states, as I am to my own opinion. I certainly wouldnt want to be a soldier to a country full of ungrateful wads of trash myself. but if I could enlist, I would.
as for me, As I said before. I'm glad they're over there, fighting for those iraqi's attempted to make the middle east a safer place... Not only for the iraqi people who deserve it, but for my children to have a safer US.

[sws4420]

I'm very tolerant. I allow you to be on my board.

It's my choice not to be in the military. The people in the military chose to be there. Not a real hard concept to grasp. That choice has nothing to do with this argument at all.

China is not a superpower at all. They have a lot of people. Their economy is in the toilet. Their per capita income is $5,400. By comparison, the United States has a per capita income of $40,100. Could they steamroll anyone they wanted to? Of course. Not because they're so mighty, but because they're so many of them. Plus they're foreign policy is one of isolationism.

New Orleans also has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever. But I'll address it. What happened down there isn't a national security threat, it was a natural disaster. For the most part, the people who are living in those trailers paid zero taxes. None. Not one penny. The taxpayer base are the ones that had insurance on their personal property. The ones that relocated with their skills and were able to continue on with their lives. The ones that were used to living in a welfare state collecting money they didn't earn will also get no sympathy from me.

People like Saddam played a part in 9/11. Did he personally? who knows. I don't give a shit. If you get rid of a certain type of person that cuases certain things to happen, it matters little if they were directly linked to something. He paid the family of suicide bombers to blow themselves up. He had rape rooms. He had torture chambers. He killed his own people for the hell of it. He killed women who allowed themselves to be raped. He bribed UN officials to backdoor weapons and other supplies into the country. He used national money to finance his own extravagant lifestyle while his people lived in abject poverty. You've seen how much sympathy I have for people. His wormfood ass will also get none of it.

[BigD]

"I'm very tolerant."

Really? What was that "wishy washy homo" comment about?

You allow me to be on your board?

You kind of have to if you want to have a board, don't you? A board with only people who agree with you would be a pretty boring place. If I hadn't responded to this thread it would still have 0 replies. I got the converstaion going.

Iraq was never a national security threat either. We went to war there because Saddam Hussein supposedly once tried to kill Georgie boy's daddy. Deny it all you want, but that is why we invaded Iraq.

9/11 was just the excuse he was waiting for.

And there are plenty of tax-paying citizens now living in trailers in New Orleans while they try to rebuild their houses. That city was not just full of welfare cheats, plenty of hard-working Americans lived there too.

Having our troops kill Iraqis does not make this country any safer.

[sws4420]

The 'wishy washy homo' comment was about the type of politician you seem to be a fan of. Reading comprehension: it's where it's at.

I don't need you or anyone like you to have my board. We made it this far without you, we'll manage. I'd hardly say that everyone on here agrees with me on anything. Look at a lot of discussion topics that Ryan and I chime in on. We don't exactly think in lockstep on a lot of things. Different angles of debate is one thing. Talking to me like I'm some sort of uneducated idiot is quite another.

I never said that Iraq was an imminent security threat. Destabilization of that region would have destroyed our economy. That's the reason we're there. It has nothing to do with us taking oil. I wish we'd take their fucking oil. The fact of the matter is that there's people in this country that know a hell of a lot more about the ramifications of our actions than you, Mr. 40-year-old BigD from New York State. You can't seem to wrap your head around that fact. You sit here and point out your smug little claims with absolutely no s0lid facts behind your claims. That's fine, you can do whatever you want. It just makes you look goofy is all. I take you as seriously as I'd take some bum on the street holding a cardboard sign with some obscure political message on it.

Back to New Orleans. It's not the government's problem that those people had their houses washed away. It's not the government's responsibility to repair everything that they lost. It's not the government's fault that Katrina hit New Orleans. You're so quick to point the finger at the Bush Administration's response to the disaster, but what about the squandering of the funds to reinforce the levies that the state and local governments spent on other shit? Is that Bush's fault? Is it Bush's fault that an entire city was built at the bottom of a giant soup bowl? Even the Native Americans that lived in that area before America was discovered knew enough not to build there. They used that section of Louisiana as a burial ground because that's all it was good for. Those people should feel lucky that they have those shitty trailers. There is an alternative: nothing.

Killing Iraqis isn't what our troops are there to do. Our troops are there to secure a nation in turmoil while they attempt to establish a new government following an oppressive dictatorship. Like it or not, we're there. It's your opinion we shouldn't be, but it isn't your call. We've built their infrastructure to levels never before seen in that part of the world. Even when Saddam was in power, did you know that electricity would be on MAYBE three or four days a week? They now have schools, hospitals, food supplies, jobs, a military, a police force, etc. Is any of that shit perfect? No, of course not. Find me any system in the world that is perfect. Anytime you have a bunch of uneducated retards fighting against you for reasons they don't even understand - it's going to be dangerous. It's a lot easier to act like a barbarian than it is to act like someone who has to put in work to better themselves and their communities. The people who pervert the religion of Islam preach to people who can't even read the damn book themselves. That's a fact. It's like a giant theocratic phone game.

[MedicCook]

I am not a fan of how and why we went into Iraq. Now that we are there we need to give the troops everything they need to finish the job. If it means 20,000 more troops than do it. I don't like sending more troops there but it needs to be done. Pulling out now would be a disaster in the long run.

[sws4420]

Don't agree with me Ryan. You're ruining the conversation on the board.

[BigD]

Stackzilla-You have no clue what "type of politician" I prefer.

I simply responded to the false claim that what the Congress is trying to do is treason. It clearly is not. The new Congress was handed a mess, they are doing what they can to try and rein in the sheer incompetence that has existed throughout Bush's administration.

Perfect example: it's been 6 years and Bush still talks about nucular bombs. He has a team of speech writers and advisers yet no one points out to him that the word is "nuclear", not nucular?

Need I remind you that this man graduated from both Harvard and Yale? He is supposedly smarter then most of us.:cry2:

He was a successful CEO of his own oil company, which was funded by his daddy's Saudi friends. His company never actually struck any oil, anywhere, but his Saudi friends kept investing more and more money in it? I guess it was just his sheer intelligence that enabled him to call himself a success?

Yeah, that must've been it...

It can't be that he was bought and paid for by Saudi Arabia and now does their bidding instead of our's, could it?:duh2:

People like you really need to reread the US Constitution. Our leaders are supposed to represent Americans, no one else.

Bush took an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Violating that oath is treason. If you want to talk about treason then you only need to look in the White House.

Bush has effectively suspended our rights in the name of fighting the "War On Terror". That in itself violated the Constitution and thus qualifies as treason.

MedicCook-Why do we need to send more troops? Until now, according to the President, no one wanted more troops. He said they had everything they wanted already.

All of a sudden more troops is the answer? Why? Because Bush said so?:huh:

How many times has he been exactly wrong so far?:huh:

And what is "the job" that needs to be finished?:huh:

Your whole statement assumes that 20,000 more troops is what we need because that's what Bush now says. We have no reason to believe anything that Bush says, none.

He formed an Iraq Study Group of so-called experts and then didn't do what they recommended? Why does his current plan get a speck of credit for being the right thing?:huh:

Need I remind you that this President is the one that appeared to be serving Thanksgiving turkey to the troops in Iraq but we later learned that the "turkey" was plastic and that it was all just a show for US television? He's full of crap! In everything he does...

[sws4420]

You're against a man that stands up for what he believes in and who does what he says he's going to do no matter what poll numbers say. To me, that implies that you'd enjoy the opposite: a wishy washy homo whose morals sway with the latest polls. Maybe you should express yourself a little clearer. For instance, if you voted for John Kerry - I'm exactly right.

Voting to cut funding for our troops while they're behind enemy lines is treasonous. And for the record, I didn't write the article.

Basing an opinion on a man that pronounces a word incorrectly is amusing, at best. It's how he fucking talks. What if he says poe-tah-toe or toe-mah-toe. HANG HIM!!

As far as Saudis investing in his past oil companies: so what? That's what Saudis do. A Middle Eastern prince just bought a huge horse farm in Saratoga. If the guy that sold him that farm ever runs for office, are you going to hold that against him? Was he supposed to turn down investment capital? That's not good business.

I've read the Constitution and nowhere in it does it even refer to the President being madated to only represent us. Maybe you need to reread it. While it's implied that of course he should do what's in our best interests, it doesn't explicitly say it.

And what rights have you given up as a result of the war on terror? The right to fly on safer airplanes? The right to have terrorist phone calls monitored? The right to have the government listen in on your call to a porn line? I don't care that I've lost these 'freedoms'. They don't affect or concern me in the least.

Medic is hardly a fan of Bush, so he's not agreeing with him for the hell of it. Let's say you're going into a fight with a bunch of guys. Let's say it'll be 20 on 20. Fair fight, right? Now what if you want guaranteed victory? What if you could have 80 more guys to fight with you and make it 100-20. I bet you'd feel a little better about the outcome.

[MedicCook]

The only reason I think sending a surge of troops is needed is because that is how you win a war. The GW's father went into Iraq he sent a shit ton of troops in and swept through the country. The problem is he didn't finish the job. GW tried to do a similar thing but went against his military advisors advice and went with the WalMart discount surge of troops. I support our troops not our President. I used the 20,000 because that is the figure being tossed around. Lets send 100,000 troops and give them what they need to take complete control right now. If we do a complete pull out now the entire Middle East will collapse and the worst of the worst will take reign.

[sws4420]

Bush 41 was operating under a UN mandate to rid Saddam's armies from Kuwait, not bringing Iraq to its knees.

[BigD]

An idiot who stands up for what he believes in may be fine, for him. That doesn't make it right.

Let's put the "Support Our Troops-RAH! RAH!" issue into a different frame.

You're an innocent man who is convicted of a murder. I know for a fact that you are innocent but the jury convicted you nonetheless.

I'm going to support you by sending you condom care packages and coming to see you on visiting days.

Would you be happy with that or would you just want me to get you the hell out of jail?

Our troops want to come home. They don't want to be kept in that hell forever while you wave a flag and complain about the Democrats.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS-BRING THEM HOME ASAP!

The President took us to war on a lie. Why is that so hard to admit?

The faster we end the Bush presidency the better off we are. We have serious issues to solve and we have no more time to deal with this lying clown. His father was a lousy President and he didn't fall far from the tree. The only question is whether or not you folks will be dumb enough to elect another Bush in the future.

What did Dubya say..."Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...won't get fooled again?"

Time will tell...

[Cutesunshine]

Naturally our troops dont WANT to be there. But they know they're over there doing a job that NEEDS to be done to secure the safety of the world. When Bush First announced he was doing this surge, many soldiers were interviewed and were thrilled that he was doing this. This means that they can fight a more fair battle. They'll have more help. They'll be able to secure parts of baghdad that arent able to be secured on the current manpower. They'll be able to focus more on training the iraqi troops to do their own job. This surge is needed...and cutting off funding is only saying "hey we appreciate what yer doing, but fuck it, we dont want to give you the help you need because 60% of voters dont want to"
Give me a break.

[sws4420]

I'd always select a man who has a plan and sticks to it based on what he believes is right over a poll whore. Every single time.

Who the fuck WANTS to be thousands of miles from home fighting in 120 degree weather? A lot of the troops, it turns out.

And your analogy is retarded. It doesn't accurately reflect the view of the military. You see them as being 'sentenced' to Iraq? Some may think that, sure. They are citizens of this country, after all. I'm sure there's a certain representation of the national demographic on the issue.

[MedicCook]

I don't feel bad for the troops as they knew when they signed the dotted line that they may be going away for long periods of time and that may involve combat. They may not like it but that is what happens when you are in the military.

Melissa's sister is ROTC at Boston University and she was going in as pre-med. She is thinking about dropping the pre-med but wants to stay Army. She understands that when her 4 years of ROTC are up and she signs on the dotted line she will probably be going over sea's and will not be able to finish her education that the Army owes her until they are ready for her to finish it.

[BigD]

It's only retarded to the flag-waving patriot like yourself who believes that whatever the President says is patriotic and whatever he doesn't like isn't.

Do you really think Republicans aren't poll whores? MaCain just said we should overturn Roe vs. Wade. Why? Because the die-hard evangelicals think so, that's why. He needs their vote to have a chance and he knows it so he thinks what they think.

So, now you know what the troops feel too? They aren't allowed to speak their mind if it goes against their commander in chief.

They have been sentenced to Iraq for 5 years.

[sws4420]

My opinion of the war has nothing to do with Bush's opinion of the war. They just happen to be similar. I'm not a blind sheep who does and thinks what people tell me to.

McCain is an idiot. And I never said Republicans weren't poll whores, I said Bush isn't a poll whore. Again, reading comprehension.

Troops are allowed, and do, speak their minds whenever they want. I have a couple friends who were in this war and they didn't feel that Iraq was a prison. I've seen interviews, read personal blogs, and read newspaper stories about their experiences and their thoughts on the subject. Not once did I ever see any experience compared to being in prison. In my opinion, your evaluation of the troops' morale and opinion on the politics of the war is incorrect.

[BigD]

Of course Bush isn't a poll whore...NOW.

The polls say he sucks. What's he going to do, agree with them?:jamie:

You folks talk about the troops signing up voluntarily. That they did, and when you sign up for the reserves or the national guard there are rules about how long you can be deployed overseas and how often you can be deployed. Once you get to Iraq those rules all change. Your deployment gets extended, again and again, and if you do get home you get deployed again a few months later. It's misleading to just say they get what they signed up for because that isn't what they signed up for at all.

[MedicCook]

I agree with you on the National Guard. I do not agree with sending the NG over there again and again. I always thought the NG was here for help within the US borders.

[sws4420]

Of course Bush isn't a poll whore...NOW.

The polls say he sucks. What's he going to do, agree with them?:jamie:

You folks talk about the troops signing up voluntarily. That they did, and when you sign up for the reserves or the national guard there are rules about how long you can be deployed overseas and how often you can be deployed. Once you get to Iraq those rules all change. Your deployment gets extended, again and again, and if you do get home you get deployed again a few months later. It's misleading to just say they get what they signed up for because that isn't what they signed up for at all.What in the bloody fucking hell are you smoking? Where do you, or have you, seen Bush changing his views on anything based on a national poll?

You sign the line, you become property of the US government. If you don't like it, don't sign the fucking line.

Jesus Christ.

[sws4420]

I agree with you on the National Guard. I do not agree with sending the NG over there again and again. I always thought the NG was here for help within the US borders.That's their primary purpose. Obviously they're also used for other things.

[BigD]

"You sign the line, you become property of the US government. If you don't like it, don't sign the fucking line."

So contract law has no place in your world? If you buy a house it's okay if I then edit the contract and double the price?

An overzealous government is the only entity that can get away with that.

People signed on for a period of time. Once the end date arrives the government shouldn't "own their ass" anymore. Our troops have had their terms of enlistment involuntarily extended (some multible times already!).

You don't see a problem with that?

[sws4420]

The civilian world is different than the military world. Two sets of laws. I see no problem with a country securing their military resources in a time when they're needed.

[BigD]

The civilian world is different than the military world. Two sets of laws. I see no problem with a country securing their military resources in a time when they're needed.

So what you're saying is that anyone stupid enough to enlist deserves to get screwed because the terms of their enlistment are meaningless?:huh:

That is basically what you are saying there.

[sws4420]

They deserve to know what they're getting into when they sign up and they are well-informed of just that. If it's terms they can't live with or don't want to commit to, there's a simple procedure to prevent themselves from being bound to those terms.

1.) Put pen on table.
2.) Stand up.
3.) Walk out the door of the enlistment office.

It's not rocket science.

[BigD]

Nope, it's not.

Of course when people stop enlisting the government will just draft them instead...