March 23, 2007

WaPo Slams Democrats For Devotion To Pork Over National Security

On the eve of a critical House vote on supplemental funding for the Iraq war, the Washington Post scolds the Democrats who attached billions in pork spending to bribe its members to vote for a withdrawal timetable. The editors take apart the legislation, stating that its sponsors care more for a handful of peanut farmers than for the 24 million Iraqis who depend on the US for their security:

TODAY THE House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual members of Congress. At the tail of all of this logrolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill -- for whatever reason -- will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

The pork shows that the Democrats have no mandate for a cut-and-run strategy. Had that mandate existed, they would have simply voted to explicitly defund the war and force a withdrawal, a move well within Congressional authority. Instead, they have played at half-measures for the last two months, attempting to force George Bush to order the withdrawal by handicapping the Pentagon with an impressive array of red tape -- and shoving the responsibility for surrender onto the White House instead of on the Democrats who demand it.

Until last night, Pelosi couldn't even get a majority to support this porkfest supplemental. Now, however, the Post reports that the Out of Iraq caucus has acquiesced and generated enough votes for passage:

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

Of course, the pork had nothing to do with their sudden support. They gave up on their wrongheaded but principled demand to produce an honest withdrawal bill out of a sense of ... what? Duty? Honor? It seems that surrender comes rather naturally to this group of Democrats.

The timing of the withdrawal seems rather suspect, too. What conditions led them to select August 31, 2008? Did they carefully review the current operations in Iraq and determine when they could reasonably be completed? No. They selected that date because it comes about ten weeks before the Presidential election -- an election they hope to win by giving their activist base the surrender they have demanded for years.

This supplemental is a despicable document on many levels. It conducts payoffs for Congressmen to endorse the surrender of the United States to insurgents and terrorists in a region where we have done that too often already. If we want to beat the terrorists, we have to fight them, not run away because we get bored or tired of the expense. They already rely on that reaction from us, thanks to a long and bipartisan history of them, and we do not need to add more ignominy to that record.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WaPo Slams Democrats For Devotion To Pork Over National Security:

» Trackback Friday Featuring the Surrender Monkey: Surrender to Surrender! from Pirate's Cove
Happy Friday to all! It's that time of the week again! Do you have an interesting post you want to share with everyone? The official Surrender Monkey of the Democratic Party says to do what the Lefties don’t, since they all have the... [Read More]

» Web Reconnaissance for 03/23/2007 from The Thunder Run
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention. [Read More]

» Pork and surrender from Bookworm Room
I don’t think I’ve ever written “pork” and “surrender” in the same sentence, but needs must.  The necessity in this case is to bring increased attention to the really vile bill the greedy surrender monkeys in the Ho... [Read More]

» 2007.03.23 Iraq/Iran/Surrendercrat Roundup from Bill's Bites
Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding House Likely to Pass Bill With Pullout DateBy Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq [Read More]

» Bush Hammers Party of Defeat from JammieWearingFool
The disgusting Democrats are kvelling over giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but President Bush came out firing, and rightly so. [Read More]

» More! More! from Hard Starboard
"Pressing party members to back the bill" is a prissy euphemism for, "pump it so full of pork that the Capitol dissolves in a tsunami of bacon grease." $24 billion worth, all targeted at turning the votes of the subtely-named "Out of Iraq Caucus" who... [Read More]

Comments (59)

Posted by Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 7:18 AM

The ones I condemn are those congressmen and women who would sell out our armed forces in exchange for a couple of million dollars in pork.

It's bad enough when you agree to vote for a bridge to nowhere because they also put in some pork for your district. But this bill is entirely different. The idea that your vote on an issue of national importance can be swayed because they threw in $15 million to protect rice growers is beyond despicable.

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 7:21 AM

Keep careful track of exactly who votes for this steaming pile of legislative effluent, and when the deed is done send them all there due - a collection of pictures of smiling Iraqis proudly holding their ink-stained fingers in the air and beaming with hope, and a small cloth sack with thirty pieces of silver!

Judas Lives!

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 7:23 AM

The Democrat Party is pure, unadulterated, traitorous scum, top to bottom. No decent, thinking American could possibly be part of such a criminal enterprise.

The Democrat Party is a malignant tumor on our country and needs to be removed before they succeed in their goal of destroying the United States of America.

I fail to see how anyone, including the President, sees these people as anything but what they are - hell bent for the destruction of western civilization. They have more than just a different opinion, they have a different vision, which is against everything this country stands for.

There is no civil war in Iraq, but maybe there should be in this country. The Democrat cancer needs to be lanced.

Posted by Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 8:00 AM

Also in that Wapo article:

"You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we're going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory," said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of, a group that opposes the war. "It doesn't make sense to me. George Bush got us into the war. They have challenged him on everything. Why would they give him this victory now?" he asked, referring to the liberals."

Wow! Just Wow........They sure throw that "victory" word around a lot. The democratic party would hate to give Bush a victory over them pesky jihadi's that are intent on killing us.

Posted by Gary Gross [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 8:24 AM

That anti-war liberals would relent shouldn't come as a shock. After all, aren't these the people that have a strong bond with the French?

Posted by ajacksonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 8:56 AM

1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.

Why it seems to be *both* in this case... looking for monetary gain to help those fighting against US Armed Forces. I am so glad the Left brought that into the argument some time ago, because the term does have a meaning and attachment to it. One does not need to fight to be an employed hireling out for material gain to help those fighting against us.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 9:02 AM

Hannity devoted much of his show to this story yesterday; I'm sure Rush & others will also do so today.

DEMS to the TERRORISTS: YOU WIN on Aug. 31, 2008

What a total circus it has been in Washington DC the last few days. The Democrat Whip in the house, having to tell Speaker Pelosi that they just didn't have the votes. So off went Pelosi with ginormous purse passing out candy, trinkets, and gum for member's home districts if those dastardly "blue dogs" would just get on board.

So if Maxine Waters, and the rest of the rabies-infested-ankle-biters on one side pressuring Pelosi to move the pullout date UP. And the blue dogs on the other side not thinking it was such a good idea to have a pullout date to begin with - it really was looking like Democrat leadership in the House was sunk.

So last night the Ankle-Biters gave in - and with an aw-shucks sigh decided to support the original pull-out date of August 31, 2008.

So for those who are keeping track at home, or as may be the case, some cave in the middle east... If this bill somehow becomes law (surviving the veto stamp of the President) you can officially mark March 23, 2007 as the day that the rabies-infested-ankle-biting liberals in the United States Congress did the best Neville Chamberlain impression they could muster and say to the terrorists - who want to kill us... (townhall)


Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 9:13 AM

Where are all those Republicans who sat home or voted Democrat because "it can't get any worse!".

Far, far, far worse. Pork-laden bills that perform a Lewinsky on terrorists who will behead those who eat pork.

You have traded the "stupid party" for the "evil, corrupt and dumber than a box of rocks" party.

Democrat traitor scum, rejoice! You are have won a victory for defeat and sold out your country, for rice subsidies. Go snort crystal meth, have relations with your favorite farm animal and whatever else perverted, demented things Democrats do to relax.

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 9:14 AM

Uh, the Out of Iraq caucus said they would not oppose the bill.

That doesn't sound like they are going to vote for it.

Course I've been wrong many times before.

Posted by Karen [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 10:23 AM

With a pullout date specific in this bill, is Bush going to veto it? Of course, that is presuming it gets past the Senate.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 11:15 AM

There is no evidence that Congresspeople are voting for the withdrawal measure in exchange for pork. It's silly to think that someone in favor of giving the administration carte blanche in Iraq would do a 180 because of some appropriation.

But it does highlight that this is treated by Congress as just another political issue. Even though I take exception to the (usual) treason accusations, the form that this incredibly important bill (whether you're for or against it) takes is sickening, brazen, and stupid. I would cross the aisle to agree that we should sweep all these fools out of office. But after Nov06, you have to wonder what that would even accomplish.

The Iraq bill should stand alone. If we have any respect for the issue as a whole, it has to.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 11:30 AM


You are precisely right. The Republican whiners who thought it was better to have the Dems takeover so the Republicans would get the message they are getting their just desserts satisfied now? But the worst part of it is that we (as a group) still haven’t grown up. All the Republican voices clamoring for Bush to cave in on the US Attorneys issue are repeating the mistake and that includes our host. Do they think that if they throw Gonzalez over a cliff that the Democrats will play fair instead of just moving on to the next issue to destroy the President? Politics as practiced by the Democrat Party is a form of warfare and they don’t take prisoners. If we think we are too good for such behavior then it is time for us to turn over the reins of Government to the Democrats and accept the consequences.

Posted by LunenburgLibertarian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 11:38 AM

200 years ago, U.S. politicians put an end to their newly formed navy's successful war on the Muslim Barbary Coast Pirates-- just after U.S. victory on the shores of Tripoli. How sad that history repeats itself!

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 12:14 PM

Agree jerry. There is no way we can defend our country properly, with the Democrat Party standing in the way - they must be defeated and crushed.

They are not the loyal opposition or fellow countrymen; Democrats are as much of an enemy of the United States as is Al Qaeda, because the only way the terrorists can win is if the Democrat Party helps them.

It's time the Republican Party understood that and stopped playing softball with these people. All inter-party nicities should be discarded with and Democrats identified for what they are - worthless scum traitors.

Deal with Democrats as if they are the enemy and success is possible. Dealing with them as if we have common goals and interests is complete folly, because we do not.

Democrats have their own agenda, which apparently discards any consideration whatsoever of our history, of our present and of our future. The Democrat vision for this country will lead to disaster and to a country that none of us will want to live in.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 12:31 PM

My cousin is in Ramadi right now, in the middle of a circle of tanks for his only protection. He recieves one hot meal everyday, and he can't sleep because the mortar fire never ends. He's a sniper and he's killed over 40 people, not knowing how many were hostile and how many were possibly innocents. He didn't sign up for a bloodbath.

I want my cousin to come home safely and soon. He's not a murderer, and yet his country demands that he go back time and time again and kill more people. It's easy for you all to justify this war, but if you were out there making the kill or be killed decisions everyday, you may feel differently. My cousin doesn't feel as if he's helping anyone, all he knows is that he's trying to stay alive.

You can look at this bill as a sneaky little way to pass a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq through pork, or you can look at it as a desperate attempt to get my cousin, and our other brave men and women out of harms way when they shouldn't have even been there in the first place. I'm not proud of the politics in this bill, it sickens me. But I understand the motive, and it's not purely political. I need to know that my aunt and uncle aren't laying in bed every night praying to god that they're son survives another day.

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 12:34 PM

Can somebody get the Roll Call of the vote? We need to know where to send those photo albums and pieces of silver.

Judas Lives!

Posted by YouGottaBeKidding [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 12:46 PM


If your cousin is a sniper, he VOLUNETEERED to be a sniper and went through lots of special training to become one. He didn't just enlist in the Army and get shuffled off to sniper school without having a say in the matter.

By definition, a sniper kills people, and he's good at it.

I'm not buying what you're selling as far as what you claim your cousin is feeling or telling you. If he didn't want to be killing people, he wouldn't have signed up for sniper school in the first place and if he had second thoughts, he had plenty of opportunities to wash out.

I want your cousin home safe, just as I want three friends/relatives who are headed over within the next month or so home safe (my SO's son, who's 82nd Airborne; my nephew, who's a Marine; and a friend's son, who's Special Forces), but this timetable is a bunch of hooey.

Lots of brave men and women have volunteered to protect our country. At this stage of the game, anyone who's in the service knew what s/he was getting into when s/he signed up. Your cousin, God bless him, is a patriot and a hero.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 1:02 PM

"Your cousin, God bless him, is a patriot and a hero."

Echo that and he deserves to be a victor, too.

Not part of a last helicopter out, Saigon fiasco the Democrats are trying to engineer here, for cynical political gain.

Or do the Democrats think the terrorists will be kind to our troops as they withdraw? Withdrawing won't be safe either.

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 1:14 PM

Pretty good speech from the president just now regarding the House bill. Lots of forceful sound bites - he's a slightly better speaker when he's a little ticked off.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 1:39 PM

Laughing all the way to the bank? Halliburton and the other war profiteers ... in your zeal to blame the majority party in congress now you fail to blame the minority party for no oversight whatsover during the lockstep and open contract years. Pork and Halliburton and the rest of the wartime profiteers are the other white meat.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 1:41 PM

Yep, my cousin is good at killing people. I remember playing paintball one on one with him, and always ending up getting shot in the back in of the head. That's what he was always good at, and he knew it. He volunteered after 9/11, before Iraq.

It's different now. He does what he's told, but from what he's told me, and from my talks with the rest of my family, he thinks this whole thing is a chaotic mess and a mistake. Remember, not every servicemen is a conservative republican who supports the war, and don't ever forget it. There's nothing more honorable than volunteering to fight for your country, but it's particularly difficult to have your whole heart in the fight when you don't even know what you're fighting for.

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 2:27 PM

Anybody who doesn't know what he's fighting for Matt, has to have his head firmly planted up where the sun never shines. He's a volunteer and he know's exactly what he volunteered for and I don't feel one damned bit sorry for him. I admire and respect his courage and his willingness to stand up for something worth more than his life, but I'll be damned if I'll put up with any of this crap about him or any other member of the military being helpless victims. That's garbage!

You're the one who can't imagine what he's fighting for, Matt, because for you there's nothing on the table that has any value. Its only the lives and freedom of 30 million people who believed in us in some far away place, and you can't imagine why anybody would care. After all, it won't benefit you in any way will it? It won't put a chicken in your pot, or a car in your garage so why should you care?

In the final analysis Matt, your cousin is risking his life to liberate those people and if he and his friends are made to fail, what makes you think there's a snowball's chance in hell of you keeping your freedoms? Think about that!

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 2:56 PM


You seem to have fallen for the BS about the concept of a Good War where soldiers, sailors and airman selflessly sacrifice their lives and kill for their country without guilt or trauma. Grow up, there is no such thing as a good or bad war, there are only necessary wars and the effect on it participants is the same.

Just before the 100th Bomb Group deployed to Great Britain in WWII their commanding officer told them to get this idea of heroism out of their minds. He told them that they were going to Europe to kill babies and old people. They were very successful in fulfilling their commander’s prophesy. These airmen probably killed ten times the number of innocent civilians in one mission then you claim your cousin has killed in his tour of duty. So if your cousin, if he really exists and is sniper, is now having qualms about it then welcome to the Club.

At the risk of being proven wrong and I apologize in advance if I am, I really don’t believe you have cousin in Iraq or that if you do that he is a sniper. His description of Ramadi, i.e., that he is

“My cousin is in Ramadi right now, in the middle of a circle of tanks for his only protection. He receives one hot meal everyday, and he can't sleep because the mortar fire never ends. He's a sniper and he's killed over 40 people, not knowing how many were hostile and how many were possibly innocents. He didn't sign up for a bloodbath.”

makes it sound like he is Bastogne during the Battle of Bulge. There is no place like that in Iraq. The description of Iraq as bloodbath, at least for US Forces, is a wild exaggeration. The Battle of the Bulge was a blood bath where the US took 80,000 casualties/10,000 dead in a month. We have had 3,000 combat deaths in four years.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 3:15 PM

RE: Monkei [(March 23, 2007 01:39 PM)
Halliburton and the other war profiteers ... Pork and Halliburton and the rest of the wartime profiteers are the other white meat.

Just say "No Blood for Oil". We'll know where you're coming from. On the other hand, good to know that you're damning Soros here, so we may have some common ground after all.

Another day, another Monkei-induced splitting headache.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 3:29 PM

Jerry, don't accuse me of being a liar. I don't lie, and I certainly don't lie about the lives of my family members. I don't know what "evidence" you think I'm going to post here in order to prove I have a sniper cousin. Should I put his name? I'd rather not, but it's Adam Daniel, stationed in Ramadi. Got his training in Savannah, Georgia and grew up in Lafayette, Louisiana.

They currently have no base, are "camped out" in the middle of a circle of tanks and are in charge of policing 40,000 people. I'm sorry, I have no further proof. You're just going to have to take my word. I bet if my opinions were more in line with yours, you'd be much more inclined to believe me.

And excuse me for trying to inject a personal, human perspective into the debate. I'm just offering my side of the story; what I know, from who I know currently over there.

Your idea that war is neither good or bad, just a necessary tool for the greater good, is denial, pure and simple. It's a pathetic attempt at removing morality from the horrible decisions an individual has to make in war.

You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of people like you making vein attempts at comparing this occupation to WWII. That's just sick. Victory in Iraq is the fulcrum through which freedom and democracy will be saved the world over? Give me a freakin break. You're absolutely convinced this war is necessary for freedom across the globe to prosper, and I'm absolutely convinced that you're off your rocker.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 3:49 PM

Matt, you are living in denial.

There are currently 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and the majority of them live in hell hole dictatorships, where they are told from the day they are born, that the miseries they endure are because of the evil westerners, and that their way to heaven is to kill a few, a million or all of us.

Draining the middle east swamp of vile dictatorships, will give MIddle East Muslims another option.

If President Bush was the warmonger the Democrats accuse him of being, he could have easily vaporized most of the Muslims in the Middle East.

If President Bush was the greed profiteer the Democrats accuse him of being, he could have struck a deal with Saddam and the Mullahs in Iran, to allow a free flow of oil.

He did neither.

This war is just as important as WWII, because if we lose Iraq to the terrorists, it could be portend the eventual end of modern civilization. We cannot afford to give the terrorists the victory the "Democrats" are so eager to give them.

And if you don't find that realistic, I'd like to know what you find realistic about how the Democrat Party plans to deal with the fallout of a surrender in Iraq. And blaming President Bush and the Republicans will not in the least impress our enemies, nor will it spare the Democrats or our country from what will happen next.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 3:53 PM


Make some predictions. We pull out now because (as I channel Kerry) "how do you ask a soldier to be the last to die for this cause." Then what? What do you think the majority of Iraqis will think when we leave precipitously? What happens to them? What about the minority - the terrorists and destabilizers? What do predict the response to be by Iran? By other ME countries? The morale of soldiers both past and present? Our geopolitical trustworthiness? Likelihood of peace in the ME theater short-term and long-term? Any other predictions you might volunteer?

Any ideas at all? I've asked this many times in many ways and never read a direct response, much less a reasonable one.

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 4:02 PM

monkei swung out of his tree, put down his banana, and chattered:

"Laughing all the way to the bank? Halliburton and the other war profiteers ... in your zeal to blame the majority party in congress now you fail to blame the minority party for no oversight whatsover during the lockstep and open contract years. Pork and Halliburton and the rest of the wartime profiteers are the other white meat."

Whenever I hear a drive-by simian like yourself drag out the "H" word, I gently remind them that not only did (Democrat) pResident Bill Clinton give the evil Halliburton no-bid contracts during HIS "war of choice" in Kosovo, but I also try to refresh their dead brain cells by telling them about how (Democrat) Lyndon Johnson climbed into bed with the very same firm way back in 1936, 5 years before Dick Cheney was even born.

Lyndon went on to suckle at Halliburton's teat for the next 40+ years, gave them all sorts of no-bid contracts during the Vietnam War, and left the Presidency many times richer than when he entered it. And his widow is still on Halliburton's Board of Directors.

By the way, I saw one of monkei's friends on another blog today, claiming that this WaPo editorial is proof that the paper is pro-Bush. I refreshed HIS dead brain cells by reminding him who the WaPo endorsed for President in 2004, when they said that Jean Carry would "fight a better war in Iraq" than Shrub was doing at the time.

Posted by burt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 4:05 PM

Jimmy Carter has been living off of peanut subsidies since he was born. This is just a little "at a boy" bonus for good PR work for the leftists.

Posted by YouGottaBeKidding [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 4:06 PM


If your cousing is still in the military but joined before the Iraq war, did he reenlist? 'cause the war's been going on for four years now, and I'm not sure what the enlistment commitment is (I know it varies), but my SO's son signed up for three years and then reenlisted.

If your cousin grew up in Lafayette, LA, I don't think he's telling you what you're telling us he's telling you. I'm not saying that your lying, I'm saying that I don't trust your interpretation of what he's saying. Doesn't sound like any Louisiana guy I know.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 4:09 PM

NoDonkey (clever name by the way), how many muslim people do you know? How many middle-eastern newspapers do you read? Have you read the Koran? Do you speak arabic or aramaic? How many of your family members have been killed by suicide bombers? What do you know about Muslim history?

You don't know jack. You're basically assuming here that all muslim people are brainwashed from birth into thinking the west is evil. That is not true, and if it were, do you really think that a U.S. occupation is going to quell this anger? If they all hate us, why not just drop the bomb? How's a forced democracy going to make them hate us any less? You don't change an entire culture's resentment of a nation by invading them! If you're correct, we're going to have to occupy Iraq indefinetly and wait hundreds of years for them to all just magically forget why they hated us in the first place. You don't fight propaganda with armed force. If I had to choose between being fed misleading information, and being in the middle of a war zone, you better believe I'm going to pick the former.

Posted by YouGottaBeKidding [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 4:12 PM

Phew! My typing and spelling are on vacation! "cousin" and "not saying that YOU'RE". (and maybe some more I didn't see)

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 4:23 PM

Yes, he reenlisted. I've had long conversations with him about it, and he feels very strongly that what we're doing is a misguided effort, but his life is the army. He's a Louisiana boy, raised in a very conservative family just like the majority of my relatives. His room (last time I saw it) was littered with Guns'N'Ammo magazines. All besides the point... you think I'm a liar? Fair enough...

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 4:23 PM

“The remaining $13 billion is domestic spending. This amount exceeds the $6.5 billion rainy day fund that Republicans worked so hard last year to include in the budget, and in fact most of this $13 billion will not go toward meeting true emergency spending needs at all.

“Here are some examples of what the Democrats consider ‘urgent’ needs that require ‘prompt action: ‘

– $25 million for payments to spinach producers
– $120 million to the shrimp industry
– $74 million for peanut storage
– $5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers

Remember those Blue Dog Democrats, the supposed fiscal conservative democrats who ran on running overspending republicans out of office ? Club for Growth has a little checklist of those who said one thing before November, yet voted for the Bill:

The Club specifically singled out freshmen Democratic Representatives Nancy Boyda (KS-2); Heath Schuler (NC-11); Nick Lampson (TX-22); Tim Mahoney (FL-22); and Harry Mitchell (AZ-5) who won their House seats on a campaign to restore fiscal responsibility to Congress and cut out earmarks. Instead these politicians caved to political pressure, throwing American taxpayers under the bus on their way down.

“Unfortunately, these candidates will say anything to get elected, but when push comes to shove, they roll over and play dead at the smallest command from their Democratic Party leaders,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “The U.S. Congress though, is not a canine obedience school. American taxpayers want to be represented by responsible stewards of their hard-earned money, not poodles. Ultimately, these congressmen will be held accountable for their empty promises and their cavalier attitude towards American taxpayers.

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 4:53 PM

Matt wrote: If I had to choose between being fed misleading information, and being in the middle of a war zone, you better believe I'm going to pick the former.

Ya just summed up the left's attitude towards the dangers facing us. Don't fight em.

One thing your side keeps harping on is the idea that we need to make the enemy like us. Our troops are fighting fanatics who want to make the world Islamic. They don't care whether Matt likes them. They don't even care whether the civilian population that they're blowing up likes them. If they did they wouldn't be gassing them with chlorine and sitting kids in the back seats of their car bombs.

If you do have a sniper cousin I hope he gets back safe but he should not have re-enlisted if he's as torn up over the war as you say.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 4:59 PM

I don't know if Matt is for real or not. I know that soldiers and their families overwhelmingly support the war. But they are not all alike, they have their own views and so it is quite possible that there is a sniper in Iraq who thinks the war is misguided. There are always soldiers in any war who feel that way. Believe it or not. I knew an old man who spent more than three years in a Japanese POW camp and FDR was not his hero. Not at all.

I have had relatives and acquaintances who servied in Iraq or Afghanistan and I know other people who have served over there and what many of these people say is completely different from Matt here.

For one thing they are well trained soldiers and while it is true that snipers shoot people, as a general rule they do not shoot people without a reason, which seems to be what Matt here is saying. He says his cousin has no idea if the people he shot were innocents or not. Well I just doubt that. I bet he had a pretty good idea.

If Pelosi has her way Matt's cousin might be fighting a rear guard action without the resources he needs to keep himself alive as he beats a hasty retreat in an effort to make sure the cut and run plan works and the Democrats win in 08. Got to keep our priorities straight after all.

And btw, most troops are no longer eating one hot meal a day. They have been there long enough that there are enough bases that most of them get regular meals. Depends on where they are and for how long and what they are doing.

So I am not sure if Matt is for real or not, but my home county in Oklahoma is home to Fort Sill, and if I remember correctly back in 2004 it went almost 80% for Bush.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 5:09 PM

One thing your side won't give up on is your incredibly simplistic view of war. The threat of terrorism is almost identical to the threat of nuclear proliferation in terms of the mix of emotions that are conjured up in national identities. If a nation feels threatened by anyone or anything, it will do anything to therapeutically heal that feeling of fear. In order to do that, you have to have an "enemy" to target. The measure of fear, mixed with pride in national identities is what leads people to war. Terrorism hits those emotions right on the head, and is incredibly cheap, and effective. Perceptions, not actions. Iraqi insurgents are percieved by people like you to be grave threats to world peace because they carry out horrible, indiscriminate acts of disgusting human cruelty. But their power only lies in the world's perception of their acts, and only in the reaction of the people they are committing the acts against. Islamo-fascists don't have any real power, only power that YOU give them by caving into their desire for war. You can't "punish" someone's actions if they want to die in the first place. The war on terrorism, much like the Cold War is a war that will only be won diplomatically, economically, and culturally. Not militarily.

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 5:16 PM

So Nancy's legislation has passed. Congratulations, America. Your House of Reprehensibles has passed the:

Kids and
Surrender to


And backstab is exactly what the two White Flag Republicans who voted for this bill did to America today: Walter Jones of NC and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland.

I sincerely hope that Karl Rove is paying the both of them a personal visit that lays out the following:

1) You will not receive a penny in national GOP money.

2) You will not receive an iota of GOP support from this administration or the Republican leadership.

3) You will not run for re-election. If you do not retire, we will actively replace you in the primaries.

The one good thing about this bill being passed is that it clearly delineates the line between the GOP and the Dhimmicrats. If Pelosi doesn't immediately work out a string-free bill that fully funds the troops, the Democrats will take 100% of the responsibility for the failures of its prosecution. Rejoice, conservatives! The total end of the Democrat Party is at hand.

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 5:28 PM

Now I'm not for pork, but is this really pork? protecting rice fields from saltwater seems legitimate to me -

And if this is pork, this is better pork than the administration's infatuation with the oil companies (subsidies) -

But all in all - probably shouldn't be in this bill -

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 5:31 PM

Make no mistake about it; 80% would most likely be a very conservative percentage of American warriors that understand their mission; how important their mission is in the big picture; and how important it is (and has been) that this President has remainded strong in support of the war Congress voted to send them into. American warriors are highly skilled professionals, and very intelligent.

Would they rather be at home with their families? That is how civilians think. My family members currently serving simply don't think like civilians; they think like soldiers. I could never understand what it is to "think like a soldier", having never been a soldier. I just admire these men/woman so much. I can only imagine how demoralizing it must have been to the Vietnam soldiers that were sent running into an ocean of defeatism by a bunch of civilian politicians. How pathetic! How embarrassing for our proud nation!

I'm so dissapointed with Democrats... At times, I feel helpless as I watch these politicians rob a once proud nation of it's self respect; of it's integrity; of it's heart & courage. How could this country have elected these disgusting & pathetic people into power during a time of war? I fear for my country. Not so much in my lifetime, but my children and my grand children. The bad guys are coming here to my homeland. These bad guys are for real. These bad guys have our number. We gave power to the very people the bad guys needed in place in order form them to wage jihad on civilian Americans in our malls, our schools, our churches....

Liberals will say "you're nuts, you give these bad guys way too much credit"... What am I to say to these Liberals? This enemy has successfully waged war with our military for the past several years; they have successfully attacked American assetts all over the globe; they are extremely well funded; they governed the outcome of an election in Spain; they are willing to use their own children to kill us. But, I give them to much credit...

Could it be possible that they also governed the outcome of an election in America?

Posted by Count to 10 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 5:43 PM

I think you missunderstand the problem.
The terorists are not motivated by their anger at the US military. They are motivated by their fear of what western pop culture has done to them. They are motivated by the images of Somalia, where they saw muslims transfer their shame to the US by dragging dead solders though the street. These people are deaply ashamed of their own failures, and see every brutal act they can get away with as erasing their shame and bringing them honor. They see every consesion to them as a bit of their own shame dumped back on us. The more you give, the more they will demand. It is a whole culture of shame that needs to be broken for the rest of the societies that the terrorist live in to have peace.
So, who are you going to do diplomacy with? What makes you think we arn't using as much diplomacy as we can already (or maybe even too much)?

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 5:45 PM


with respect, that's a lot of rationalized, college-educated, bs. I read Orwell's 1984 too. If he were alive today maybe he'd write about how sometimes a population will pretend that real dangers are an illusion created by their government. By wishing away our current terror threat your friends on the left avoid having to deal with the nasty possiblity of fighting in a warzone - which, as you said, is less preferable than living under a dictatorship.

matt: You can't "punish" someone's actions if they want to die in the first place.

Exactly and who said anything about punishing them? You either destroy them or you give up the things that are easy targets for suicidal, murderous fanatics - things like air travel, automobile travel, open-air markets - basically civilized life. It's why the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) doesn't apply to this conflict and your cold war analogy isn't a good one.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 5:57 PM


Simplistic? Versus what the worldly idea that if we pack up run away feed the Jews to the terrorists and turn into socialists the terrorists will become our friends instead of our enemies.

I remember Somalia. I remember those Rangers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu when they were sent in there to support a humanitarian mission.

So don't talk to me about simplistic. I have had family members serve in every branch of the military and in every war this country has fought. When I was a kid my Dad used to having screamin nightmares that woke up the whole house. My uncle went to his grave with two slugs in him that could never be removed. I had a female relative who was a nurse in Viet Nam when her brother was serving there in the US army and I had two cousins going into Iraq when this thing started. So do not lecture me about being simple.

And btw Orwell was not your kind of guy. In fact Orwell said that there was no reasoning with your kind of guy.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 6:07 PM

Count, great argument. Let me try to respond. I agree with you on most of your points. I understand where you're coming from and I feel the same way. Pop culture is the main culprit here, not military action. I just don't see how military force is actually helping in any way. It may be helping to prevent chaos in some parts of Iraq, in other parts, it's only making things worse. The current success of the occupation is debatable, but I personally don't think it's helping anyone in the long term. I won't believe for one second that our invasion was either responsible or necessary, and I don't think the vast majority of Iraqi's feel that way either. In terms of success at winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, we've failed miserably. Does military force in Iraq work to destroy terrorist networks that can hide easily in the regions neighboring Iraq? Common sense, and from everything I've read, tell me no.

Terrorism spreads like a disease, from one host to another. If you want to stomp it out, you're going to have to quarantine the whole of the Middle-East, Northern Africa and Europe off, and vaccinate every single human being living there with some kind of anti-terrorism syrum.

These places have been living with terrorism for decades. I don't see their societies crumbling to the ground.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 6:26 PM

Cannoli, it has nothing to do with Orwell. I'm actually reading a book by Jacques E. C. Hymans called "The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation". It's a very well thought out theory on what makes a nation's foreign policy, not just on proliferation and the cold war.

War IS punishment. It's the international equivalent of punishing someone for not complying with your demands. We invaded Iraq because George Bush told all of us that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that he would not hesitate to use them or would "give them away" to terrorists. Both turned out to be untrue... the second, extremely unlikely and unreasonable for a dictator such as Saddam Hussein to even consider.

Fear is why we went (fear instilled by our President), and pride is why we are still there, because we can't "lose" to the terrorists. Which is so absurd when you think about it. Iraq's borders are basically open for anyone to stroll in and out. Terrorist organizations are known to be rooted all over the world, not just in the Middle-East. How do you win a battle against the terrorists in one country, when they're all over the world? And if you can't secure the borders, how do you end the constant flow of foreign fighters?

This is the foundation for the democratic agenda on the war: We are in way over our heads! We're not capable of continuing this indefinetly, so why proceed? I want democracy for Iraqi's, but I happen to think that it'll take an act of god to help us "win" this hundred years war. Whatever "win" is suppose to mean in the first place.

Posted by burt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 6:50 PM

I think that Matt's cousin is the exception that proves the rule. Kerry has a near hundred percent record of being wrong about nearly everything. He has suggested that people who don't make any effort in school would end up in Iraq as soldiers (generic not just army). Most of us strenuously object to that comment.

Anyone who pays any attention to current events knows that soldiers are required to do things which they would not choose to do. That is one of the biggest reasons most of us do not choose to be soldiers. All of our larger wars were fought by drafties as well as volunteers. Drafties never had that choice. If Cousin managed to become a soldier and a sniper without knowing these simple truths, I suggest he didn't pay attention to ninth grade social studies or American history.

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 6:51 PM

matt, you were pretty clear about preferring life under a dictatorship to armed resistance. No further explanation necessary.

I'm thankful your group is still in the minority.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 7:03 PM


They said the same thing about Japan and South Korea. Churchill said a Hun alive was a war in the making. In fact for centuries it was thought that peace in Europe was not possible.

So, there are other people who have been living with terrorism and they are still there.

Well hell, Matt, the third world has been living with constant warfare, rampant poverty, genocide, starvation, pandemics, corruption, totalitarianism and religious extremism for years and those folks are still there too, but that does not mean I want to go down that road either.

The whole point, and it has been discussed by people like Bill Clinton and Chirac as well as us simplistic neo cons, is the nature of this enemy and their willingness for martyrdom coupled with support from rogue states. This fear is not a new one, but as time passes it becomes plain these people have global aspirations and it would be simplistic to say to yourself that they are just backward little brown people and as such can not be of any threat to us.

BTW, I think that Democrats should pursue that whole "If they kill a few of us every now and then it is no big deal" strategy on a national level, if there is another attack it will look real swell in retrospect.

Posted by CheckSum [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 7:27 PM

Matt, I’d suggest you stop talking about your ''cousin.'' If this sniper really exists, he violated security by telling you where in Iraq he is stationed, and what he is doing.

Like you said, this isn’t WW II. It’s the information age. The enemy is alive and well and moves about freely within our borders. In a public forum, you said what he’s done, his name, and where he’s from. You put his family at risk.

If he even exists.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 7:43 PM


Stay the indignation because I apologized in advance.

I work in the Pentagon and virtually everybody I know civilian and military has spent some time in Iraq and Afghanistan. Outside of the initial invasion and an occasional dust up like Fallujah nobody has described the sort of constant combat that you claim your cousin is experiencing.

Soldiers sleep outdoors in defensive positions all the time. It's how they live when they are in the field. You have made sound like he is under constant attack by superior forces. You may indeed have a cousin who in Ramadi sleeping outdoors but I doubt he is under constant direct or indirect enemy fire. I think you are either misinterpreting his letters, misunderstanding what he is telling you or you are purposely exaggerating his experiences.

Your posturing on the comparison between combat today and in the past is duly noted. However, it is relevant. Despite what you might think, people who have been in combat are quite introspective about what they do and are reluctant to talk about it with outsiders. It is quite normal for people who have been in combat to express the sentiments that you say your cousin is telling you. It is a constant in war throughout the ages but just because they feel that way doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in the mission. I had an uncle who served aboard a cruiser in WWII and beyond a few sea stories never really talked to me about it until I came back on leave after returning from WESTPAC at the end of 1972.

Frankly your description of your cousin’s living conditions and the threat he faces sounds like you have been listening to an old Tokyo Rose broadcast. You make him sound like “the battling bastards of Bataan, no mother, no father, no uncle Sam.” It is very reminiscent of the Winter Soldier stories from the Vietnam War.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 8:59 PM

I know, it was a horrible mistake to even bring him up. I was challenged and told I was a liar, I felt that I had to somehow back it up with some kind of "evidence". Please don't bring any more attention to it than is necessary. The information I put on here is private and I would appreciate if everyone treat it that way, even though I was foolish enough to bring it to light. I'm not a liar, I am proud of my cousin and he's proud of his country. For the record, nothing I say on here reflects his opinion.

The fact of the matter is, some of you are so quick to claim you know the opinions of other people, even an entire group of people. I was just trying to show a different side of the story from my own experience, even though it did absolutely nothing to help my argument and completely backfired on me.

Also, I never said he was under constant attack. I said he had to listen to constant mortar fire... that could mean different things. I would assume there would be a pretty big difference, listening to it, and experiencing it. Again, you work in the Pentagon jerry. I don't know anything about the military or combat situations, I'm just repeating what I heard through the family grapevine, I haven't spoken to him directly in over a year and a half. This all makes me a very uncredible source. Dissecting my claims is useless anyways, you can take it or leave it. I really don't care.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 9:55 PM

Pineapple ... my statement about the war profiteers still stands, I don't care if they did it for Lincoln, Washington, Clinton, Bush I or Shrub II ... anyone who makes incredible profits on the back of our forces in uniform should be shot.

But just like the pineapple GOP you are, you would rather point fingers at the other party and say "duh gee, they did it too" instead of stepping up and just admitting that both parties suck and there is no oversight at all in Washington and the system does not work.

But then again pineapple, you would rather just blame the other party instead of blaming the entire damn system!

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 9:58 PM

Arab culture can not be "changed " with the barrel of a gun. 150,000 americans will not change it. We can stay for 10 years, as soon as we leave there will be a coup, either a military coup, or some Mullah will take over and run a theocracy. Have you people ever read history books? Did you ever read what Larwence of Arabia wrote about this region in the 1920's? The powerful Arab nationalism. Guess what chumps. They do not want foreigners running their country. A Christian foreign army running their affairs, yeah thats gonna work. The insurgency will NEVER end. The truth hurts. NoDonkey, you are a salivating lunatic. Tough talk usually comes from men who like to wear womens underwear secretly. Let me know your size, I'll send you some of my wifes.

Posted by LunenburgLibertarian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 4:35 AM

conservative democrat: . . . I'll send you some of my wifes

Tell us-- how many wifes do you have?

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 8:23 AM

A Christian foreign army running their affairs, yeah thats gonna work.
Posted by conservative democrat at March 23, 2007 09:58 PM

Americans didn't want the twin towers to come down on top of 3,000 innocent civilians. Realities a bitch. What's the lesson that historians will write; "attack America and Americans in uniform will bring their weapons of war to your shores and stike you down". Clinton talked tough but had no resolve; many before him talked tough but had no resolve. The ME is a beast of a problem that NO President has wanted to deal with on their watch; similiar to the SS beast we face, no President has wanted to tackle this beast on their watch. The attacks of 9/11 made it impossible to ignore the ME beast any longer. No nation or group of nations can attack the American homeland; never without paying a heavy price. On that principle, Democrats and Republicans (all americans) should agree. Problem is that we don't agree on that. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that people like CD, monkei, the Dude, and so many others that post here don't agree on that simple concept.

A Christian foreign army... Now that's a very revealing look into the mind of the CD.

Tough talk usually comes from men who like to wear womens underwear secretly. (CD)

That statement is most likely true in the circle of men you hang out with CD. NoDonkey hangs out with men of uniform; most likely this group of men is much different from what you apparently imagine.


As we discussed on another thread; these are seasoned veterans from all walks of life. Jerry is a prime example of this.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 8:49 AM

RE: Monkei (March 23, 2007 09:55 PM)
Pineapple ... my statement about the war profiteers still stands ... anyone who makes incredible profits on the back of our forces in uniform should be shot.

So what about profits being made using forces in uniform to perform humanitarian duties, peacekeeping, and other than war? Shootable offense, too? That's a heck of a standard you put on anyone who would supply our military with goods and services since our government actually produces practically nothing. We outsource to the private sector. That's our system. By your apparent definition, any profits made due to logistics and operations of our military are unethical and deserving of death. What nonsense. Just because you use the qualifier "incredible profits" does not necessarily strengthen your position. Define "incredible". What tangible and intangible economic metrics are you using to conclude obscene monies and return on capital are being made? And not only that, worthy of death?

But then again pineapple, you would rather just blame the other party instead of blaming the entire damn system!

I don't think the system is broken. Imperfect? Yes. Considering the size, scope, and competing interests, I'm pretty impressed with the system though there are components that I'd find head-shaking. I'd prefer there not be waste or redundancy, but that's an impossible goal. Nevertheless, we depend on our military to do anything and everything - our insurance with global reach - and that requires a premium along with the NGOs and private enterprise to see that the world's most powerful asset can be called up on a moments notice and remain as necessary for both domestic and foreign interests.

Nope. Profiteering is not inherently evil and I'm not quite ready to sign death warrants for those who would supply our forces in uniform.

Now, does anyone know of a profiteer where I can get some Tylenol? My head is still hurting.

Posted by Count to 10 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 1:17 PM

I never said pop culture was a problem; I said it is what the terrorist fear. They fear it because it is taking the people of the midle east out of their control. As much as some people complain about pop culture, it does serve as a vector for liberal (small 'l') thought.
The honor/shame cultrure I mentioned is not all of all of the midle east. It is concentrated in those who become or suport terrorists, but is also evident in the more tribal areas. But there exist a number of people who want nothing to do with it.

Military action is important for a number of reasons. It is needed to stop people with guns from taking over towns. It reverses the system that rewards people for being violent and distructive. It frees people from intimidation. It forces people to find other ways of feeling good about themselves than killing anyone who insults them.

There are certain things that are difficult to measure (particularly when so many of the polsters have an ax to grind), but off hand I would say that, in the last four years, attitudes and outlooks in Iraq have changed in ways that will be benificial to the country, and to the world, in the future.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 3:06 PM


Your reference to T. E. Laurence is a joke. Laurence of Arabia follows in a long line of British Middle East experts who romanticize the Arab and Muslim world. Their real fascination is with little boys that are available for their use in these cultures. Arab nationalism is a product of Laurence’s fervid imagination. There is no such thing as Arab Nationalism. There is only Arab tribalism. There was another British officer who is not that well known in the Untied States because nobody made an Academy Award winning movie about him. His name was Col Richard Meinertzhagen. He was Gen Allenby’s chief of intelligence in WWI. There was another film, a sequel to Gallipoli called “The Light Horseman where he appeared. Actually his life and career are for more interesting the T. E. Laurence’s. He soldiered in British East Africa, India and in the Middle East during WWI. His analysis of the Middle East had a major influence on Balfour and Churchill and was instrumental winning their support for a Jewish State. He was made an honorary citizen of Israel before his death in 1967. His opinion of the Arabs was quite low. He believed that they were unreliable, untrustworthy and despite the ability to show personal courage, bullies and cowards. His views have been born out by history. The British faced a Sunni insurgency in the early 20s and the crushed it. The way to defeat an Arab insurgency is to crush it and establish yourself as the top dog. Arabs will then submit to your authority. That is why the Democrats cut and run strategy is sustaining the Sunni insurgency. The Democrats make the Arabs think that we are cowards and will submit to them. Today’s Democrats are getting Americans killed in pursuit of their own power grab.


At the risk of seeming a brute, I am going to tell that you said two things that were both honest and revealing. Unlike many other war opponents here you admit that you don’t anything about the military and your reports about your cousin were heard through the family grapevine and not through direct conversations. I am sure you know what the children’s game telephone is. You know where some at one end of the chain tells a story to the person adjacent who in turn passes it on. By the end of the chain the story has no bearing on what was originally said. So let me explain some things to you about military life in the field whether in combat or on exercises. If a soldier is getting one hot meal a day then he is in hog heaven because he isn’t only eating MREs. MREs aren’t bad even though soldiers gripe about them. You only need to eat one a day because they have about 3500-4000 calories per meal. Your cousin may be sleeping among the tanks but that is a standard defensive formation. Does he hear mortar fire on occasion? Sure, but it as likely to be ours as theirs. We do have mortars, artillery and other heavy weapons. Certainly, your cousin is at risk because he is in a war zone. Is he troubled by killing people? I would hope so otherwise he would be sociopath. You are probably more upset about his situation then he is. There have been many studies that have shown that anxiety goes up the farther away from the danger.

You said he received his training in Savannah Georgia, which is the location of Fort Stewart and home to the 3ID. US Army sniper school is at Fort Bragg, North Carolina while National Guard snipers train at Camp Robinson near Little Rock. He would not have received his basic and AIT training at Ft Stewart they don’t do basic training there.

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 24, 2007 10:01 PM

monkei sez:

"my statement about the war profiteers still stands, I don't care if they did it for Lincoln, Washington, Clinton, Bush I or Shrub II ... anyone who makes incredible profits on the back of our forces in uniform should be shot."

LOL. Nice try! I grew up in the 1960s but never saw one Vietnam War protestor whining about Halliburton.

The fallacy with your "argument" is that the reason Clinton, among others, gave the firm no-bid contracts was not due to any sinister plot-it was because there was an extremely limited number of firms who did what they did, and a very limited number of firms who did what they did as well as they did it.

It's my understanding that in fact there is only one other firm on the entire planet that does the exact same things they do, and said firm is French. Since France refused to be our ally in the war on terror and especially in Iraq, it's understandable that the US Government would want to use a "home town team" as opposed to a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

I have no quarrel that Halliburton may not be squeaky clean as a company. But who is?

But as for what they charge, the best companies in ANY field can always charge more than their competitors. That's capitalism, and that's supply and demand.

The fact remains that historically they have been coddled by Democrats since 1936. As I said, that was 5 years before Cheney was even born.