The authoritarian conservative war on America
They say, if you don’t support Bush, you’re a Democrat who is giving “aid to the enemy,” “invested in defeat,” and “not supporting our troops.” It is a partisan attack, ‘us and them’, where all Democrats are the enemy and in support of ’surrender.’
Did it ever occur to these authoritarians that lifelong Republicans - like military generals who’d seen a lifetime of military service have called the Iraq venture “a night mare without end” (Gen. R. Sanchez), and “the war in Iraq has fueled recruitment of violent Islamic extremists” (Gen. John Batiste). They also said about Bush: “there has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders” - Sanchez; and Bush has run a “failed strategy that is breaking our great Army” - Batiste.
Do these career Generals want to lose? Do they want to help the enemy? I can quote many more high ranking military that have spoken out. Included on this list are Generals Newbold, Eaton, Odom, Swannack, Zinni, Riggs, Clark and others. Many are life long Republicans. Below is a photo of General Charles Swannack, an Iraq vet and 30 year career soldier who spoke out against the incompetence of the Bush war plan. Does he look like a ‘candy-ass liberal’ invested in aiding the enemy?
And you Bush supporters have the balls to tell me I “don’t support our troops”? If you support Bush, YOU certainly do not support the troops.
1. Bush sent in troops to Iraq with out adequate body armor or vehicle armor resulting in mass casualties including 320,000 brain injuries. A 2006 study showed that 80% of marines killed from upper body wounds would have survived, if they’d had adequate body armor.
2. Bush’s “Stop-Loss policy” had prevented at least 50,000 troops from leaving the military when their service was scheduled to end - just since 2006.
3. Bush used National Guard troops for his surge that was overburdening units already stretched to their limits according to both Republican and Democratic governors.
4. Bush is sending troops in without adequate training. Two army brigades had to forgo their desert training to accommodate Bush’s escalation schedule. Soldiers who were classified as medically unfit to fight are now being sent to war.
5. Bush has opposed pay raises for military, time and time again.
6. Bush proposed cutting funding for military housing and medical facilities. In the fiscal year 2004 budget the President Bush proposed spending nearly $1.5 billion less on these critical facilities than the previous year. (House Appropriation Committees)
7. Bush proposed rolling back increases for imminent-danger pay. Soldiers on the front lines recieve a small monthly payment as compensation for being placed in imminent danger. Bush proposed cutting this fee from $225 a month to $150 a month. (Army Times)
8. Bush eliminated aid to schools located on military bases. He sliced $125 million in federal subsidies for education children of troops. The cuts affected “about 900,000 children nationwide and 63 percent of children in military families.” (Seattle Times)
9. Bush has said he would veto the Webb bill providing troops with increased education benefits. The first president in history to veto a benefits bill for those who served.
And you Bush supporters have the balls to tell me I’m “aiding the enemy”?
When a Government report flatly states that an al Qaeda attack is now likely because the Bush Administration has not met US security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the al Qaeda’s safe haven. Further, the report states that the Bush Administration has no plans to eliminate this known terrorist threat.
87 months after Richard Clarke first insisted that the Bush Administration develop a strategy to combat Al Qaeda, 62 months after the Bush Administration announced its intention to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 45 months after the 9/11 Commission called for the Administration to develop a strategy to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 258 days after Congress required the Administration to submit a strategy to combat terrorist safe havens in Pakistan within 90 days, the GAO releases a report (pdf) finding:
No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the fight against terrorism has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007).
Result: al Qaeda is stronger than ever
If you support Bush, you are either a misinformed idiot, you buy the unreasonable fear that is peddled to control you, or you are an authoritarian ass-kisser whose only interests are to yourself and your politics, not to the well being of America or our military - your only interests are to save face because you are not man enough to admit you made a mistake by supporting an incompetent president who has severely damaged America. And all they can talk about is Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and the GOP swiftboat du jour… while trying to rationalize any & all failings of the Bush administration while they hide and tap dance - trying every way possible to avoid oversight, investigations, and accountability til time runs out in the term.
We must succeed in Iraq and with new and competent leadership, we can hopefully repair the damage of the Bush years, abandon the isolationist arrogant foreign policy and look to the world to build more partners in the war on terror. Gen Batiste has praised the recent gains in Iraq but notes: “Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery…tools yet sufficiently utilized.” Without diplomacy, a willingness to reach out and a comprehensive world view, victory will be only temporary. This war should not have lasted this long and should not have been shouldered soley on the backs of our military. We have paid a terrible price due to the policies of GW Bush.
Cherry picking again I see, William.
Glad you mentioned LTG (Ret) Ricardo S. Sanchez. From his address Oct. 12, 2007…
AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ. A PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL WILL UNQUESTIONABLY LEAD TO CHAOS THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE STABILITY OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST. IF THIS OCCURS IT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. COALITION AND AMERICAN FORCE PRESENCE WILL BE REQUIRED AT SOME LEVEL FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.
AT NO TIME IN AMERICA’S HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION. THE THREAT OF EXTREMISM IS REAL AND DEMANDS UNIFIED ACTION AT THE SAME LEVELS DEMONSTRATED BY OUR FOREFATHERS DURING WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II. AMERICA HAS FAILED TO DATE.
THIS ENDEAVOR HAS FURTHER BEEN HAMPERED BY A COALITION EFFORT THAT CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS HASTY, UN-RESOURCED AND OFTEN UNCOORDINATED AND UNMANAGED. DESPERATELY NEEDED, BUT ESSENTIALLY IGNORED, WERE THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC COALITIONS THAT WERE THE KEY TO VICTORY AND STABILITY IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF THE CONVENTIONAL WAR. THE MILITARY COALITION WHICH WAS HASTILY PUT TOGETHER IN THE SUMMER OF 2003 WAS PROBLEMATIC GIVEN THE MULTITUDE OF NATIONAL CAVEATS, INADEQUATE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE FORCES DEPLOYED. EVEN SO, THE MILITARY COALITION WAS THE MOST EXTENSIVE, PRODUCTIVE AND EFFECTIVE DEPLOYMENT OF FORCES IN DECADES. TODAY, WE CONTINUE OUR INEPT COALITION MANAGEMENT EFFORTS AND, IN FACT, WE ARE FACING EVER DECREASING TROOP COMMITMENTS BY OUR MILITARY COALITION PARTNERS. AMERICA’S “REVISED” STRATEGY DOES NOT ADDRESS COALITION INITIATIVES AND CHALLENGES. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE THIS STRUGGLE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF OUR COALITION PARTNERS ACROSS ALL ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER. WITHOUT THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ELEMENTS OF POWER COMPLEMENTING THE TREMENDOUS EFFORTS OF OUR MILITARY, AMERICA IS ASSURED OF FAILURE. WE CONTINUE ON THAT PATH. AMERICA’S POLITICAL LEADERSHIP MUST COME TOGETHER AND DEVELOP A BIPARTISAN GRAND STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE VICTORY IN THIS CONFLICT. THE SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF OUR POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, INFORMATION AND MILITARY ELEMENTS OF POWER IS THE ONLY COURSE OF ACTION THAT WILL PROVIDE A CHANCE OF SUCCESS.
It seems the the General is in favor of success, William, and would probably say to you ‘SHUT YOUR BACKBITING WHINING FACE, YOU NINCOMPOOP’ or something of the sorts.
Uh, wait a minute…
William’s point is merely that opposition to the Bush administration is consistent with supporting the troops.
The Sanchez address does not weaken the evidence William has presented in support of his point. Since 2006, no one has done more to stand in the way of “A BIPARTISAN GRAND STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE VICTORY IN THIS CONFLICT”, than Bush.
Try again.
William,
Let’s try to hold the fallacies to one per post, at least.
You only accredit a person’s viewpoint if said person agrees with you.
But it is interesting to me how devoid of self-awareness you are. Yes, the way that you frivolously impugn the President, Republicans, Conservatives (as you would do with these generals if they weren’t saying what you think), undermines our stature in the world and the morale of our troops. And morale is very important when you’re expected to put your life at risk each day.
And haven’t you losers had enough opportunity for “oversight” these past 7 years?
[…] WHAT COST!!!” scream the broken-record BDS Sufferers. You can smell their boilerplate hostility and anger to any successes reported from Iraq. That is […]
Let’s try to hold the fallacies to one per post
!6 factual links are not enough for you? How many more do you require? It doesn’t matter what I say or what the facts show, YOU are not man enough to admit the greatest military might in the world was pathetically and incompetently mismanaged by the subject of your authoritarian worship: GW Bush.
We know all about you, Ned. You live up to your reputation with every comment.
So Bush hates the military now? Bush the spendthrift, military-industrial-complex shagging, warmonger President?
But do you realize that 100 links (gosh, please don’t get any ideas . . .) put to fallacious purposes are unpersuasive? Your problem is that you’re starting with the conclusion (Bush BAAAAD) and trying to marshal any facts or arguments you can to support the conclusion.
[…] about timely . . . as William ramps up his personal attacks (”crazy!””liar!””wimpy!”) . . . I just stumbled upon this aggregation of studies comparing the integrity or honesty of […]
[…] news source? Fox News calling itself ‘fair and balanced’ is like Bush supporters saying they support the […]
Just like conservatives that say and think and claim they are moral and supporting the troops, their actions prove quite differently, considering how the administration they support has abused and broken so many lives… and for what? So Bush can save face?
[…] think we’ve effectively addressed the issue of “supporting the troops” […]