You are posting a comment about...
New Year's Wish For Pro-War Zealots To Get A Clue

Sure these zealots believe with all their hearts they are support the troops because they are supporting the mission, but none of them really know what that mission is or why the mission was even begun.

 

 They spout off about "we were attacked" yet never address how nothing was accomplished in Afghanistan since 2001 or the fact 2007 was the deadliest there for our troops since the beginning, or the fact the Taliban have taken back territory because there were never enough troops there. Then when it is pointed out that Iraq had nothing to do with this nation being attacked they claim there was a threat. When that argument fails, they then go off claiming people are just against Bush, which is true, however they never try to discover the basis for being against Bush.

Excuse me but Bush is the "Commander-in-Chief" and he is the one who presented the "evidence" to Congress. He is the one where the "buck" is supposed to stop. Avoiding finding out who was behind the false evidence is not honoring the men and women who died in Iraq or took their own lives after Iraq or any of the wounded because of Iraq. How can truth dishonor anyone? It's almost as if they fear the truth will then reduce in anyway the bravery and courage the troops have. No one can change what they are which is rare. How many in this nation of over 300 million are actually willing to risk their lives for someone else? Not even 10%.

This is from Lincoln when he was a Senator.

"Allow a president to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose.

If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how then could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but then he will say to you "be silent; I see it if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.

This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."
Abraham Lincoln, 1848

 

Lincoln understood the tremendous obligation the President had to those he would send to risk their lives. He understood that the Congress as well as the American people had an obligation to fulfil to the troops and it was not just the troops had the obligation to follow orders.

Pro-war zealots see nothing wrong in what Bush did or what he failed to do, seeing their "duty" to the troops is to support Bush. They do neither by not holding him accountable for the lives under his command. He failed to value their lives enough to make sure all the evidence presented to Congress was complete and verified. If he even cared about the "evidence" being false, heads would have rolled a long time ago when it was clear there was not "imminent attack" coming, no plans to attack and no "mushroom cloud" ready to rise. Either he didn't care or he was behind it.

Having failed at that, he then failed them by not sending in enough troops as well as inadequate so called plans that would set up the occupation of Iraq for disaster.

He continued to fail them by not making sure they had all they needed to be as safe as possible.

He continued to fail them by not making sure the DOD and the VA was ready to handle all of the wounded.

He just kept failing them while the pro-war zealots acted as if this was all supposed to be part of the price the men and women willing to risk their lives should be expected to pay. They never considered the fact the redeployments were done without one consideration for the troops or their families. They never considered the National Guardsmen being deployed over and over again while they had to give up their income and businesses. They never considered anyone in their lust for supporting Bush.

For this New Year my wish is that they get a clue on what support really means to the troops. It's about time they actually started to do it.

I'm really tired of reading their rants when they fail to address on single concern the men and women of the military face from redeployments without dwell time, without being taken care of by the DOD and the VA, without plans and above all, without accountability from their "Commander-in-Chief" because they deserved so much more than the pro-war zealots are willing to give them.



Kathie CostosNamguardianangel@aol.comhttp://www.namguardianangel.org/http://www.namguardianangel.blogspot.com/http://www.woundedtimes.blogspot.com/

I'd rather be pro-warriors since they are the ones with their lives on the line.

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation." - George Washington