General William Odom redefines "supporting the troops"

Discussion in 'Military' started by Bullypulpit, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Lt. Gen William E. Odom, US Army (ret), and former Director of the NSA under Ronald Reagan has redefined "supporting the troops" to mean, "bring them home".

    <blockquote>Every step the Democrats in Congress have taken to force the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq has failed. Time and again, President Bush beats them into submission with charges of failing to "support the troops."

    Why do the Democrats allow this to happen? Because they let the president define what "supporting the troops" means. His definition is brutally misleading. Consider what his policies are doing to the troops.

    <b><i>No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq</i></b>. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods. - <a href=http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00192&stoplayout=true&print=true> Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.)</a></blockquote>

    The Democratically controlled Congress keeps losing on this issue because they continue to let the Administration control the definition of what it means to "support the troops". That being that they will be stranded in Iraq lacking funding and supplies for force protection until they can be brought home, which is an utter falsehood. The Administration's real track record is much more telling. From failing to provide sufficient body armor, to failing to put adequate numbers of troops on teh ground initially, to lack of armored vehicles, to threats to cut pay raises, to the disgraceful conditions found at Walter Reed. This has been the Bush administration's real legacy to our troops.

    General Odom goes on to say:

    <blockquote>If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.</blockquote>

    Congress must use both its power of the purse and, if the President continues to fail to put an end to this meat-grinder that is destroying American military readiness, the power of impeachment to bring our troops home.
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    LMAO right-----Pelosi is gonna get right on that !
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    That's why we need to whip all these fuckers naked and howling into the wilderness and start with a clean slate.
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I'm sorry--I can't right now---I'm watching Al Gore save the world on TV---ooops---my TV is a carbon guzzler---I'm so confused------I'll hope Al tells me how to handle this catch 22.
     
  5. Edward
    Offline

    Edward Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,051
    Thanks Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +90
    Al Gore has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here which is what it means to support our troops. Does supporting our troops mean sending them into a war of choice, and then not adequately funding those troops? Does supporting our troops mean praising their patriotism when they sacrifice their very lives and die in Iraq? The truth is that those who support the troops (i.e., each man or woman who serves in our military) would want them to come home safe and without harm to pursue their education, careers and to return to their family, friends and associates. In short, supporting our troops means to support each of them individually in pursuing their lives. It is one thing to ask them to sacrifice everything for their country and another to stab them in the back as they do so like this administration has.
     
  6. Edward
    Offline

    Edward Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,051
    Thanks Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +90
    I'm assuming you are speaking figuratively and not literally when you say we should whip them naked and howling into the wilderness. I wouldn't go so far as to say we should do something like that but we do need to force them to listen to the people and to do what we want and to return our brave men and women who make sacrifices in our behalf. If Bush supports the troops let him leave the Oval Office and go over to the nearest Private and tell him, "go home son and I will take your place and when the bullet met for you strikes me dead I will willingly sacrifice my life for yours." I doubt this asshole would do something like that though.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I think you should go do it if you really care.
     
  8. Edward
    Offline

    Edward Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,051
    Thanks Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +90
    Not going to happen and the reason is quite simple. I will not fight in a war of choice based on the ideology of other people. Do I care enough about these soldiers to take their place? Yes, I do but doing so would mean one less person to resist the evil of the voters who sent them their to die for them and their families. It is far more effective for me not to take their place and to do what I can to bring them home. This is something you do not understand. I would not send another person to die in my place like the conservatives who started this war of choice and who have asked others to go in their place. It's all about what is most effective and what is not. I am not the one who supports this war or who sent them there to die. I am the one who is fighting in their behalf to get them to return home. My taking the place of these men and women would and taking the bullet for them would be idiotic and the reason is quite simple. I would be just another body for Bush and those who voted for him. How dare you people use our soldiers like this? How dare you send them to die for your opinion? How dare you murder them and how dare those who represent you send them to die for your opinion? This is treason against our soldiers and those who are willing to sacrifice their lives defending this country and who have instead been asked to die for the position of Republicans in Congress, the White House and in the ballot box. The difference between me not choosing to take someone place and Bush not taking their place is that I didn't start this war and I did not send them there to die. If I were to go then I would be just another victim of the jackasses who voted for George W. Bush. I will not be their victim. You seem to think that I care that these soldiers are dying enough that I would die for you and the bastards who took us into this war of choice.
     
  9. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    And that has to do with the discussion at hand...how?
     
  10. Edward
    Offline

    Edward Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,051
    Thanks Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +90
    It doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. You may or may not already know that conservatives insist on bringing things that have no bearing on the issue at hand into a discussion to draw attention away from that issue. Al Gore has absolutely nothing to do with whether Republicans have sent our sons and our daughters to die in a war of choice that is based on their opinions and ideology. Instead, the issue is whether supporting the troops means: SENDING THEM TO DIE IN A WAR OF CHOICE OR TRYING TO BRING THEM HOME FROM A WAR OF CHOICE SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE WITH THEIR LIVES.
     

Share This Page