Truly supporting our troops

[CSM]

You are right that I have become more and more angry in this thread and I apologize to everyone. I am not used to this on-line exchange of ideas and I wasn't well prepared for the name calling, pontificating, and nit-picking that form the lingua franca of this discourse. I apologize for becoming like my opponents and contributing to the very thing that I have criticized. Originally, my interest was "the troops" as individual human beings. Perhaps that isn't a topic that works here. I certainly couldn't make it work, but then I'n not a blogger type.

Having failed to make this thread pleasant or useful, I'm going to sign off; but before I do, I want to tell you just a little about my background - not to justify what I have said, but in the hope that you all will understand me better and forgive my having offended you.

I grew up in a tiny, isolated town in the mountains of Pennsylvania. Both my parents died before I was 12 (I think I mentioned that my Dad died on active duty - he was killed on Okinawa). The relatives who raised me were a lot older than my parents. They were kind, but distant and I was a lonely kid. I did go to college at a little place no one has ever heard of, and then to nursing school courtesy of the G.I. Bill benefits from my Dad. Try telling me these government programs are a waste of money!

I was recruited into the Navy right after graduation and spent almost my entire service in Norfolk. The hospital was bigger than the entire town in which I grew up. I did the full rotation but spent the largest part of my two tours in the maternity ward. I loved the Navy. Being an officer was a big step upward for a little girl from nowhere. This was during the period between Korea and Viet Nam, so we saw a lot more car wrecks than combat casualties.

I met my husband, a widower, 20-and-out Chief who was on the edge of retirement. We married at the end of my second tour and moved to a town here in Maine. We had a son from my husband's first marriage. He meant the whole world to me and when he joined the military, it seemed the most natural thing in the world. He didn't go Navy; instead he followed two of his best friends from high school into the Army, joined the 82nd Airborn. He was deployed to the Dominican Republic in one of those nation building expeditions that seemed like a big deal at the time but nobody remembers any more. He died in a freak accident while they were loading up to come home.

I have never blamed the military for my son's death the way some mothers do. I am proud he served his country. As I have sat here and watched TV, it seems to me that the gap between them the military my Dad was in and where we are now has grown and grown. From fighting to be left alone, we've become like the Roman Legions, scattered around the world holding down people for fun and profit. I don't have the sense of certainty you-all seem to have about what's right. I wish I could have grown up with my Dad, but I understand. I know the Navy is good people. I can still see the brave face my son put on for his Mom. I can't say what his death accomplished and I think of him when I think of supporting the troops. I'm glad to be driving Frankie. I just don't know. You folks seem so sure that you do.

Bye for now.

I am sincerely sorry for your loss. You have a right to be proud not only of your son's service, but your own as well.

On a side note, I do wish you would continue to post here, as I believe you are and can be a worthwhile contributor.

 

[dmp]

Do you know how many living American veterans there are? I checked with the V.A. to find out before responding to your silly proclamation. What percentage of that number have you even met? Pounding brews at the V.F.W. with a few other jingoes doesn't make you an expert. Biography doesn't confer authority; if it did, I happily match mine to yours. As for FTA, the fact that even you know what it means suggests that there may be a few more disaffected vets than a pathetic old RA lifer like you imagines. You have offered nothing in this discussion - neither facts nor analysis, only the comic assertion that you speak for millions. It would be "insultive" if it weren't so sad.

FTA means one thing to Soldiers. Fuck The Army. Perhaps you need to learn your audience.

See - this is where you are arrogant and off-base. I 'have' offered facts and analysis. Your obtuseness prevents you from picking up either, in your reading.

 

[mrsx]

On a side note, I do wish you would continue to post here, as I believe you are and can be a worthwhile contributor.[/QUOTE]

I want to thank CSM for his forgiveness and understanding about my confrontational and arrogant posts. I have been re-thinking my ideas under the influence of his remarks. I apologize again to any of you whom I offended with my strident, arrogant tone.

I posted some details of my long and generally uninteresting life because I hoped to explain why I found the self-appointed spokesmen (and I don’t mean spokespeople, either) so irritating. As you can see: I am a vet, but not from a ground combat branch. I am a vet, but I am over 70. I am a vet, but I am a woman. I am - or was - an officer but I never commanded troops. I served in the Navy, but my primary MOS was obstetrics and the care of premature infants. We are a military family, my husband was also career Navy, but he always was, until he passed away eleven years ago, a life-long Liberal Democrat. My son was in the Army and died on active service, but that was a long time ago and in an operation most of you have probably never heard of. So you see, I don’t fit the profile of vets as it is expressed by some of you in this forum. And that is my point: by the time you zoom out to be able to talk about “vets,” you are up so high that there are no details, just a fuzzy one-size-fits-all stereotype. Today’s active duty personnel are tomorrow’s vets. They are an even more diverse group of individuals that the people I served with back when most of the posters on this forum were kids. Supporting the troops ought to mean recognizing that individuality. Tell me what you think; I’ll accept it and try to understand it. Tell me what “vets” think and I’ll get bitchy but try to control it.

One component of the troops I particularly want to support is women. And yes, that’s because I’m a woman. So the f*** what? Women are (almost) everywhere in the military these days – not like when I was in. At first, I didn’t think this was a good idea; now I realize that it is a very good idea. As with black servicemen, it may take a couple of generations before the system digests all the implications of this change. Maybe longer – ultimately, gender is more basic than race. Right now there are a few places where women in the service get a slightly easier or better deal just because they are women, but those places are damn few. Far more critical is the huge and largely unspoken issue of sexual harassment and assault. The numbers that have come out of the Air Force Academy investigation are just the tip of the iceberg. Every woman who has served knows what I am talking about. I think supporting our female troops in this matter can have no higher priority for anyone who believes in “supporting our troops.”

I personally believe that women are being scape-goated on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse tragedy as well. There is something in our culture that loves to see successful women brought down, as in the case of Martha Stuart for example. I think she is a prissy bitch, but still she did time for something no male corporate crook has even been charged with and most of the big fish are still out there swimming fee. Brig. Gen. Karpinski was blamed for the prisoner abuse scandal because she allowed the spooks the run of the place. If you have been in the military in Viet Nam, Kosovo or the Middle East, you know this is the kind of gray area that happens under asymmetric combat conditions. Perhaps she should have stood up to “them” (whoever they are); at the least they ought to go down with her. Pvt. England is another witch about to be burned. All the testimony at her court martial agrees that she was at the bottom of the chain of command and didn’t come up with any of these ideas herself. Her boy friend got 10 years – another pfc.
You-all can squabble about Rumsfeld’s memo suspending SP for interrogations or why Sanchez wasn’t responsible for what his generals were doing if you want to. I’m telling you that I think the way the whole business has been handled is unfair and it is no surprise that women are being put up front as horrible examples. BTW, I’m not claiming to speak for military women or anyone but myself on this matter. But if you think I’m a lone nut, find a woman vet or one on active duty and ask her. SUPPORT THE TROOPS – ALL THE TROOPS!
Mrs.X.

 

[dilloduck]

On a side note, I do wish you would continue to post here, as I believe you are and can be a worthwhile contributor.

I want to thank CSM for his forgiveness and understanding about my confrontational and arrogant posts. I have been re-thinking my ideas under the influence of his remarks. I apologize again to any of you whom I offended with my strident, arrogant tone.

I posted some details of my long and generally uninteresting life because I hoped to explain why I found the self-appointed spokesmen (and I don’t mean spokespeople, either) so irritating. As you can see: I am a vet, but not from a ground combat branch. I am a vet, but I am over 70. I am a vet, but I am a woman. I am - or was - an officer but I never commanded troops. I served in the Navy, but my primary MOS was obstetrics and the care of premature infants. We are a military family, my husband was also career Navy, but he always was, until he passed away eleven years ago, a life-long Liberal Democrat. My son was in the Army and died on active service, but that was a long time ago and in an operation most of you have probably never heard of. So you see, I don’t fit the profile of vets as it is expressed by some of you in this forum. And that is my point: by the time you zoom out to be able to talk about “vets,” you are up so high that there are no details, just a fuzzy one-size-fits-all stereotype. Today’s active duty personnel are tomorrow’s vets. They are an even more diverse group of individuals that the people I served with back when most of the posters on this forum were kids. Supporting the troops ought to mean recognizing that individuality. Tell me what you think; I’ll accept it and try to understand it. Tell me what “vets” think and I’ll get bitchy but try to control it.

One component of the troops I particularly want to support is women. And yes, that’s because I’m a woman. So the f*** what? Women are (almost) everywhere in the military these days – not like when I was in. At first, I didn’t think this was a good idea; now I realize that it is a very good idea. As with black servicemen, it may take a couple of generations before the system digests all the implications of this change. Maybe longer – ultimately, gender is more basic than race. Right now there are a few places where women in the service get a slightly easier or better deal just because they are women, but those places are damn few. Far more critical is the huge and largely unspoken issue of sexual harassment and assault. The numbers that have come out of the Air Force Academy investigation are just the tip of the iceberg. Every woman who has served knows what I am talking about. I think supporting our female troops in this matter can have no higher priority for anyone who believes in “supporting our troops.”

I personally believe that women are being scape-goated on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse tragedy as well. There is something in our culture that loves to see successful women brought down, as in the case of Martha Stuart for example. I think she is a prissy bitch, but still she did time for something no male corporate crook has even been charged with and most of the big fish are still out there swimming fee. Brig. Gen. Karpinski was blamed for the prisoner abuse scandal because she allowed the spooks the run of the place. If you have been in the military in Viet Nam, Kosovo or the Middle East, you know this is the kind of gray area that happens under asymmetric combat conditions. Perhaps she should have stood up to “them” (whoever they are); at the least they ought to go down with her. Pvt. England is another witch about to be burned. All the testimony at her court martial agrees that she was at the bottom of the chain of command and didn’t come up with any of these ideas herself. Her boy friend got 10 years – another pfc.
You-all can squabble about Rumsfeld’s memo suspending SP for interrogations or why Sanchez wasn’t responsible for what his generals were doing if you want to. I’m telling you that I think the way the whole business has been handled is unfair and it is no surprise that women are being put up front as horrible examples. BTW, I’m not claiming to speak for military women or anyone but myself on this matter. But if you think I’m a lone nut, find a woman vet or one on active duty and ask her. SUPPORT THE TROOPS – ALL THE TROOPS!
Mrs.X.[/QUOTE]


see---girls are mean thread

 

[mrsx]

I posted my last message about the rape and harassment before reading the Pentagon report just released. Since the favorite rebuttal tactic (after name calling) is “what are your sources?” I thought I’d pass it along.
Military criminal organizations in 2004 received 1,700 reports of alleged cases of sexual assault, which includes rape, nonconsensual sodomy, indecent assault as well as attempts to commit those offenses.
In 1,275 of the reported cases, service members were alleged victims -- an increase of 25 percent over the number determined by a Pentagon task force in 2003, and 41 percent over the 2002 figure. The overall 2004 figure also included 425 cases in which service members allegedly assaulted or attempted to assault civilians -- a category not included in earlier years' totals.
The 2004 cases resulted in completed investigations of 1,362 alleged offenders, including 1,011 service members. An additional 468 cases are pending.
Punitive action was taken in 342 (34%) cases, including 113 (11%) courts-martial, 132 (13%) nonjudicial punishments -- such as reduction in rank or forfeiture of pay -- and 97 (10%) administrative actions and discharges. No punitive action was taken in 629 (62%) cases, either because the alleged offender was not found or because of insufficient evidence.
One of the most troubling aspects of the assault problem is the emergence of cases in which U.S. troops -- men as well as women -- are abused by other service members in hostile environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Reported sexual assaults have risen in the Central Command region, which includes the Middle East and Central Asia, from 24 in 2002 and 94 in 2003 to 123 in 2004, according to the Pentagon's Joint Task Force on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response.
In many U.S. military camps in Iraq, for example, signs are posted in female showers and other locations requiring U.S. servicewomen to be in the company of a "battle buddy," especially at night, for their safety.
Is a battle buddy the best we can offer in support of these troops?

Does your quote from Freud imply that rape and abuse are OK because of destiny? Do you take the same view of the rapidly increasing number of guy-on-guy rapes in the military? Let's hope some Freudian scholar doesn't feel destined to rape your Mom, wife, daughter or sister! Pardon my arrogance if these views offend you.

 

[Said1]

Does your quote from Freud imply that rape and abuse are OK because of destiny? Do you take the same view of the rapidly increasing number of guy-on-guy rapes in the military? Let's hope some Freudian scholar doesn't feel destined to rape your Mom, wife or sister! Pardon my arrogance if these views offend you.

Get over yourself, you're overdeveloped sense of self-importance is revolting and unwarrented. How about not being arrogant at all, since arrogance begets arrogance, right? Perhaps explaining why the post offended you so much would be a better idea. I'm honestly starting to think you like abuse.

 

[dilloduck]

I posted my last message about the rape and harassment before reading the Pentagon report just released. Since the favorite rebuttal tactic (after name calling) is “what are your sources?” I thought I’d pass it along.
Military criminal organizations in 2004 received 1,700 reports of alleged cases of sexual assault, which includes rape, nonconsensual sodomy, indecent assault as well as attempts to commit those offenses.
In 1,275 of the reported cases, service members were alleged victims -- an increase of 25 percent over the number determined by a Pentagon task force in 2003, and 41 percent over the 2002 figure. The overall 2004 figure also included 425 cases in which service members allegedly assaulted or attempted to assault civilians -- a category not included in earlier years' totals.
The 2004 cases resulted in completed investigations of 1,362 alleged offenders, including 1,011 service members. An additional 468 cases are pending.
Punitive action was taken in 342 (34%) cases, including 113 (11%) courts-martial, 132 (13%) nonjudicial punishments -- such as reduction in rank or forfeiture of pay -- and 97 (10%) administrative actions and discharges. No punitive action was taken in 629 (62%) cases, either because the alleged offender was not found or because of insufficient evidence.
One of the most troubling aspects of the assault problem is the emergence of cases in which U.S. troops -- men as well as women -- are abused by other service members in hostile environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Reported sexual assaults have risen in the Central Command region, which includes the Middle East and Central Asia, from 24 in 2002 and 94 in 2003 to 123 in 2004, according to the Pentagon's Joint Task Force on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response.
In many U.S. military camps in Iraq, for example, signs are posted in female showers and other locations requiring U.S. servicewomen to be in the company of a "battle buddy," especially at night, for their safety.
Is a battle buddy the best we can offer in support of these troops?

Does your quote from Freud imply that rape and abuse are OK because of destiny? Do you take the same view of the rapidly increasing number of guy-on-guy rapes in the military? Let's hope some Freudian scholar doesn't feel destined to rape your Mom, wife, daughter or sister! Pardon my arrogance if these views offend you.

no offense taken--calming down a bit may help the conversation tho

 

[mrsx]

I'm pretty calm for an old lady. You didn't answer my question about Freud. Cat got your tongue or are you just lickin' pussy?

 

[Shattered]

I'm pretty calm for an old lady. You didn't answer my question about Freud. Cat got your tongue or are you just lickin' pussy?

You're deranged. I recommend counseling.

 

[Annie]

You're deranged. I recommend counseling.

Nicer than what I was going to say. Not sounding like 70+ either, or a lady.

 

[Said1]

I'm pretty calm for an old lady. You didn't answer my question about Freud. Cat got your tongue or are you just lickin' pussy?

Jealous, or forget your meds? And btw, how did things go with Frankie?

 

[Said1]

Nicer than what I was going to say. Not sounding like 70+ either, or a lady.

No kidding, and she has the nerve to comment on my filthy mouth. What a total freak.

 

[Annie]

No kidding, and she has the nerve to comment on my filthy mouth. What a total freak.

While I seldom agree with Shattered, J/K I think this person should be further down the goat sucking road...

 

[Said1]

While I seldom agree with Shattered, J/K I think this person should be further down the goat sucking road...

She is the envy of all goat suckers. She is the undisputed title holder, the champeen.

 

[mrsx]

Jealous, or forget your meds? And btw, how did things go with Frankie?

I have to skip my meds to get up to speed for this BBS. Are all these guys in the same ward or is this some NIMH experiment?

I won't meet Frankie until Monday. I'll let you know how it goes. I don't think I have any right to pry into his beliefs or medical condition, much less share it here with the mentally homeless, but I'll see how he feels about it. Thanks for asking. Your voice is like music in comparison to the swaggering, goat-obsessed kiddies who don't know how to talk to a crazy old lady.

 

[mrsx]

The primary mission of our armed forces in Iraq was to defeat the forces of the enemy. This they did with professional skill and elegance, despite some blunders in logistics and diplomacy by the higher-ups. The victory was done more dramatically than anyone could have imagined, but not even the dimmest Baathist ever thought it would go otherwise.

Even before Bushman stopped crowing “Mission accomplished” on the deck of the Lincoln, it was clear that the opposition was going to avoid major combat operations and attempt to draw us into a strategic quagmire. They did and we fell for it. BTW theirs was the standard Soviet military doctrine as was taught to Iraq’s general officers by their Russian trainers. Our JCS knew all about it; the Bushies wouldn’t listen.

Now we are in what General Giap (the last commander to defeat the U.S. military) called “the fortress prison.” It turns out that the “isolated pockets of dead-enders” are in fact, a large, well-coordinated group with some military training and vast funding based in Syria, Jordan and probably Saudi Arabia. When we use our military power, as in Fallujah, it gains us nothing and strengthens the enemy. He doesn’t have to prove that he can defeat our forces – duh! – only that our forces cannot protect or control Iraq. He’s making a pretty good case, and stirring up a tremendous popular support for what the Arab people naturally see as the home team.

The British tried all this 80 years ago. They got farther than we did, but the effort fell apart within ten years. We’ve won all we can win tactically and every day we stay there, we lose more and more strategically and politically. We are rapidly coming to that point that Kerry raised about Viet Nam: how do you tell the last American casualty that he died for a mistake? Supporting the troops doesn’t mean continuing to feed them into the meat grinder in twos and threes. It means bringing them home, rewarding them for having done their job superbly, and holding responsible the politicians who forced this fiasco upon the military. They aren’t hard to find – they’re hiding behind the troops.

Note to goat lovers: I'm rubber and you're glue, so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

 

[5stringJeff]

The primary mission of our armed forces in Iraq was to defeat the forces of the enemy. This they did with professional skill and elegance, despite some blunders in logistics and diplomacy by the higher-ups. The victory was done more dramatically than anyone could have imagined, but not even the dimmest Baathist ever thought it would go otherwise.

Even before Bushman stopped crowing “Mission accomplished” on the deck of the Lincoln, it was clear that the opposition was going to avoid major combat operations and attempt to draw us into a strategic quagmire. They did and we fell for it. BTW theirs was the standard Soviet military doctrine as was taught to Iraq’s general officers by their Russian trainers. Our JCS knew all about it; the Bushies wouldn’t listen.

Now we are in what General Giap (the last commander to defeat the U.S. military) called “the fortress prison.” It turns out that the “isolated pockets of dead-enders” are in fact, a large, well-coordinated group with some military training and vast funding based in Syria, Jordan and probably Saudi Arabia. When we use our military power, as in Fallujah, it gains us nothing and strengthens the enemy. He doesn’t have to prove that he can defeat our forces – duh! – only that our forces cannot protect or control Iraq. He’s making a pretty good case, and stirring up a tremendous popular support for what the Arab people naturally see as the home team.

The British tried all this 80 years ago. They got farther than we did, but the effort fell apart within ten years. We’ve won all we can win tactically and every day we stay there, we lose more and more strategically and politically. We are rapidly coming to that point that Kerry raised about Viet Nam: how do you tell the last American casualty that he died for a mistake? Supporting the troops doesn’t mean continuing to feed them into the meat grinder in twos and threes. It means bringing them home, rewarding them for having done their job superbly, and holding responsible the politicians who forced this fiasco upon the military. They aren’t hard to find – they’re hiding behind the troops.

Note to goat lovers: I'm rubber and you're glue, so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

There are multiple problems with your analysis, Mrs. X.

First, you compare Iraq to Vietnam. It's a bad analogy. There is no "North Iraq" with a government that is fighting against the American invaders. The anti-US government has been deposed. Iraq has never been split up. Also, while there are lots of base camps around Iraq, there are also Iraqi police, National Guard troops, and regular troops who patrol their own country.

Second, the Iraqis know that we are not there forever, and that we are only there as long as it takes to establish a secure and stable Iraqi government. The Iraqis that see Americans as "the enemy" are the terrorist supporters, who are dying by the dozens daily and whose leadership is being targeted and taken out.

Third, you refer to Iraq as a "mistake." Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only had Saddam broken the 1991 cease fire and flaunted the UN resolutions designed to help the Iraqi people, but Saddam's replacement has given the Iraqis the ability to govern themsleves, and to show the rest of the Arab world that democracy is not only possible, but prefereable to dictatorships and Taliban-like juntas. I firmly believe that Bush made the right call by toppling Saddam.

 

[mrsx]

There are multiple problems with your analysis, Mrs. X.

With apologies to all who may be offended by my presuming to contradict the pronouncements of the NAMGLA (North American Man Goat Love Association) members on this BBS, permit me to state IMHO...

Now, let me see… we should support the troops in Iraq because even though all the reasons we invaded the country turned out to be based on false assumptions, the yearning for freedom burns in the heart of every person. By supporting the troops as they support the new government of Iraq something wonderful is going to occur, to just in Iraq, not just in Arabia, but all over the whole, wide world.

It goes like this: The parliamentary coalition imposed by the IO (Occupying Infidels) is going to create a stable and democratic government under a new constitution that the current MPs will create before fall. At the same time, and without loss of democratic freedom, this government that can’t fill the ministry of oil or of defense, is going to build an effective internal security force that will defeat and neutralize the insurgent Islamists, and they are going to accomplish this task while getting the economy started, rebuilding the national infrastructure and quelling factional conflict – respecting individual rights all the while. The driving force and the creative vision that will let Iraqis do this is man’s God-given longing for freedom beating in the breast of every citizen.

It is wonderful to see Bushman acting like Thomas Jefferson in an elementary school play as declaims that every man’s first want is liberty. Mad Tom himself said almost the exact same thing to John Adams in their famous correspondence after each had served as President of the Republic. Adams replied to the effect, “You are mistaken, Sir, Man’s first want is his dinner and his second is his girl.” You would think that conservatives, of all people, would recall Adam’s response - he was their guy, not Jefferson.

The inability of our stooges in Baghdad to secure dinner, much less a girl, for the ex-soldier out of work in Iraq today means that we have created our very own, king-sized Gaza Strip in the Sunni Triangle. It hasn’t worked. It has never worked. It is never going to work. Tying down our armed forces in the bloody dead-end of Iraq is helping Osama & Co in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Muslim world generally.

How are you troop supporters going to convince us that our thousands of blinded, maimed, paralyzed and deceased young soldiers and marines didn’t have their lives squandered by incompetent politicians? My son died serving with our airborne troops in the Dominican Republic. Do you remember that one? Have you ever even heard of it? Can you show me how it was worth it to our country, to his mother, and most of all to him?

“Support the troops,” my stars and cupcakes – it does give this old lady the fantods!

 

[mrsx]

I see that we are still trying to find a real, live pony among the Administration’s horse apples. The latest fantasy is that America’s intrepid anti-terrorism experts have captured al Qaeda’s number three guy, a 28-year-old named al-Libbi. The blare of trumpets had scarcely died away before it was revealed that this was cheery disinformation from the same folks that conjured up the African connection for Saddam’s WMD.

Come to find out, this boob was neither on the FBI’s most wanted list, nor the State Department’s “rewards for justice” bingo card. Our intelligence experts confused this Bush leaguer with one Anas al-Liby, another Libyan, who is wanted over the 1998 East African embassy bombings. Sheesh, These Arabs are harder to tell apart than Chinese waiters! This isn’t the first time they have done something like this. We had a similar mix-up about a top guy we claimed to have bagged in Iraq, who turned out to be some hapless camel milker with the same last name as one of Saddam’s generals. One American official tried to explain the absence of al-Libbi’s name on the wanted list by saying: “We did not want him to know he was wanted.” Who is writing this stuff for the Administration, the Marx Brothers?

The good news is that everyone is getting less shy about admitting that suspects are being routinely tortured in Pakistan. One senior intelligence official gravely informed the press "So far he has not told us anything solid that could lead to the high-value targets. It is too early to judge whether he is a hard nut to crack, or simply that he doesn't know more than he has told us. They have tried all possible methods, from the 'third degree' to injecting him with a truth serum but it is hard to break him."

Could it be that al-Libbi’s significance has been cynically hyped by two countries that want to distract attention from their lack of progress in capturing Bin Laden, who has now been “on the run” for almost four years? Even a senior FBI official admitted that al-Libbi’s “influence and position have been overstated”. It would all be laughable were it not for the fact that the lives of our troops and the success of their mission against terror depend on the ability of this gang that couldn’t lie straight. Anti-terrorism experts agree that al Qaeda does not have a table of organization in which someone can be “number three.” This is all just “number two.”

Just so you know: the mastermind of our military intelligence – there’s that contradiction in terms again – is the wacky General Boykin who has been running around the born-again circuit telling Christian Conservatives that we are going to win because our God is a real god and their God is “just an idol.” It makes me feel young again. The confident young satyrs calling me names on this BBS are probably too young to remember the Viet Nam war, when that Big Green Machine went crashing through the Laotian jungles on a quest for a North Vietnamese army headquarters that never existed. We never understood what was going on in Southeast Asia then and we haven’t a clue about Southwest Asia now. These politicos are unworthy of the troops they command. Poor Lyndie England. She may be no brighter than Bush, but at least she didn’t desert!

 

[mrsx]

I thank you *so* much for you sympathy and for being a voice of reason in the midst of NAMGLA. It is a long time ago that I lost my son. The important parts never leave me, never change. Exactly what he thought about LBJ's sending troops to the DR I can't ever know. His letters, which I still treasure, talk mostly about the kinds of local things you would expect a 19-year-old from Maine to notice on a Caribbean island. I know that he didn't think he was an expert on foreign policy, he knew that the President was his commander and he trusted him rather the way he trusted his own dad. He loved his buddies and believed that America would always try to do the right thing and that while our leaders might not tell us everything, they would never deliberately lie to us. It is strangely comforting that he didn't live to see those beliefs betrayed.

I think that's as far as it usually goes for a lot of young, enlisted guys. Nothing wrong with it either. I'm proud of him for what he did and how he behaved. He didn't let down his side of the deal. And that's what's behind my arrogant ranting about SUPPORT THE TROOPS: I don't think Bush & Co. are supporting the troops either logistically or ideologically. They are using the troops and the love that we all feel for them to support their own ambitions. They over-ruled the CJCS Shinseki about troop levels and picked their way down the chain until they came to an ambitious pecker head (Franks) who would sign on to anything that gave him another star. They have covered their own asses on phony intelligence, lack of armor and prisoner torture while blaming everything on a handful of PFCs at Abu Ghraib, the CIA, the FBI, MI, even the Red Cross!

I am a vet, as you know, and I was a Navy officer, although more technically than in daily command. But the first thing they taught us was: OFFICERS ARE RESPONSIBLE. There used to be joke in the Army that the three duties of a lieutenant are 1) to go first; 2) to sign for things; 3) to get shot. I can't understand why people who lived in military culture don't see that the Abu Ghraib investigation is bogus. A handful of low level enlisted folks are going to be breaking rocks in Leavenworth but no sergeant, no lieutenant, no captain, no major. They busted the Brig. Gen. in charge even though their own report eventually cleared her of dereliction. Sanchez didn’t get that final star - ouch! He should be breaking rocks with the privates. That’s what we told the Japanese in the 1946 war crimes trials. What this administration is doing is not supporting the troops,it’s the same old CYA I can remember from my time. The old breed of officer would rather have been convicted of sanctioning the abuse than falsely claiming he didn’t have a clue.