General William Odom redefines "supporting the troops"

[Bullypulpit]

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 They were withdrawn for rest periods.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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

LMAO right-----Pelosi is gonna get right on that !

 

[Bullypulpit]

LMAO right-----Pelosi is gonna get right on that !

That's why we need to whip all these fuckers naked and howling into the wilderness and start with a clean slate.

 

[dilloduck]

That's why we need to whip all these fuckers naked and howling into the wilderness and start with a clean slate.

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.

 

[Edward]

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.

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.

 

[Edward]

That's why we need to whip all these fuckers naked and howling into the wilderness and start with a clean slate.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

I think you should go do it if you really care.

 

[Edward]

I think you should go do it if you really care.

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.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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.

And that has to do with the discussion at hand...how?

 

[Edward]

And that has to do with the discussion at hand...how?

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Actually I'm so tired of listening to the same absurd arguments over and over that I try to think outside the box a bit and use them as a prop for satirical commentary. They weren't sent there to die.

 

[Edward]

Actually I'm so tired of listening to the same absurd arguments over and over that I try to think outside the box a bit and use them as a prop for satirical commentary. They weren't sent the to die.

I really don't give a fuck what you are tired of listening to because I am tired of listening to your retarded arguments as well. Let me break it down for your retarded ass. They were in fact sent there to die. It may not have been the intention of those who sent them there for them to die but that is the result. I feel sorry for the Democratic soldiers who didn't vote for Bush and who do not agree with this war who get a bullet in the head because of how you voted you murdering bastard. You can try to twist this, but you are a traitor and a murderer and your vote is the vote of a murderer. Deny that all you want you bastard but that is why we are angry with you and with Bush. It is why people are sick and tired of your arrogance and the arrogance of your faction. So take your comments about my argument being the same absurd arguments and shove it up your ass bitch and go vote for yourself or a murderer who agrees with you. You are just lucky your vote didn't kill my child because I would ram a ballot down your throat and watch as you choke on it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Actually I'm so tired of listening to the same absurd arguments over and over that I try to think outside the box a bit and use them as a prop for satirical commentary. They weren't sent the to die.

So General Odom is a cheese eating surrender-monkey?

 

[Edward]

So General Odom is a cheese eating surrender-monkey?

Don't you see: General Odom should be a good little bitch and watch as men and women in uniform die in Iraq after serving more than one tour in Iraq. They didn't die the first tour, the second or the third so maybe they will die the fourth, the fifth or the sixth and if they are really lucky and don't die and are wounded physically, emotionally or mentally and have permenant damage done to them we can do as Bush has done and cut their damn benefits so that they and their families can fend for themselves. Body armour? No, we don't want to give them that since that would be spending our taxes. They should be able to fight for us and die for us without having adequate armor? Shouldn't they? How about cutting the number of national guardsmen our nation has and then when the war turns for the worst having to go with a surge? Why, that must be supporting our troops and Odom doesn't know what he is talking about. I just wish more retired Generals has the balls to speak out against this war since current ones cannot do so without violating the Military Code.

 

[dilloduck]

So General Odom is a cheese eating surrender-monkey?

Got me--never met the guy. I certainly would never use a term like that but if you insist ---

 

[Bullypulpit]

Got me--never met the guy. I certainly would never use a term like that but if you insist ---

Did you actually follow the link and read his commentary, or did you just blow it off as some left-wing plot to welcome terrorists to US shores?

 

[Edward]

Did you actually follow the link and read his commentary, or did you just blow it off as some left-wing plot to welcome terrorists to US shores?

He did the latter as the former requires to much thought! The ironic thing is that Odom was the Director of the National Security Agency and he has an understanding of what the Bush administration has started in choosing to go to war in Iraq. We will begin to see other people get the balls necessary to stand up to the Bush administration and to speak out against this war. I hope they do so because the supporters of this war are traitors and murderers. I also think Congress should pass a law that allows members of the Military Administration to speak out on policy issues relating to the war. Grant them immunity if necessary in Congress so they can testify before Congressional committees and watch as Georgie and his buddies in the White House cry.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I really don't give a fuck what you are tired of listening to because I am tired of listening to your retarded arguments as well. Let me break it down for your retarded ass. They were in fact sent there to die. It may not have been the intention of those who sent them there for them to die but that is the result. I feel sorry for the Democratic soldiers who didn't vote for Bush and who do not agree with this war who get a bullet in the head because of how you voted you murdering bastard. You can try to twist this, but you are a traitor and a murderer and your vote is the vote of a murderer. Deny that all you want you bastard but that is why we are angry with you and with Bush. It is why people are sick and tired of your arrogance and the arrogance of your faction. So take your comments about my argument being the same absurd arguments and shove it up your ass bitch and go vote for yourself or a murderer who agrees with you. You are just lucky your vote didn't kill my child because I would ram a ballot down your throat and watch as you choke on it.

I have a solution you cowardly piece of crap.... take up arms and over throw this illegal corrupt Government you keep claiming is not good for America.

 

[red states rule]

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.

Isn't that the same Al Gore who tried to toss out the military vote from the Fl recount in 2000?

Talk aboout being stabed in the back - Kerry calling them terrorists and uneducated; Durbin comparing them to Nazi's and Polt Pot; Kennedy saying the US military is now running Saddams torture chambers; and Murtha saying the troops killed in cold blood

Yes, nothing like the "support" the left shows the US military

 

[red states rule]

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.

Troops live to complete the job given to them. They take great pride in accomplishing the work given to them. Victory and success is all that matters to them.

You figure out the rest - if you can