66 Comments

1. gdfdiver:

What I find telling is Obama’s recent visit and photo op to stand beside the military guard and salute a flag draped coffin. President Bush visited the return several times but without the photographers.

Shameless. We’ll now see pictures of this fool standing there. It is his version of Clinton’s fake tears at the funeral, Dukakis in the tank, and Kerry in the clean suit.

Oct 30, 2009 - 5:11 am 2. Peter the Bubblehead:

Obama’s decision is simple. Either give the General, the man he himself appointed to the job, the troops he says he needs to prevent utter failure in Afghanistan, or withdraw all the troops now and be prepared to accept the blame for the what occurs afterward like a man.

The Won isn’t man enough to accept anything as his own fault, so he dithers instead.

Oct 30, 2009 - 5:43 am 3. ETAB:

Obama’s photo-op to salute a coffin was utterly disgusting. It was beyond any reprehensible act already taken by him in a litany of his digraceful actions. Why did he do it?

For the image. He is not dithering about supplying McChrystal with necessary troops, and thus, he is the basic cause for the recent military deaths in Afghanistan. He is deliberately holding off supplying troops until after the November elections next week. Obama doesn’t want to upset his leftist anti-war base in these razor-thin elections That’s the key reason for he delay.

Of course, we also know that for Obama, terrorism and Islamic fascism have no reality. He’s redefined them as ‘insurgents’ (against what?); redefined the war on terror to ‘overseas contingency operations’ (what does that mean?)and thus, has, by his virtual rhetoric, denied the reality of terrorism and Islamic fascism.

But, he still has to show he’s ‘the commander in chief’ and so, he shows up for a photo-op at a funeral. Truly, truly, absolutely, disgusting. Shameful.

Oct 30, 2009 - 8:00 am 4. kdell:

As disgusting as nobama is, it is the suburban/rural, educated, otherwise intelligent folks who CONTINUE to buy his bald faced lies and support him that I really cannot stand. What is wrong wih these folks? God help us all if they don’t wake up SOON and join the rest of us who saw through this Maoist clown from day one.

Oct 30, 2009 - 9:27 am 5. Roborob:

Seeing President Zero standing there trying to look relevant as a far better man than him was taken to his final reward reminded me of nothing so much as the image of a turd floating in a punchbowl.

Oct 30, 2009 - 9:51 am 6. Will:

To me Barak Hussien Obama is a traitor to our great country.

Oct 30, 2009 - 10:18 am 7. Seth Poole:

Ummm…didn’t Obmabi say back in March of this year that he HAD an Afghanistan strategy?? I’m sure he said something like that. So even if he were going to reassess his strategy, which as CinC he has the right not to mention the obligation to do, isn’t this taking a little bit too much time to put into place? Or maybe his parties, date nights, fund raising and golf gigs have got in the way of his decision making (I’m getting out of the way here to avoid the roars of laughter). Or maybe Obambi is just doing what community organizers who are posing as President will do…vote present showing they are both cowardly and indecisive at the same time.

Oct 30, 2009 - 10:24 am 8. Peter the Bubblehead:

Does anyone else here doubt that what is taking The Won so long to make this decision is he’s trying to figure out a way he can pull out the roops but be able to blame Bush when it all goes south, Afghanistan falls back into chaos, and the US mainland is again attacked by terrorists?

Oct 30, 2009 - 10:27 am 9. bibio44:

3. ETAB: “Obama’s photo-op to salute a coffin was utterly disgusting.”

You’re just not used to it, ETAB. In the bush years, even photographing the coffins coming in was forbidden. He didn’t want to dampen our enthusiasm for shopping.

6. Will: “To me Barak Hussien Obama is a traitor to our great country.”

Secret Service, take notice! Another (probably armed) nutcase.

Oct 30, 2009 - 2:53 pm 10. ETAB:

biblio44 – there is absolutely no comparison between not photographing the coffins, and Obama showing up, suddenly, and one time, for a photo-op. I repeat – such a crass opportunism, with a clear personal political agenda, is shameless and absolutely disgusting.

Kindly note that Obama does not acknowledge the reality of a war on terror; to him, Islamic fascism doesn’t exist. He’s renamed it with the meaningless term of ‘overseas contingency operation’ which removes any hint of WHO is attacking us, and why.

He’s refusing to deal with Afghanistan, because for him, it has no reality, it’s outside his sphere of interest (Himself); he’s ignored McChrystal, he’s lied about the situation in Afghanistan, lied about not having information and a plan…and is obviously waiting, waiting until after next week’s election before he announces His Afghanistan Troop Commitment.

He’s politicized his decision; it’s not about the US troops who need the manpower. It’s about Obama’s control of the political scene and he’s manipulating his leftist base at the moment.

While the country waits and waits, while the military waits and waits, while more soldiers die in Afghanistan..Obama waits until next week’s election. He doesn’t want to ruffle his leftist base by announcing troops.

In the meantime, to show his ‘commitment’ to the military, he suddenly shows up to salute a coffin. And makes sure he gets his picture taken doing so. Absolutely shameless, disgraceful, disgusting.

Oct 30, 2009 - 3:17 pm 11. TriGeek:

Having not served in the military, I was wondering if any of you ex or current military guys could tell me, even though the POTUS is considered the Commander-in-Chief of the military, is it proper etiquette for him to give a military solute, or should he have put his hand over his heart. Especially since he has never served in the military. Just curious.

Oct 30, 2009 - 3:24 pm 12. gracie:

Bush often did the same that Obama did in meeting the deceased soldiers coffins. He just didn’t advertise it and bring the press along.
Obama is a media whore. He doesn’t care about those soldiers, or he would give the men on the ground that know what they’re talking about, the things they ask for to help.

We need to get the Afghanistan and Iraq war over with and bring our people home. The people of these countries have always been in one war or another, it will not change any time soon, no matter what we do.

Obama isn’t good enough to shine the shoes of our soldiers.

Oct 30, 2009 - 3:55 pm 13. hulaqueen:

I thought little barak looked kind of cute playing soldier,the less than perfect salute ,just a little boy pretending . It was no more than a photo op for his followers . I find it unexplainable that he appeals to the man laying in the street as well as the very educated. What does that say about the educated crowd ?

Oct 30, 2009 - 3:57 pm 14. Will:

Will’s not a nut case.Quite the contrary, knowing what’s going on with the ignorant anti-gunner’s and all the other Obama fools.

Oct 30, 2009 - 4:21 pm 15. RickGreenville, SC:

I salute another fallen hero-Thankyou, Stephan!!I pray for comfort for his mother and family.The “o” again acts like the shallow empty suit he is, taking advantage of a photo op. Blabberio 44: you are a total idiot!! No respect for the fallen, but blind loyalty to a traitor. Shame on you!! Wait, I must be another armed rightwing nut.

Oct 30, 2009 - 4:44 pm 16. gssherburne:

I’d like to see a chart or table displaying the Obama entertainment and partying opportunities during his time in office so far, compared to President Bush’s. And the golf time. As a mom of a soldier who will soon be in Afghanistan it is distressing and disgusting to see the pretend commander in chief saluting in the moonlight for public consumption over the bodies of our fallen soldiers. Thank you Barbara for your memorial piece on Pfc. Mace. Our hearts go out to his parents. My son was in Iraq during the surge, in the thick of it. Every day we knew he was safe was a gift day. President Bush was not perfect. He made mistakes. Even if I had lost my son in that war I could have forgiven the Commander in Chief his imperfect policies and decisions. But he respected, and I believe he loved, and was committed to our military. He met those incoming flights of fallen soldiers and marines many times, but didn’t bring fawning photographers and approved journalists along to document his exploits. The Obama “brand” has sunk low, or perhaps more accurately, was never able to rise to such an occasion. He does not know how to conduct himself as Commander in Chief. The deaths and arrival of these soldiers and the grief of their families was all about clueless, self-petting Obama. Why did we have to have a photo of HIM? Now, as other soldiers fight and die, he will save his big decision on Afghanistan until after the November elections.
Remember John Kerry in a hunting costume plastered on the pages of the the MSM to show he was one of the regular guys? That is kind like an Obama salute, utterly disrepectful in its vanity and cynical purpose.

Oct 30, 2009 - 4:57 pm 17. NormaJean:

Mullah Obama is waiting for his convinient right time to send the re enforcement.
Like he waited all these time to take a picture with the dead soldier’s coffin. How convinient! Why do you think that the media wanted to take pictures of the dead soldiers to begin with. It was because Obama wanted his photo opportunity. That’s why Bush never allowed it when he was President so that it would not be exploited by some moron to gain some lame votes.

Oct 30, 2009 - 6:04 pm 18. TriGeek:

Biblio44: Take your average active duty memeber of the military, and ask them who they respect more Bush or Obama. That is all you need to know. I coach a ton of military men and women every year, and when they are out of uniform, and speak their minds, they absolutely respected Bush, and think very little of Obama. They see right through Obama’s play acting.

Oct 30, 2009 - 6:42 pm 19. ETAB:

As I’ve said, this is one of the most, if not The Most disgusting, thing that Obama has done – to use the death of a soldier as a photo-op for Himself.

And don’t ignore this; this photo-op is all about Obama. It is a monstrous insult to that soldier, to his family and to the American military.

He knows the military needs more manpower, but he doesn’t want to upset his leftist base. So, he’s waiting, waiting,as more Americans die…until after those elections next week. But he had to show that ‘he cares’ and that’s the reason for this photo-op.

Bush, a man of dignity and humility, who supported and respected the military, would never, ever, have so insulted a military family and Americans by using this return as a photo-op for himself. Never.

For this alone, he should be impeached.

Oct 30, 2009 - 7:00 pm 20. deet13:

#11. Although the CINC is a civilian, he is considered the top officer of all of the branches of the US military.

As such, the CINC is obligated to at least acknowledge the salutes from all the men and women under his command, and is obligated to salute fallen soldiers during funeral ceremonies, as well as Medal of Honor winners.

So in regards to the salute, Obama was fulfilling his obligations as CINC.

Oct 30, 2009 - 7:13 pm 21. ltw:

Combat Outpost Keating was attacked from all sides by insurgents who had built an arsenal in the local mosque. (According to our rules of engagement, mosques are off-limits for weapon checks.)

That should be “we won’t search mosques, but if it turns out they have been used for military purposes they might be demolished” or change the ROE to allow searches. This is a terrible perversion of the Geneva Conventions, which were built around reciprocity as a mechanism to make them self enforcing – you’re only required to abide by them as long as your enemy does likewise.

Ok I understand there are advantages to maintaining the high moral ground for the battle of hearts and minds, etc, but it has to be understood that that approach does cost lives – even if this sort of retaliation is only applied infrequently “pour l’encourage les autres” the option should be there.

Sadly in this case a brave man has died in part as a sacrifice to the ongoing effort to convince the local population that we’re (I’m Australian and our soldiers are at risk too) trying to help not destroy. Perhaps this is the right policy – I damn well hope so.

Oct 30, 2009 - 7:24 pm 22. radarman:

This story makes me sick! As a Marine I proudly served with the First Marine Airwing based at Okinawa during the end of the Viet Nam War. I came home on a funeral flight, a DC 10 with 42 body pallets,and the human remains of one of Americas finest. When I got to Travis I was met by the family who’s son was in that coffin. ” Your the Marine Guard, thank God. Could you plese stay at our house tonight? The funeral is tomarro.” I said no, ” There is no guard. They only sent me back to the states cause my father is dying. Im sorry.”
No press, no president, no guard. No one gave a damn. Welcome home.
PS.
To the person who cared to ask a vet, the President shoud not sallute like a member of the armed forces, its insulting. He should place his hand over his heart, if he has one.

Oct 30, 2009 - 9:52 pm 23. Kay:

Make no bones about it. Obama does not have any interest in the well being of any of our military members performing the most honorable service of all of our citizens. The military is not a reliable voting block for the Democratic party, he just doesn’t care. Getting a ‘photo op’ with flag draped coffins in Dover is about the extent of it, and that surely wasn’t his own idea.

Oct 30, 2009 - 10:14 pm 24. Moho:

Here’s a story about how Bush used the story of a young man, screwed over by the government, for his own political benefit. About as unctuous a manuever as I’ve ever seen.

In 2007, George W. Bush’s used the death of Michigan National Guardsman Brandon Stout in his post-Petraeus address. Bush argued that to pull out of Iraq would make Stout’s widow, and by extension the families of all the men killed in GW Bush’s con job of a war, feel bad.

But it is the very circumstances of Brandon Stout’s life and death that should dispel the glamour the Bush Administration sought to place on grieving military families. Brandon Stout did indeed die for nothing in a war he never sought to fight.

Bush’s claim that Stout “volunteered” for the National Guard, is technically true, but he did not volunteer for the war in Iraq. According to an Associated Press article at the time of Stout’s death, Stout enlisted in the Guard in June 2003, a scant month after Bush had dramatically and unequivocally declared victory in the war in Iraq. Officially, there were no combat operations in Iraq.

Had he been seeking foreign military service, Stout could have joined one of the four military branches. But Stout had practical matters on his mind. Wood 8, a local Michigan television station, reported that Stout had joined “while attending college in Lansing. It was an opportunity to earn money and train for a career in security services.” Stout chose to get married and build a life while working at the Gerald R. Ford International Airport; he was still working there when he was called to active duty in July, 2006. Even then, according to an Associated Press report, Stout had sought to be a chaplain’s assistant during his deployment, not a combatant.

Stout’s family may accept Bush’s narrative as some measure of consolation today. But Stout was quite simply drafted and then killed in a needless war. According to Icasualties.org, four hundred other National Guardsmen—whose terms of enlistment span eight years—have been drafted and killed in similar fashion. Nearly two hundred more Army Reservists have been killed in Iraq through Bush’s cynical back-door draft.

Those of us who do not want our own dead children to be celebrated in Bush’s next speech have a simple choice. We can pity Stout. We can pity his wife and family. We can pity them and the thousands of others like them, and thus remain silent. And then someone will have to pity us when our children are dead.

I doubt you idiots even noticed. No, you have to wipe the excitement off your laps whenever somebody dies in one of our useless war, so then you can recount how they always wanted to die fighting a war with no end and no goals.

Oct 30, 2009 - 11:15 pm 25. Paul:

the image of a turd floating in a punchbowl.”

A very vivid image, and quite telling. It is so shameful when an American President fits such a detestable and disgusting description. But we all know the saying, “if the shoe fits, wear it”, yes? And bho wears it well.

Oct 31, 2009 - 1:01 am 26. Mike Blackadder:

Moho,

Bush used the words of Stout’s family members as an example of the courage that has turned the tide in Iraq:

“Earlier this year, I received an email from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: “We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free.”

Is Stout’s wife a liar? Are you also offended by his parents’ opinion about the war in Iraq? Or did Bush just invent the whole story because no such courage exists in the American military? Is this really the best example you could come up with to demonstrate how Bush took political advantage of fallen soldiers?

Bush’s 2007 speech (which I’m sure you didn’t actually read) should have moved folks like you and Mr. Obama to find common ground with Bush’s administration, to push forward with a policy that was showing great progress over a short amount of time, and bring home troops as soon as possible. Instead, you all were threatened by the reality of improvements in Iraq and claimed that General Patraeus’ testimony was a lie (even though his testimony and that of Bush’s 2007 speech have been largely vindicated by events in Iraq). Meanwhile Democrats like Obama campaigned more vigorously to bring the troops home prematurely. When in the following months as civilian deaths and military deaths were plummeting I don’t see any reason for abandoning the mission other than the political victory that is gained by the Democrats if Iraq was a failure (or if withdrawal on the brink of victory would falsely vindicate the notion that pulling the troops would reduce violence).

To me, the position taken by the Democrats in late 2007 (and particularly that of Obama) is even more despicable than what we see today. I am surprised that someone who describes Iraq as a useless war would bring this up when it is such an embarrassing example of Democrats taking political advantage of American deaths.

Oct 31, 2009 - 7:27 am 27. Mike Blackadder:

Another relevant quote from Bush’s September 2007 speech:

“Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home. The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.”

Moho, what was it exactly that was so wrong with this proposition that it threw the Democrats and left wing media into an anti-Bush anti-Petraeus frenzy?

In 2007 Obama’s stance on Iraq was that the situation could not be improved militarily. By the end of 2008 the success of the military campaign described by General Petraeus was so obvious that Obama changed his stance by pointing out that troops were no longer needed in Iraq as much as they were required in Afghanistan (duh), and then proceeded to follow the Bush/Petraeus plan for troop withdrawal as though he had achieved this on his own. And you are trying to convince us that Bush is the one who tries to score petty political points at the expense of others?

Try again.

Oct 31, 2009 - 7:48 am 28. Moho:

Blackadder. I don’t care about what his wife said. Its quite clear Stout never intended to join the military and he never intended to go to Iraq. If now the family finds some purpose that blunts the loss by waving the flag, that’s their row to hoe. What I find offensive is its use to con my children–and I mean, children–to go fight for a lie.

Once again, because you seem to have reading comprehension problems:

Bush’s claim that Stout “volunteered” for the National Guard, is technically true, but he did not volunteer for the war in Iraq. According to an Associated Press article at the time of Stout’s death, Stout enlisted in the Guard in June 2003, a scant month after Bush had dramatically and unequivocally declared victory in the war in Iraq. Officially, there were no combat operations in Iraq.

Stout invested his life in the Guard, that’s one. Had he wanted to join the military, he would have simply joined the military. Bush had already declared an end to the war. Do you understand what that means? At the time that Stout joined the Guard, there was every reason to expect he would never see foreign duty.

…Stout had practical matters on his mind. Wood 8, a local Michigan television station, reported that Stout had joined “while attending college in Lansing. It was an opportunity to earn money and train for a career in security services.” Stout chose to get married and build a life while working at the Gerald R. Ford International Airport; he was still working there when he was called to active duty in July, 2006. Even then, according to an Associated Press report, Stout had sought to be a chaplain’s assistant during his deployment, not a combatant.

Do you understand that this war between “good and evil” was so far from Stout’s mind that he waited for three years before going to fight for it. And even so, he tried to find a way to have non-combat status.

The family can say whatever they want, but the facts speak for themselves. I suppose if I knew nothing about the origins of the war, and I believed my President as I was taught to do in grade school, I would also want a family member’s death to appear patriotic. What else is there left? But don’t mistake their grief for purpose; its abundantly clear that Stout did not choose to go to Iraq. He was drafted in a cynical and disgusting method that should have you state’s rights fans incensed.

Oct 31, 2009 - 9:38 am 29. Mike Blackadder:

“Blackadder. I don’t care about what his wife said. Its quite clear Stout never intended to join the military and he never intended to go to Iraq.”

Well it’s good that somebody has figured out what Stout was thinking. Maybe you should call his wife and let her know.

Honestly Moho, this is really pathetic. I know that leftists were thrown by the September 2007 testimony, but trying to pick on this small element where Bush paid tribute to a fallen soldier’s family (by quoting an e-mail he received), just shows that you’re desperate to find fault in his message. It also shows that you can’t come up with a decent example over Bush’s eight year presidency where he tried to score political points at the expense of fallen soldiers that is comparable to Obama’s photo op.

Nor can you answer any of the questions I put to you in my previous comments because the conduct of the Democratic party and leftist media at the end of 2007 is something to be ashamed of. There was a point where your politics became more important than the wellbeing of the soldiers, of Iraqis and of national security.

By the way, I know it’s hard to keep up with the official Democrat talking points concerning the war since they change so frequently. You’re not supposed to argue anymore that Bush and Petraeus are liars. Obama changed his mind again, and admitted that the surge was a success. I just thought you should know since you probably don’t watch much Fox news.

Oct 31, 2009 - 12:40 pm 30. Rio:

Moho claims:

“Stout enlisted in the Guard in June 2003, a scant month after Bush had dramatically and unequivocally declared victory in the war in Iraq. Officially, there were no combat operations in Iraq.”

Bush declared that major combat operations were over, meaning the first phase in securing the country’s air fields, knocking out the leadership, defeated the Iraq army, etc. Means it’s time to send the big ships and bulk of the big birds home. Major combat operations and combat operations are two entirely different animals.

You insult the intelligence of this young warrior by claiming he had no idea that he would serve on front line duty in Iraq. They are well aware before they sign on that dotted line exactly what will be expected, no punches are pulled. Your thought that he he sought to become a chaplain’s assistant to avoid combat is a fiction that you have conjured up to create a story you want to believe. He knew he would go where his MOS took him. If he didn’t train to become a chaplain, he wasn’t going to be one, he would have been well aware of that. What we had in him was not only one willing to serve country, he was also willing to serve God.

Being in college and enlisted in the guard would you not think he would have paid a bit of attention to the way Afghanistan was fought before he chose to enlist? That the guard and the reserves were there doing the heavy lifting and were still fighting in Afghanistan. Why think that he would expect Iraq would be different? Please, give this hero the credit he deserves, note, his family does.

And, be aware, there are people that read through these comments that have been there, done that and can quickly recognize when these stories don’t square with the reality of military life and also know your facts are not speaking for themself.

Oct 31, 2009 - 12:46 pm 31. Mr. Independant:

ETAB (and others making silly comments):

I think you’re mistaking correlation for causation again; just kidding.

Anyway, I don’t see any insult to the family by photo op. As per DOD regulations, the family of the killed service member must authorize the presence of the press. Of equal importance, is the possibility that the president’s presence will remind him that there are real life consequences to war. To often individuals can become insulated to the ramifications of their decisions. That can be very harmful, especially when made by the president.

Yes the military needs more troops. But if the objectives of the military are in this countries interest (and I happen to think they are) then it will President Obama’s decision to make. President Bush made a very hasty and expensive military mistake in Iraq. Taking the time to ensure that another mistake isn’t made (especially when this country can’t afford it) should seem like common sense.

By the way, according to the US constitution, impeachment is only authorized for “conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. And just in case you confuse the Articles of the Constitution with the Amendments, it’s Article 2, Section 4.

Oct 31, 2009 - 1:07 pm 32. ETAB:

Mr.independent -you are the one making silly and irrelevant comments.

Who is talking about insult to the family? The ground for so many of the comments against Obama’s action was his deliberate staging of this event as a photo-op for himself. Got that? Hiself. HE was the focus of attention. Not the returned soldier or his family.

Obama could have ‘reminded himself’ of the ramifications of war – without having his picture taken.

But Obama chose to have his picture taken, something that Bush, a man of humility, never allowed. Why did Obama do this?

To show Americans that he cares? What an empty gesture. His duty as ‘caring’ is to supply the troops. Period.

As for your remark about the Iraq war, that’s your opinion. I happen to think that it was the right action for the Middle East, and history will commend Bush for that decision.

No, Obama isn’t ‘taking the time’ to prevent mistakes. He declared in March that he ‘had his plan’. He was given a full analysis by the Bush administration before he took office and he accepted its recommendations(heh, he wanted it kept silent so he could say, now, that the previous administration had done no analysis)..

Obama is trying to appease the sophist leftists;he’s trying to get out of this ‘necessary war’..and he’s waiting until after next week’s elections. That’s why he’s not doing anything.

His action of getting his photo taken was a disgraceful, selfserving act, focused strictly and only on his own political agenda.

Oct 31, 2009 - 2:07 pm 33. Moho:

Bush declared that major combat operations were over, meaning the first phase in securing the country’s air fields, knocking out the leadership, defeated the Iraq army, etc.

No. That’s not what he said. In addition to having essentially declared combat operations over in Afghanistan, Bush said this during his famed speech:

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage — your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other — made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure.Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision, and speed, and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before. From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division, or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground, in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American Armed Forces.

This nation thanks all of the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause. We thank the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country. And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld, for General (Tommy) Franks, and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done.

The character of our military through history — the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies — is fully present in this generation. When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength, and kindness, and good will. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country, and I am honored to be your commander in chief.

In the images of fallen statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, Allied Forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation. Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war. Yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.

In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food, and water, and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices. And everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the “beginning of the end of America.” By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.

In the Battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals, and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists, and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.

From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al-Qaida killers. Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-half of al-Qaida’s senior operatives have been captured or killed.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused, and deliberate, and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th — the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.

Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all:

Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.

Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups, and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction, is a grave danger to the civilized world, and will be confronted.

And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America.

Our commitment to liberty is America’s tradition — declared at our founding, affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, asserted in the Truman Doctrine, and in Ronald Reagan’s challenge to an evil empire. We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope. When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life. American values, and American interests, lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty.

The United States upholds these principles of security and freedom in many ways — with all the tools of diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, and finance. We are working with a broad coalition of nations that understand the threat, and our shared responsibility to meet it. The use of force has been, and remains, our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.

Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland — and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.

The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.

Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war — after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history — you are homeward bound. Some of you will see new family members for the first time — 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.

We are mindful as well that some good men and women are not making the journey home. One of those who fell, Corporal Jason Mileo, spoke to his parents five days before his death. Jason’s father said, “He called us from the center of Baghdad, not to brag, but to tell us he loved us. Our son was a soldier.” Every name, every life, is a loss to our military, to our nation, and to the loved ones who grieve. There is no homecoming for these families. Yet we pray, in God’s time, their reunion will come.

Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this earth was to fight a great evil, and bring liberty to others. All of you — all in this generation of our military — have taken up the highest calling of history. You are defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope — a message that is ancient, and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah: “To the captives, ‘Come out!’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!”‘

Thank you for serving our country and our cause. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless America.

Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that there would be no more combat operations in Iraq, that Afghanistan was secured, and that if there remained fighting to be done, it would be done by regular military. Again, if someone wanted to have a chance to go to Iraq in 2003, they could have joined any branch of the military. Joining the Guard at a time when the President was declaring victory in MAJOR combat operations, is exactly what one wouldn’t do if they wanted to engage in a fight between “good and evil”. Get your facts straight, and get on the right side of this issue. The back door draft existed, it sucked in men and women who did not volunteer for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, be aware, there are people that read through these comments that have been there, done that and can quickly recognize when these stories don’t square with the reality of military life and also know your facts are not speaking for themself.

Here’s a list of people who agree with me. The troops are a diverse bunch, and you don’t speak for any of them. You speak for yourself, quit hiding behind the troops, you coward, and defend your own opinion.

http://www.mfso.org/section.php?id=45

Military Families Speak Out
The continuing pattern of extending troops in Iraq; sending troops for second, third, fourth and fifth deployments; stop-lossing servicemen and women who have fulfilled their service; recalling the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) — a force that is supposed to be used in times of national emergency, not wars of choice based on lies – and increasing the use of National Guard forces in Iraq is taking a huge toll on our troops and their families. As the violence continues to escalate, fueled by the on-going U.S. military occupation, the burden of the failures of this Administration is again falling on the troops who have given so much and the families back home who love them.

Oct 31, 2009 - 2:34 pm 34. ltw:

Moho, your argument is nonsense.

Stout invested his life in the Guard, that’s one. Had he wanted to join the military, he would have simply joined the military. Bush had already declared an end to the war. Do you understand what that means? At the time that Stout joined the Guard, there was every reason to expect he would never see foreign duty.

Guard units are military – I think you meant to say regular army. I can’t believe anyone would expect there was no chance of foreign duty in an 8 year enlistment. All sorts of things could happen over that time, other conflicts could break out.

Anyway, that’s exactly the time I would expect Guard units to be called up for Iraq – you use your best regular army units to do the initial invasion and fight the major battles, then as it transitions to more of a patrolling and policing operation rotate in Guard units to give them a rest.

its abundantly clear that Stout did not choose to go to Iraq. He was drafted in a cynical and disgusting method that should have you state’s rights fans incensed.

You make the choice when you enlist, Guard units get called up all the time and I’m sure this is made clear at recruitment (perhaps someone with experience could comment?). It is in no way a draft. You’re effectively accusing a man who died for his country of cowardice and stupidity and dishonoring his memory.If he got cold feet and tried to avoid combat, well I don’t blame him for that, I wouldn’t want to go either – but what counts is that in the end he did go and for that we should respect his bravery.

Oct 31, 2009 - 4:59 pm 35. ltw:

Sorry, Rio, just noticed you had already made basically the same points. Maybe repetition will drive the point home

Oct 31, 2009 - 5:06 pm 36. Moho:

ITW:

You’re effectively accusing a man who died for his country of cowardice and stupidity and dishonoring his memory.If he got cold feet and tried to avoid combat, well I don’t blame him for that, I wouldn’t want to go either – but what counts is that in the end he did go and for that we should respect his bravery.

Did I? I don’t recall doing that. He was neither cowardly nor stupid; I believe that I called ETAB those things, and yes, he its obvious he is. As I said, he was suckered into the Nat’l Guard. And I’ll say it again for the thinking impaired. HAD HE WANTED TO GO TO IRAQ, HE WOULD HAVE JOINED THE ARMY. Your distinction that the Nat’l Guard is the military is interesting, thank you, but I think everyone realizes that there is a world of difference joining the Army and joining the National Guard. My point is that he joined the Guard at a time when Bush gave the impression that major combat had ended; I think anyone would be forgiven for thinking that joining the Guard at that time was a pretty safe bet against going to war.

As for others who find thinking a chore, its obvious I don’t bring this up simply to make Bush bad–first of all, its simply impossible to make him look any worse than he already does. Secondly, its quite obvious that Stout is representative of an entire group of people shanghayed into foreign war.

As I said, its unlikely that Stout wanted to go to Iraq:

Wood 8, a local Michigan television station, reported that Stout had joined “while attending college in Lansing. It was an opportunity to earn money and train for a career in security services.”

Indeed, this is exactly how the Michigan National Guard advertises itself:

Is the Michigan National Guard for me?
There’s a good chance it is. Thousands of veterans from all branches of service join the Guard each year, and find that it gives them the best of both military and civilian life. In the Guard you keep many of the benefits you received in active service. You can improve technical skills you’ve already acquired. And because the Guard is only part time, you can hold a civilian job or go to school. You also get the chance to serve your state and nation while staying close to home. And help your neighbors when disasters and emergencies strike.

People in depressed areas are likely to heed this siren call, and Stout was especially vulnerable to it, since he joined at a time right after his President had assured him that both Afghanistan and Iraq were winding down, not ramping up. I don’t care what his family thinks, I care about other people fooled into making this decision.

Oct 31, 2009 - 5:43 pm 37. john from cinncinatti:

moho: well why don’t you just let some one else’s kids carry the load. don’t let your kids enlist. i tell my kids if they don’t want to be embarassed then don’t do embarassing things. if you don’t want to go to war don’t enlist in the military, any branch including the nat guard. what part don’t you understand that it is perceived by some military parents that the cinc doesn’t give a shit about our kids.

Oct 31, 2009 - 6:09 pm 38. ltw:

From the Michigan National Guard FAQ, third question

The Army Reserve is completely controlled by the Federal Government and serves as a reserve to the Active Army. The National Guard, on the other hand, is controlled by the state and the federal government – we have a dual mission. The governor can call the Guard into action to assist in the case of local emergencies or civil disturbances. In addition the President of the United States can activate the National Guard to serve along with the Active Army in foreign wars. This was most recently portrayed during the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Bosnian Crisis.

Oct 31, 2009 - 6:22 pm 39. Rio:

Moho,

You’re babbling, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I am well aware of the Mission Accomplished speech, tried to explain to you the difference between major combat operations and combat operations and it went right over your head.

What you obviously haven’t done is spend any time to study the numerous speeches Bush made throughout that period of time, thus you lack an understanding of the how the president counseled the public and the military on what to expect.

Now you are stuck on the old canard that our best and brightest are victims of that dreadful military complex which at the time was led by our president that you hate. Again you are selling this young man short.

Stop doing what you are accusing President Bush of doing, using this warrior for political purposes.

Oct 31, 2009 - 6:38 pm 40. Mr. Independant:

ETAB,
I noticed that when you stated in post #32 “you are the one making silly and irrelevant comments.” that you didn’t point out any examples, was that an oversight? You also stated “Who is talking about insult to the family?” Do you have short-term memory problems? In post #19 you stated “It is a monstrous insult to that soldier, to his family and to the American military.” So in answer to your question in post #32 it’s you ETAB.

As far as the pictures being taken, I remind you that DOD policy leaves the decision of the presence of the press up to the next of kin. And yes it is important that a President see up close and personal what the costs of his decisions are. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume (correct me if I’m wrong) that you’ve never served in the military, never seen combat, and have never had to make life and death decisions; I have. It is for these reasons that I think you don’t understand my point. War is not a video game, it’s not a movie, and it’s not just some story talked about in the media. The decision to go to war or continue a war is not a decision that should ever be made lightly.

Your comment about former president Bush is not just false, it’s also absurd. Yes Bush never went to see the fallen but he frequently had his picture taken with members of the military while campaigning.

So you think the Iraq War was “right action for the Middle East, and history will commend Bush for that decision”; why? And more importantly, how did the Iraq War benefit the US? These are not rhetorical questions, I’m genuinely interested in you response.

Now you don’t know what the President is thinking. On this point I do think that you are confusing correlation with causation. In war things change, sometimes every day. Yes the President needs to make a decision on Afghanistan but he shouldn’t do so hastily. By the way, General McCrystal stated that he needs up to 40,000 additional troops in 12 months. That means that the President has at least 6 months to make a decision.

On your overall point that the President’s decision was “a disgraceful, self-serving act, focused strictly and only on his own political agenda” might be correct but I doubt it. I believe your opinion on this matter is based solely on your lack of experience and your lack of service. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Oct 31, 2009 - 6:46 pm 41. ltw:

Maybe you could move here to Australia Moho – from the Australian Army Reserve site

For years, the Army Reserve has played a vital role in defending Australia, training and working right alongside the full-time Army.

They work in much the same fields, as well as specialised areas not covered in the full-time Army. As an Army Reservist you may even have the chance, should you wish, to be involved in overseas service.

That is, overseas service in our reserve is purely voluntary. You’ve made quite a few snide comments about peoples’ comprehension – can you understand the difference?

On second thoughts, please don’t move here, I would rather not have you voting in our elections.

Oct 31, 2009 - 6:49 pm 42. Moho:

In addition the President of the United States can activate the National Guard to serve along with the Active Army in foreign wars. This was most recently portrayed during the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Bosnian Crisis.

Um…the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Bosnian Crisis? That was the early nineties, friend. Are you trying to prove that they want people to think that the possibility of being sent to Iraq or Aghanistan is remote? If it was most recently portrayed by events ending in 1998, then what would the average person think? Its actually worse than I thought, because nowhere on that site does it actually say that Michigan State Guard are regularly sent to Afghanistan or Iraq. A lie of omission, and some pretty evil sh^t. Self-pwn much?

Oct 31, 2009 - 6:57 pm 43. Moho:

That is, overseas service in our reserve is purely voluntary. You’ve made quite a few snide comments about peoples’ comprehension – can you understand the difference?

Well, they’re not snide, they’re just the truth. Case in point, Australia’s guard has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Did this have a point, or were you trying to prove that you’re the dumbest poster at Self Pwnage media since VeniVidiVicci…

Oct 31, 2009 - 6:59 pm 44. ltw:

Moho, there seems to be something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension, especially with respect to the posting guidelines for this site. The moderators are letting your comments through anyway, which I applaud. I’ll try and put this simply – when you enlist in the National Guard, you agree to serve overseas if your unit is activated by the President – it doesn’t matter what your expectations are. Situations change.

I’ll let others judge from here.

Oct 31, 2009 - 7:52 pm 45. Rio:

Moho,

Read it and weep:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/guardandreserve/a/reservecallup.htm

Oct 31, 2009 - 7:54 pm 46. Rio:

Mr. Independant,

Your comment…”By the way, General McCrystal stated that he needs up to 40,000 additional troops in 12 months. That means that the President has at least 6 months to make a decision.”

That’s not what he stated.

“Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

He’s saying get them there now. The general also said, “First, the fight is not an annual cyclical campaign of kinetics driven by an insurgent “fighting season.” Rather, it is a year-round struggle.”

See that, year round struggle. Fighting season in Afghanistan is from April to August, but the general wants them there now, not after Obama makes a decision six months from now. Moving 40,000 troops and everything that goes with them right smack dab in the beginning of fighting season makes what kind of sense to you? Can we anticipate a reasoned response based on your military experience?

BTW, thank you for your service, I think.

Oct 31, 2009 - 8:57 pm 47. ETAB:

Mr. Independent – I won’t discuss my past history with you because I am capable of reason not programming.

The fact that I said that it was an insult to the soldier, his family, etc, does not mean that you can extrapolate to a focus only on the family by leaving out the focus of my and other comments that it was a disgraceful action by the president to USE that event for a photo-op.

Again, it was a disgraceful sef-serving act of Obama to go for a photo-op at that soldier’s return. I gave my reasons already. There is no comparison between this act and Bush being photograhed with the military.

As for Iraq, you have to understand the causes of Islamic fascism, and I doubt that you do These are the enforced governance of a tribal political mode (governed by kin) in a population whose demographics have moved out of the tribal mode (in the hundred thousands) into a multimillion mode – urban rather than rural, industrial rather than peasant agriculture. Such demographics and societal attributes requires a civic rather than tribal mode, which gives economic and political power to the non-kin based middle class..i.e., a democracy. Repress that, and you get fascism.

The fact that the family may have agreed..and of course thy wouild agree to the President..is irrelevant. Obama should never, ever, have done it as a photo-op. It remains a disgraceful act.

Nov 1, 2009 - 7:23 am 48. Mr. Independant:

Rio,

First of all, thank you for your posts, especially the ones regarding service in the military. I find it very refreshing to debate with someone who is actually interested in facts. I make this point so that you don’t mistake my questions (the way many on this site seem to) with personal criticism.

On your point about General McCrystal’s comments: General McCrystal stated that he has 12 months in which he must improve the military situation (BTW, he also stated that he can’t guarantee the outcome), my point was that he said 12 months, not 6. If he had this would be a very different debate. General McCrystal has been in the Army for over 36 years. I think he knows the logistics involved in managing an Army. I have no doubt that if given the proper missions the US can build a safe and stable Afghanistan the question is, should we. Now I happen to agree that protecting and developing Afghanistan is in the best interest of the US but I want the administration to be sure that it is.

On your final point I’m a little confused. You’re quoting the General accurately when you stated “First, the fight is not an annual cyclical campaign of kinetics driven by an insurgent ‘fighting season’. Rather, it is a year-round struggle.” You then stated the “Fighting season in Afghanistan is from April to August”. If you accept that there is no traditional ‘fighting season’ in Afghanistan what did you mean by your last comment?

Nov 1, 2009 - 7:37 am 49. Mr. Independant:

ETAB,

I’m not ignoring your other comments, in fact I’m addressing every one of them. The reason I pointed out your previous statement “It is a monstrous insult to that soldier, to his family and to the American military” is because YOU asked me who wrote that.

Now you believe that the President’s actions were self-serving, I disagree. Furthermore I stipulated that if the President’s motives were self-serving, those actions are still beneficial. Remember he is the President and going to war or continuing a war (which I support) is a decision that should not be made lightly. I think the costs of war should not be hidden.

On Iraq I think you analysis is completely wrong. The cause of Islamic fascism is not tribalism; it’s angry, bigoted men.

Back to your original point I disagree that the President presence was wrong. I think he should be present for every instance that killed service members are brought home (and yes I know that’s not practical). This country found out the hard way what happens when a president is uninformed, I don’t want that to be President Obama (at least not anymore then he already is).

Nov 1, 2009 - 8:50 am 50. Moho:

Rio, ITW, don’t let me get in the way of your obtuseness competition. My argument, from the start, has been that in peace time people who join the guard don’t expect to go to foreign wars. Had someone joined the Guard on 9-11 or the day after, I could see how you could make an argument that they wanted to see combat. But someone joining the Guard a month after Bush had declared Mission Accomplished in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and that regular [if not "special" forces would be doing the clean up] would not have expected to serve in combat. Moreover, National Guards do not market themselves as short cuts to military service. ITW–you yourself posted the Michigan National Guard page which states:

…we have a dual mission. The governor can call the Guard into action to assist in the case of local emergencies or civil disturbances. In addition the President of the United States can activate the National Guard to serve along with the Active Army in foreign wars. This was most recently portrayed during the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Bosnian Crisis.

As I noted, the website states that the most recent call ups for foreign duty were ten years ago. That has to be the most disgusting bit of sleight of hand that I can imagine. What gets me is in your rush to disprove my point, its you who are denigrating the man’s life, portraying him as a sucker who got his–especially with that link to the About sign. I guess in America you have to read the fine print, because our state and fed governments are simply sharks looking o shangai the ill-informed. You people are disgusting.

Nov 1, 2009 - 9:25 am 51. Mike Blackadder:

Mr. Independant:

What insight do you have to offer on the war in Iraq? Reading your comments, it doesn’t sound like you know anything about the events of the war or how things stand today.

So what does it matter if you don’t agree with the ‘analysis’ from others who are more informed.

If you are wondering about what benefits have come out of the war in Iraq for the U.S. then I’m happy to offer a couple of suggestions:

The first obvious answer is that an Iraq under Saddam Hussein was just another world influence fixated more than anything else on the destruction of the United States. HIs cooperation with Al Qaeda and the threat of him refining enough uranium to build nuclear bombs is no longer a concern for Americans. This American adversary has now been replaced by a government and a people who strongly identify with Americans as an ally, rather than as a foreign power sanctioning them into starvation.

The second less well known benefit of the Iraq war is how it has devastated the reputation of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden among Muslim peoples. The turning point in the Iraq war for the U.S. was not particularly the deployment of additional troops, but was the simultaneous change in attitudes among Iraqis people in rejecting the tactics of Al Qaeda and their Sharia law, and them joining the Americans in driving Al Qaeda out of Iraq.

This is one argument demonstrating the wisdom of Bush’s ‘limited force’ tactics in Iraq. It was essential that Iraqis see that Americans were not in Iraq to steal anything, and that American blood was given to further the security of Iraq. This daily reality can be contrasted with the tactics of Al Qaeda whose only chance of beating the Americans was to indiscriminately kill Iraqis civilians and encourage unrest between Shiites and Sunnis, hoping that the death toll would shame the Paper Tiger into abandoning the mission.

In effect, ’staying the course’ was the essential component that lead to victory in Iraq. It was a matter of time and blood, and realization that Americans would not abandon the mission before Iraqis could choose the right side.

The third benefit is the position it gives the Americans strategically to have a central presence in the middle East and to draw the battle with terrorism away from American soil.

The better question is whether or not these benefits to the U.S. have been worth the cost. In this case, it’s hard to offer an easy answer.

Nov 1, 2009 - 10:37 am 52. Moho:

Blackadder, hands down the dumbest post I have ever read:

If you are wondering about what benefits have come out of the war in Iraq for the U.S. then I’m happy to offer a couple of suggestions:

The first obvious answer is that an Iraq under Saddam Hussein was just another world influence fixated more than anything else on the destruction of the United States. HIs cooperation with Al Qaeda and the threat of him refining enough uranium to build nuclear bombs is no longer a concern for Americans. This American adversary has now been replaced by a government and a people who strongly identify with Americans as an ally, rather than as a foreign power sanctioning them into starvation.

None of this was ever a concern, nor can you prove it was. Please don’t go and grab the feeble Al Qaeda connection, or Hussein’s stated desire to get nuclear weapons. Weak at best, certainly not enough to go on for an invasion. Pakistan is the most unstable Islamic state on earth, and we give them billions of dollars a year to fight al qaeda…which they have spent on their nuclear arsenal:

Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal, raising questions in Congress whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid to the war-torn country could be diverted to its nuclear program, The New York Times reported on Monday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520469,00.html

The second less well known benefit of the Iraq war is how it has devastated the reputation of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden among Muslim peoples.

Pure fantasy. So at odds with the truth, that it can honestly be said to be delusional.

The turning point in the Iraq war for the U.S. was not particularly the deployment of additional troops, but was the simultaneous change in attitudes among Iraqis people in rejecting the tactics of Al Qaeda and their Sharia law, and them joining the Americans in driving Al Qaeda out of Iraq.

That turn was based almost exclusively on cash payouts. Its not permanent, nor is it stable.

This is one argument demonstrating the wisdom of Bush’s ‘limited force’ tactics in Iraq. It was essential that Iraqis see that Americans were not in Iraq to steal anything, and that American blood was given to further the security of Iraq. This daily reality can be contrasted with the tactics of Al Qaeda whose only chance of beating the Americans was to indiscriminately kill Iraqis civilians and encourage unrest between Shiites and Sunnis, hoping that the death toll would shame the Paper Tiger into abandoning the mission.

You have no understanding of the effects of occupation whatsoever. Insurgencies are designed to make people fear both the insurgents, but most importantly, the occupier. The occupier has no choice but to act militarily and the chances to hurt and oppress non-combatants is daily and real. Counter insurgency has been a failure in every single state where it has been implemented; the insurgents always win in terms of outlasting the occupier and turning the population against it.

What really makes me sad is that someone like you, who brings all the perceptual analysis of a 10 year old to world affairs, has a vote the same as I do. The biggest price we pay for our democracy is allowing people like you–who really should be kept away from deciding matters of any importance to the world–an equal stake in the process as people who bother to think and stay informed.

Nov 1, 2009 - 11:30 am 53. Mr. Independant:

Mike Blackadder,

You’re just repeating REB talking points. On your first point, Saddam represented a very minimal threat to the US. On your second point, the devastation of the view of Al Qaeda to Muslims was not accomplished by the invasion of Iraq but by the violence of Al Qaeda. And it’s laughable to use the words wisdom and Bush in the same sentence.

Moho,

Your points about post #51 are spot on. The one critique I would make is to keep to the facts. Don’t engage in personal attacks. It doesn’t accomplish anything. Otherwise, excellent post.

Nov 1, 2009 - 1:00 pm 54. ETAB:

M. Independent – you are changing the focus of my criticism of Obama’s presence at the return of the soldiers.

I didn’t criticize his presence; I’m indifferent to that. I criticized his turning it into a photo-op for himself. That was and is, a disgraceful action. By using it as a photo-op, Obama made it clear that the event was not about the soldier but about Obama.

He politicized it, turning it into an image of him ‘caring about the military’…while he refuses to approve the troops necessary for that war. It was disgraceful.

As for your opinion of the cause of Islamic fascism as due to ‘angry, bigoted men’ -that’s nonsense. What’s making them angry and bigoted?

You are obviously unaware of the nature of societal organization and the intimate relation between demographics, economy and political organization. Your suggestion that the cause of a socioeconomic/political system is merely ‘psyhological’…is invalid. Such a relation simply doesn’t exist.

mike blackadder – nice comments; thanks. I’ll add, however, a third result of the Iraq War, which was to enable a democratic civic state to emerge within the Islamic world in the ME. The switch from a tribal to a civic mode is absolutely fundamental in the fight against Islamic fascism, for it is ethnic tribalism, maintained by repressive dictatorial oil-funded regimes in the ME,which is the root cause of Islamic fascism.

Nov 1, 2009 - 2:22 pm 55. Mr. Independant:

ETAB,

I’m not changing the focus of your criticism. I’m addressing specific points that you raised.

And I’ll remind you once again, the President didn’t authorize the presence of the press, the families of the killed service members did. If you don’t want the human cost of war to be shown to the public, tell that to the families of the dead services members. It’s there decision, there the ones who’ve made the sacrifice, not you.

On your question about Islamic fascism, the reason why those men are angry and bigoted is because they do not live in a free society. If you look at Islamic terrorist organizations around the world, you’ll find that they almost always have a membership commonality: angry, bigoted men. The ‘men’ of Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, and many others were all born, raised, and recruited in countries that are dictatorships. Do you really think that is a coincidence?

In your final point you wrote that I stated “the cause of a socioeconomic/political system is merely ‘psychological’”, is not true. I didn’t state that. And considering your lack of credibility, you’re not in a position to determine what someone else does or does not understand. I mean seriously, you misquote me and you also forget what you’ve written.

Nov 1, 2009 - 3:33 pm 56. Moho:

Mr. Independent, I see where you’re coming from. But anyone who claims the kind of absurdities that Blackadder does–especially at this point, where there are volumes of investigative journalism showing the lies that went into selling the war, and the unbelievable incompetence and corruption that went into fighting it–doesn’t deserve respect of any kind. On almost any subject, I will respectfully debate any individual who has put a modicum of their own thinking and has bothered to do the minimum to be relatively informed. People like Blackadder are destroying our country.

Add the ganglionic ETAB to that: the government in Iraq does not function independently. The fact that ETAB thinks its possible for a Democratic state to emerge during a military occupation shows simply that he should stick to sports or Star Wars factoids. The absolute minimum for a functioning Democracy is sovereignty, it doesn’t matter if its an Islamic state or the US during the American Revolution. To argue otherwise is simply not to understand the word “democracy” [hint, it does not mean "governments friendly to the US].

Nov 1, 2009 - 3:33 pm 57. Mike Blackadder:

ETAB, I’m sorry for diverting the conversation. Your point about enabling a democratic state in the ME is right on. I would say that this is one of the more ambitions goals of the Iraq campaign.

Mr. Independant and Moho,

There remains controversy about the actual threat of Saddam’s regime. We will know more about Saddam’s nuclear program in time, but the 500 tons of uranium that was recently shipped out of Iraq to Canada might suggest that there was something going on. My previous comment didn’t argue that there was imminent threat, but rather the more obvious point that Saddam was certainly hostile towards the United States, and that due to the Iraq mission, that Iraq has now become an ally.

On the second point I agree with Mr. Independant’s response, but I’m not sure that this refutes my argument. The reputation of the United States and the reputation of Al Qaeda among Muslim nations is one of the more critical factors in the war on terror. George Bush was right to confront Islamic terrorism head-on and trust in the moral superiority of America’s military over that of these extremists. It wasn’t wrong for him to wager America’s reputation against that of Al Qaeda in this manner. This was what he meant when he talked about “winning hearts”. Moho, we all have our delusions but sometimes the truth can be a cure. You’ll notice how the date of this survey coincides with timing of peak violence in Iraq. More recent data on the decline of popularity of Bin Laden and extremism are available here.

And Moho, your final point about counter insurgency shows that you still don’t know anything about what has happened in Iraq over the past two years. The change in rhetoric from the Democrat party about the Iraq situation should be some indication to you that you’re on the wrong track here.

Finally, despite all of this you still think Bush was an incompetent moron. What do you two have to say about Obama’s position in late 2007 which was to pull the troops from Iraq when it had become obvious the Americans and Iraqis had turned the tide on Al Qaeda and military and civilian deaths were on drastic decline? What explanation do you have to support this suggested policy? Was Obama an incompetent moron, or was it that victory in Iraq was just too devastating to his campaign? So much for caring about the interests of the United States.

Nov 1, 2009 - 4:41 pm 58. Mr. Independant:

Mike Blackadder,

On your first point, you stated in post #57 that “500 tons of uranium that was recently shipped out of Iraq to Canada”. Where did you discover this. I’ve never seen or heard of any such report. Please provide a link to the documentation that you read this from. Personally, I think you made it up.

On your second point, you stated “Bush was right to confront Islamic terrorism head-on”; that’s true, but Islamic terrorism was almost completely absent in Saddam’s Iraq.

On your last point, concerning then Senator Obama’s position on the surge, your timeline is completely wrong. The additional troops compromising the surge weren’t even in-theather until the fall of 2007. How could then Senator Obama say in late 2007 “pull the troops from Iraq when it had become obvious the Americans and Iraqis had turned the tide on Al Qaeda”? Take some time to research your position. Otherwise you’ll wind up making absurd statements like that.

And BTW, what does any of this have to do with Barbara’s article?

Nov 1, 2009 - 5:32 pm 59. Mike Blackadder:

Mr Independant,

I inserted the link in my last comment. You’ll notice “the 500 tons of uranium” is blue which indicates it is a link.

I won’t quibble with you over motivations for the war. I concede that there are valid arguments against invasion, especially from the outset. However, once Al Qaeda joined the theater in Iraq (as insurgents – and particularly in the bombing of the Golden Mosque) there was no longer any question about the importance of prevailing in Iraq. Regardless of the reasons for entering the war, all parties should have been united against the real enemy once they appeared – whether such aid came in the form of military support, diplomacy towards allied nations or propaganda that furthered the war effort.

And no my time-line is not wrong. The troop surge began in April of 2007 but continued to be deployed in the early summer months of 2007. By the end of 2007 death rates in Iraq were at around a third of what they were 6 months earlier. It’s really not my fault that Democrats and apparent independants are not at all informed about the Iraq war even though you feel so strongly about it. Try doing your own research for a change.

“And BTW, what does any of this have to do with Barbara’s article?” Moho start it.

Nov 1, 2009 - 6:41 pm 60. Mike Blackadder:

Sorry, I meant to say Moho started it.

Nov 1, 2009 - 6:43 pm 61. Moho:

Like I said Blackadder, you aren’t worth the amount of respect I’d give to a child in such an argument. From your own link:

<iHe said yellowcake uranium is a commonly traded commodity used for nuclear power generation. It is not enriched and cannot be used without first going through a complicated enrichment process, he said, but because of the unstable nature of Iraq, the United States and the Iraqi government decided it should be moved out of that country.

Iraq did have a nuclear power plant which was destroyed by the Israelis, so it seems likely that the uranium had been hanging around since the eighties. The uranium was not weapons grade. There was no reason to believe that Iraq was anywhere near the capacity of enriching the uranium. No reason whatsoever. And even so, why does the idea of Iraq having nuclear weapons frighten you when the fact that our ally, the decaying state of Pakistan, has enough to blow the world up all by itself. A person with such upside down concerns can only be called stupid.

Nov 1, 2009 - 9:54 pm 62. Mike Blackadder:

Moho,

Right, Saddam was just trying to pursue nuclear power plants. And how about the trends of Muslim opinion towards extremism and Osama Bin Laden? And still no answer to defend Obama politicizing the Iraq war at the expense of victory.

Why don’t you save ME the time and just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la la la la la!

Nov 2, 2009 - 4:21 am 63. Mr. Independant:

Mike Blackadder,

I stand corrected on my comment about the uranium story. When I first read your post the hyperlink did not work. I assumed it was because you were just making up the story. I was wrong and I apologize.

On the justification for the Iraq war, if you concede that the justification was false (the uranium story reaffirms the fact that there was no WMD in Iraq) how can you still persist in believing the war was justified. All of the post justifications you give occurred after Iraq was invaded.

And yes your time-line was and is still wrong. You stated “Obama’s position in late 2007 which was to pull the troops from Iraq when it had become obvious the Americans and Iraqis had turned the tide on Al Qaeda”. First of all yes the additional Army units were in place by the middle of June but the additional Marine Corps units were not in place until September. Second the congressional resolution opposing the surge was passed in February of 2007. So were exactly did then Senator Obama state that he wanted to “pull the troops from Iraq” ?

Finally, these comments are supposed to be about Barbara’s article so in closing I’ll restate my earlier point: the President didn’t authorize the presence of the press, the families of the killed service members did. If you don’t want the human cost of war to be shown to the public, tell that to the families of the dead services members. It’s their decision, their the ones who’ve made the sacrifice.

Nov 2, 2009 - 6:18 am 64. Moho:

Blackadder. I answered all of your questions. I realize reading whole paragraphs at a time might be taxing for you, so I’ll keep it brief in the redux

1. Right, Saddam was just trying to pursue nuclear power plants.

Well, there’s certainly no proof he was building nuclear weapons, and you’ve provided none. Having unenriched Uranium is no crime.

2.And how about the trends of Muslim opinion towards extremism and Osama Bin Laden?

How about them? They mostly live in Pakistan and the Gulf States. As I said, Pakistan is probably the state most likely to use nuclear weapons in its never ending feud with India. Its government is in shambles and its very close to being taken over by extremists. Isn’t India a democracy, shouldn’t we invade Pakistan to protect India? Pakistan has enough nuclear weapons to create an ecological nightmare for the entire world, you idiot. If there was any place to invade it was Pakistan. But hey, they don’t have oil and they might have given us a hard time.

3. And still no answer to defend Obama politicizing the Iraq war at the expense of victory.

Bush screwed up the Iraq war beyond belief. Its well documented, with a staggering amount of cronyism, corruption, sheer incompetence and the most politicizing of the deaths of soldiers I’ve ever seen. Obama’s just started, he may get to Bush’s level someday, and no doubt like any politician he’s out to politicize anything that will help his chances of staying in office. But I’m pretty sure you never complained when Bush did it you hypocrite. Like I said, its a shame that the price of Democracy is letting idiots like you anywhere near important decisions.

Nov 2, 2009 - 6:42 am 65. Mr. Independant:

Moho,

Great post. Your point on India was excellent. But again, I remind you personal attacks serve no purpose. Stick to counter augments.

Nov 2, 2009 - 8:33 am 66. Rocker:

As an observer of this exchange (and many others on this and similar sites, both right and left-leaning), I’m perplexed about something. I find a number of people who are quite well-informed and often articulate advocates for very different points of view. I like that. Yet, all this cr*p gets inserted…statements like “reading several paragraphs is probably too taxing for you”. Why do you guys do this? I will say, again as an observer, that when posters go in that direction, it immediately begins to discount what they are saying. This type of childish name-calling comes across as a substitute for real thought. It’s like those who will go back and forth on an exchange about some Obama policy or other, and in the end, try to trump the conversation by saying “oh, you’re just a racist”. This type of rhetoric is a red flag for deficient analysis. Just wanted to let you know, in case you think you’re being clever.

Nov 3, 2009 - 10:39 am