Sunday, June 8, 2008

The authoritarian conservative war on America

They say, if you don't support Bush, you're a Democrat who is giving "aid to the enemy," "invested in defeat," and "not supporting our troops." It is a partisan attack, 'us and them', where all Democrats are the enemy and in support of 'surrender.'

Did it ever occur to these authoritarians that lifelong Republicans - like military generals who'd seen a lifetime of military service have called the Iraq venture "a night mare without end" (Gen. R. Sanchez), and "the war in Iraq has fueled recruitment of violent Islamic extremists" (Gen. John Batiste). They also said about Bush: "there has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders" - Sanchez; and Bush has run a "failed strategy that is breaking our great Army" - Batiste.

Do these career Generals want to lose? Do they want to help the enemy? I can quote many more high ranking military that have spoken out. Included on this list are Generals Newbold, Eaton, Odom, Swannack, Zinni, Riggs, Clark and others. Many are life long Republicans. Below is a photo of General Charles Swannack, an Iraq vet and 30 year career soldier who spoke out against the incompetence of the Bush war plan. Does he look like a 'candy-ass liberal' invested in aiding the enemy?

And you Bush supporters have the balls to tell me I "don't support our troops"? If you support Bush, YOU certainly do not support the troops.

1. Bush sent in troops to Iraq with out adequate body armor or vehicle armor resulting in mass casualties including 320,000 brain injuries. A 2006 study showed that 80% of marines killed from upper body wounds would have survived, if they'd had adequate body armor.

2. Bush's "Stop-Loss policy" had prevented at least 50,000 troops from leaving the military when their service was scheduled to end - just since 2006.

3. Bush used National Guard troops for his surge that was overburdening units already stretched to their limits according to both Republican and Democratic governors.

4. Bush is sending troops in without adequate training. Two army brigades had to forgo their desert training to accommodate Bush's escalation schedule. Soldiers who were classified as medically unfit to fight are now being sent to war.

5. Bush has opposed pay raises for military, time and time again.

6. Bush proposed cutting funding for military housing and medical facilities. In the fiscal year 2004 budget the President Bush proposed spending nearly $1.5 billion less on these critical facilities than the previous year. (House Appropriation Committees)

7. Bush proposed rolling back increases for imminent-danger pay. Soldiers on the front lines recieve a small monthly payment as compensation for being placed in imminent danger. Bush proposed cutting this fee from $225 a month to $150 a month. (Army Times)

8. Bush eliminated aid to schools located on military bases. He sliced $125 million in federal subsidies for education children of troops. The cuts affected "about 900,000 children nationwide and 63 percent of children in military families." (Seattle Times)

9. Bush has said he would veto the Webb bill providing troops with increased education benefits. The first president in history to veto a benefits bill for those who served.

And you Bush supporters have the balls to tell me I'm "aiding the enemy"?

When a Government report flatly states that an al Qaeda attack is now likely because the Bush Administration has not met US security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the al Qaeda's safe haven. Further, the report states that the Bush Administration has no plans to eliminate this known terrorist threat.

87 months after Richard Clarke first insisted that the Bush Administration develop a strategy to combat Al Qaeda, 62 months after the Bush Administration announced its intention to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 45 months after the 9/11 Commission called for the Administration to develop a strategy to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 258 days after Congress required the Administration to submit a strategy to combat terrorist safe havens in Pakistan within 90 days, the GAO releases a report (pdf) finding:
No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the fight against terrorism has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007).
Result: al Qaeda is stronger than ever

If you support Bush, you are either a misinformed idiot, you buy the unreasonable fear that is peddled to control you, or you are an authoritarian ass-kisser whose only interests are to yourself and your politics, not to the well being of America or our military - your only interests are to save face because you are not man enough to admit you made a mistake by supporting an incompetent president who has severely damaged America. And all they can talk about is Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and the GOP swiftboat du jour... while trying to rationalize any & all failings of the Bush administration while they hide and tap dance - trying every way possible to avoid oversight, investigations, and accountability til time runs out in the term.

We must succeed in Iraq and with new and competent leadership, we can hopefully repair the damage of the Bush years, abandon the isolationist arrogant foreign policy and look to the world to build more partners in the war on terror. Gen Batiste has praised the recent gains in Iraq but notes: "Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic yet sufficiently utilized." Without diplomacy, a willingness to reach out and a comprehensive world view, victory will be only temporary. This war should not have lasted this long and should not have been shouldered soley on the backs of our military. We have paid a terrible price due to the policies of GW Bush.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...


The chickenhawks have the balls to do everything but stand a post.