Pelosi smiles while Democrats spit on our troops!

Hi Brit,

In a replay of the last war the Democrats lost for us, Nanny Pelosi has engineered a spineless vote in Congress to pass a “non-binding” resolution against President Bush’s running of the war in Iraq.  While this vile spit-in-the-face attempt to spit in the face of our troops, who, while risking their lives in service to their country, are totally committed to the war, failed to make it through the Senate, it still serves to prove how cowardly and anti-American the liberals are.  Just take a glance at this, Pelosi smiles at Bush, and know that she is really smiling at a partial political victory at the expense of the men and women who defend our country.  Of course, if Pelosi and her liberal gang had any stones, and I’m surprised that Nanny P. doesn’t, they would have put their cards on the table and tried to actually cut funding for the war.  However, as usual, symbolism is just as good to liberals as substance, and they are just beside themselves at this at this partially successful mocking of everything America used to hold dear. 

the Grit

151 Responses to “Pelosi smiles while Democrats spit on our troops!”

  1. wytammic Says:

    Good afternoon,

    I blogged on this this morning too. You’ve nailed it right on. Ralph Peters had a great op-ed in the NY Post regarding this treasonous stunt.

  2. wytammic Says:

    Oh … forgot to mention that I found you in tag surfing — good job!

  3. britandgrit Says:

    Hi w,

    Many thanks. I’ve been wanting to try tag surfing, knowing that there is much out there I need to read, but it’s just been too hectic lately. The Brit and I are in the process of moving our blog to a paid host, Britney keeps loosing hair, and my horde of animals continue to insist that I not only feed them, but actually spend quality time playing with them. I have you on my reading list, but haven’t had time to follow up on it yet. That, it would seem, is a down side to being able to type faster than you can read 🙂

    As to Pelosi, while I generally enjoy the Party squabbles, when it comes to how we deal with other countries, that should be decided and kept to! The rest of the world should be mighty happy that these people were not in power during WWII.

    Nice of you to stop by, and I’m sure we’ll see more of each other in the future.

    the Grit

  4. Brent Says:

    Nancy Pelosi has actually called this “Troop Support”. Can you believe it? She calls rejecting support for the troops, troops support. Amazing, how these pukes get away with this.

    America is in really big trouble, and people like Pelosi, Murtha, and Obama, are the absolute LAST people we need.

    God help us.

  5. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Brent,

    Well, we made it through the Clinton years, barely, so it’s possible we’ll survive Pelosi. Of course, as with Clinton, they’ll run the country into the ground before people come to their senses and kick them out.

    the Grit

  6. Doug Says:

    If the Democrats are such bad leaders for our military, then tell me why Republicans won’t serve in the military? Stop your crying over losing control. Your agenda failed and America fired you!

  7. Ed Newbauer Says:

    We’ve suffered through the “giving up” of Viet Nam, then the Iraniun takeover of our embassy. Next, the Beiruit barracks, the African embassy, the Twin Towers, Iraq and they (DAMICRATS) want to give up again. Half of the country is nuts. I think consideration should be given to a small nuke for Iran. Then we don’t have to occupy the country and spend our taxes and soldiers lives for nothing. The DAMICRATS will just give up before we can pacify them, anyway. I also think we should stop rattling our sabers and do what Teddy Roosevelt said-Walk softly and carry a big stick. If we’re not prepared to see it out ’till thr end, we shouldn’t engage these barbarians. I say, leave them alone until they bother us, then bury their entire country.

  8. Swan Says:

    Democrats ran this country into the ground? what are you smoking?

  9. Charlie S. Says:

    A democrat at this time in American history is an agent for the dismantling of our great Country. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine, past and present is being spit on by these treasonous, un-American, pieces of anti-American human garbage. The only good liberal is a dead liberal.

  10. Charlie S. Says:

    A democrat at this time in American history is an agent for the dismantling of our great Country. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine, past and present is being spit on by these treasonous, un-American, pieces of anti-American human garbage. The only good liberal is a dead liberal.

  11. indy Says:

    did you read any of the 911 Commission’s report? if you did, you would have seen (or perhaps already know, in your eminence lol) that Clinton wanted to go after a number of terrorist targets, but there was no congressional support for it. so before you hail the GOP as the almighty god of saving this country, remember that the gridlock caused by BOTH sides of the aisle has screwed us many more times than any singlular action by the republicant’s. BOTH sides have gotten us in this situation, whether by action or inaction. and lets not forget, since you appear to favor the GOP, exactly WHO was in power when we were giving Saddam his weapons and we were training a young prospect know as Osama bin Laden. How about some solutions instead of the same bullshit blame game that gets us where we are today? I do agree it is a horrible idea to cut the purse strings for our men and women who are giving their time and lives for this. It would be great to see some of the people we elected to make good decisions actually make them, red or blue.

  12. indy Says:

    OK, I can’t hold it in any longer. You guys like W so much right? He is a great supporter of the troops? OK. Anyone remember how he got the Republican nomination for his first term? By attacking the moral character and military record of FORMER PRISONER OF WAR JOHN MCCAIN. Yes, the guy who flitted about stateside while McCain was fighting and being held a PRISONER OF WAR in Vietnam had the balls to attack his record and character. How supportive was THAT? Then when reelection time comes, he attacks the military record of ANOTHER VIETNAM VETERAN who was actually THERE. Granted, the demobrats should have done a better job of candidate selection. However, it stands to fact that our president has gotten where he is today by disgracing the MEN who fought in a war HE WOULDN’T. I gaurantee you, if W had to run in a race (for argument’s sake, whatever office) against a veteran of the current war, he would attack that veteran’s record in any way possible. I would like to believe our president truly supports our troops, and for the most part I believe he does, but don’t forget when it comes right down to it, he got into office and stayed there by attacking the records and character of men who had the balls to fight a war he wouldn’t engage in himself.

  13. Paul W. Says:

    If the democrats have a real solution I would be happy to listen. But they have none. Just finger pointing. The republican agenda didn’t fail. The only reason why we lost control of the House and Senate is that the liberal media/politicians of the world focus on the death and destruction of the war in Iraq. Not the liberation of a Nation that was once tortured by a tyrant, Saddam. Bush has the stones to make the tough decisions, have a plan, stick to it, and deal with the consequences. Thats leadership. The democratic notion of leadership is allowing your commander and chief screw a intern in the oval office and then lie about. Your front runner is his wife that allowed him to get away with it.

  14. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Doug,

    The majority of our military personnel are Republicans.

    Ed, while can understand your sentiments, the people of Iran don’t seem to like their government any more than we do, so there is hope for a peaceful solution to the problem.

    Swan, so you forgot the recession at the end of Clinton’s last term? Oh, and the slashing of our military which has left us short on troops? This is actually a good idea for a post, so stay tuned.

    Charlie, I agree, except for the dead liberal part.

    indy, at least we agree on a few things. My solution to our political problems would be to have a strong third, and even, forth party. That would eliminate, or at least reduce, the concentration of power and maybe get things working again.

    the Grit

  15. A cowardly liberal Says:

    If you guys are so hot on this war and sending more troops into it, why aren’t you signing up to go yourself? Or encouraging your children to do so? You guys always want a war, but not if you or anyone you love, had to actually fight it. And you call the liberals “cowardly”. Kind of like your man Bush, the military hero….oh, pardon me, deserter…..?

  16. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Paul W,

    Well said. I don’t always agree with our President, but he is definitely a leader.

    the Grit

  17. indy Says:

    Paul, I have no frontrunner. McCain still seems to me to be the tough-true-grit-sonofagun veteran, and for that I have all the respect in the world. Grit is right about needing more parties though (notice the name INDY on these posts). Lasr but not least, a lot of great leaders made tough decisions and stuck to them, this is true. It worked out well for some, not so well for others. Custer, Napoleon, and Lee to name a few it didn’t work so well for. I certainly wish I knew the way to fix the issues in Iraq. Maybe a troop surge will work, maybe not. I’m not there so I don’t know. If it works, great! But we really need to have a Plan B, C, and D. Otherwise, we risk repeating Little Big Horn in a few ways.

  18. britandgrit Says:

    Hi A,

    Being for or against the war has nothing to do with it. That decision was made years ago. The point of the current political squabble is that it shows liberals to be just as callous today as they were when they sold the South Vietnamese to the Communists, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands. They are attempting to do it again, but this time the results will be far worse.

    the Grit

  19. Viper Says:

    Why dont the Liberals look at themselves in the mirror before saying stupid things like “why dont they send their sons and daughters to war etc.?) they
    do the same thing, it’s the whole life of privelege thing. And yes, the Military
    is predominately Republican, but some are Patriotic Democrats. There is a
    big difference between being a Democrat and a liberal. JFK was a democrat
    not a Liberal just to give an example. Democrats take pride in their country
    Liberals want to erase our History. Just like Republicans want to preserve it
    and Neo-cons want to re-write it. Libs and Cons are both bad. I myself will
    be voting for McCain. He has the Military experience to see both Wars to a
    proper Finish, and at the same time restore our Country’s image to its place
    amongst the worlds best.

  20. Brent Says:

    Charlie, you are an extremist, and not a good conservative if you think that all liberals should die. I want everyone to know that I totally disagree with you on that. For the record (on the Internet), I want to separate myself from this position.

    I just want to educate these people, or to put it better –re-educate these poor saps who have been brainwashed by hippie commies, who suffer from self-guilt.

    Speaking of a small nuke., I suggested this a year ago. My plan would kill nobody, but would scare the crap out of our enemies!

  21. thescreamingpen Says:

    If the Democrats do begin to withdraw the United States from Iraq, the GOP will forever claim that the Democrats “lost Iraq.” This will be disingenous, though – the reconstruction failed on a massive scale, we’ve been waiting for Iraqis to “stand up” for almost 4 years and 60% of Americans now think the war was a mistake (Gallup Poll “February Wave 1”). For how long do we continue to hope that things will get better in Iraq? Or is it that Republican leaders know that it won’t improve but are too politically tied to the war that they can’t repudiate it – thus they’ll watch the Democrats pull the U.S. out and make the claim that the war would’ve been won if it weren’t form the damn liberals. The GOP has one last argument (because the tone is decided and no one has time for the details of events on the ground in Iraq right now), which if they surrender to the Democrats, the political battle will be all but lost to them: support for the troops.

  22. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Viper,

    Good points. I haven’t made up my mind yet on the 2008 race. Shucks, I don’t even think all the contestants have entered yet. I do know the ones that I won’t vote for, assuming the machines aren’t rigged 😉

    the Grit

  23. Paul W. Says:

    I too would very much like to see a viable third party. The republican agenda has become far too uncious when is pertains to social issues. While religion has its place in the American fabric, it does not belong in politics. The republican fiscal policies have become too centrist as well.
    As for the military actions we participate throughout the world. Though I have never been a member of the armed forces I have several friends and family who are. Without exception they all maintain the same focus, ” We have a job to do. Lets finish what we started”.
    Not bail and run as some the democrats have proposed. Wait, they don’t have the stones to do that. Just non-binding resolutions. If they really what us out, cut off the funding. Put up or shut up.

  24. britandgrit Says:

    Hi thescreamingpen,

    Judging from history, it took us 10 years to put down the last of the resistance in Germany after WWII, and that was without agitators and support from outside the country. What upsets me is the short memories of the American people. Bush said time after time before we got into this that it would be a long, hard fight.

    the Grit

  25. Jason Says:

    This awful war, which has certainly succeeded in making this nation more vulnerable to attack, shows the cowardice of the entire legislature & administration. Neither side cares about America in the least. If they did, these cowards and liars in Washington would have never started this thing in the first place. There is NO fundamental difference between the two parties in our highly flawed political system. They are the same party, both are contributing to the destruction of this country. They, as a whole, are a greater threat to our lives than any terrorist.

  26. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Jason,

    While I disagree about the war, it does seem to get more difficult to distinguish between the parties with every passing election. That, of course, is the problem with our two party system. Best, would be not to allow political parties at all, but then 80% of us wouldn’t vote.

    the Grit

  27. Larry Hinze Says:

    Yea, Gdub has wiped his tushy with our constitution and lied us into a war…and you GOD, GUNS AND GAYS Republicans distract us with more of your crap. He destroyed the middle class and killed our kids with numerous lies. I am sure that NOT one person writing on this column even gets a break from the RePUBEs plans. Being against Gdub’s lies and misleading is NOT spitting on our troops. Nancy P. is trying to fix problems like global warming, job outsourcing, getting out of a lied about war with cherry picked info…and is trying to do away with the top 1% getting all the tax breaks. Let’s make fun of Nancy’s teeth while we are lied to and our country falls into the crapper. Cheney needs to go hunting with Bush -and they both need to be armed! The moron that calls himself GRIT is not true. We are not Un-American because we oppose liars that are on power trips. Grit probably wanks his doodle to Rush Limbaugh. True, Grit disgusts me! By the way Grit…you obiviously don’t have kids-because you don’t care about the future of our country.

  28. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Brent,

    That’s an interesting post. Of course, with our luck, massive new oil reserves would be exposed, making the religious nuts in charge of the country even more dangerous. I think we should use psychological warfare on them, by dropping millions of Playboy magazines across the country. Once the people get a glimpse of what might be hiding under some burkas, their government would topple in a week.

    the Grit

  29. thamdnguyen Says:

    Nancy, House Majority Leader.
    I heard that you were on welfare before, is that true??? You know that welfare and medical ( medicaid) fraud cost our country an enormous and scarce financial resource. In California, each person on medical cost us 6 thousand dollars a year, while the people (real hard wordking and patriotic ) do not have health insurance, and the working class healthcare cost each person no more than 3000 a year of premium, and your favorite welfare and medical persons got birth control pills,condom,emergency pills (plan B) and abortion cost all the same time and at the same time, and the got the first class brand name Rx such as Zithromax,Duragesic,Zyprexa,OTC items while we got to use generics, that why you democrats get their votes and hurt America badly. You should make laws to punish wefare fraud and medicaid fraud a criminal one to save money for our budget, not cutting the money to buy armor and equipment to protect our soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan. You must know that we, tax payers own welfare and medicaid people nothing,we should help them during hard time until they can find a job, that is all it should be. Remember, before the New Deals of Johnson, America had not had huge budget deficit , the reason was very simple, we did not have welfare and medicaid fraud back then

  30. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Larry,

    Let’s keep the discussion civil. Of course, I have noticed that liberals tend to fall back on personal attacks when their poorly thought out ideas are challenged. However, try to control yourself and formulate a coherent sentence or two with some rational content next time you comment.

    By the way, my partner, the Brit, lives in England where he has his own political problems.

    the Grit

  31. Brent Says:

    That’s not a bad idea. However, do we want to turn Iran into a bunch of smut peddling, immoral degenerates like we have here? We would only be opening a brand new can of worms!

    I suppose it wouldn’t be bad to make them obsessed with Playboy models such as Anna Nicole Smith, like we are. At least they would be more concerned with large boobs, than they would be with nuclear weapons.

  32. britandgrit Says:

    Hi thamdnguyen,

    Don’t forget the cost of all the free condoms they hand out in big cities. Of course, the real problem program is Social Security, something Bush tried to fix but neither party had the guts to even discuss. I find it interesting that if a private company offered the same plan their officers would go to jail for running a Ponsi scheme.

    the Grit

  33. Holly Says:

    This is in response to Brit and Grit’s comment that we “barely survived the Clinton years”, and the idea that the Democrats will drive the country into the ground. On a simple economic level, the Clinton years left the country with not only a balanced budget, but a $500 billion SURPLUS. We now have a trillion dollar DEFICIT, in six short years of the Bush administration. Believe me, I will take a tax and spend liberal policy over a slash (taxes) and charge (as in credit card) conservative George Bush policy any time. At least the liberals come up with the money first, rather than leave a mess for future generations to clean up. And, the cleanup will be initiated by liberals, who will get blamed for the mess in the first place. Do think Bush and Cheney have reached the billion dollar mark yet, in their own personal profiteering from this war?

  34. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Brent,

    Well, we’re always looking for new markets for our products, and America does make the best porn… After that, we’ll cut the United Kingdom in on the deal and see if we can get that silly ban on alcohol lifted.

    the Grit

  35. B.C. Says:

    You need morals to serve in the millitary. The dem’s got rid of all morals. So do not say that Republicans Do not serve. I did my Service in the first Gulf War.
    No one had a problem with that one, because there was no resistance. The just surrendered. Now we actually need to fight for what is right, and the Dem’s don’t have a SPINE for that.
    Thanks for your time.

    Man with a Spine and a love for a FREE COUNTRY… At any cost.

  36. Doug Says:

    I don’t disagree that a majority of our military are Republicans, but why are none of our leaders in Congress,i.e. Republicans, prior military? Yes, there are a couple, but the majority of the Democratic leadership served in our military. As a former military vet I liked the Republicans because our budget increased meaning better equipment. This is why most military members like the Republicans. However, I would take a smaller budget if we didn’t involve our military in affairs which we have no business being in.
    I also take offense with someone who protrays himself as a supporter of our military and failed to fulfill their obligation. I believe a leader of our military should have some experience in the life of a military member. Which means serving honorably. I view things black and white as do most military members. Trying to persuade me otherwise, against the evidence and record only verifies someone trying to distort the truth. The truth is our President, who ran on restoring dignity and honor to the Office of the President has done more to damage the office than any other President in history.

  37. Srgnt. Dave T. Says:

    Response to “Doug” ~
    Republicans won’t serve in the military!? Wow. Here, have another glass of kool-aid!

    Response to “Swan”~
    Yes, Demoncrats ran this country into the ground… or should I say liberals. There are actually some good Democrats, and there are certainly some liberal Republicans (RHINO’S), but the majority of the Dem. party is liberal, and there is no question that our moral and social fiber (which is the HEART of everything we USED to stand for [read the Constitution]) has been decimated by the Dems and their willing accomplices like the ACLU.

    Response to “indy”~
    No one here is suggesting that the Republicans are or HAVE been flawless, but Monday morning quarterbacking history is for the weak. Have an independent thought. By your logic, because unintentional mistakes have been made by Republican administrations, we should correct those mistakes with the application of “two wrongs make a right”?

    People like Doug, Swan and Indy remind me of some of the pathetic losers who auditioned for American Idol, KNOWING in their MINDS that they were great, while in actuality (the real world), they were not only HORRID, but embarrassing. I was ashamed to watch some of these deluded individuals, knowing that they were living here among us. Scary. The point? They KNEW in their puny little heads that they were great, while in reality they stunk. Conclusion? KNOWING you are right does not MAKE you right.
    Cure? Research your opinion before blurting it out. We on the “right” don’t mind seeing you embarrass yourself… but you should.

  38. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Holly,

    Sorry to have to say, but you are completely wrong. What you are confusing with reality were PROJECTIONS of budget surpluses. They were made before the recession President Clinton left us with hit. You have to be very careful when reading financial data that the Government puts out, regardless of who is in office, because they use confusing terms and different time spans and all sorts of statistical tricks to confuse the issue.

    For instance, if you read my latest post, you’ll find that, while we are still running a budget deficit, it’s not as large as was projected, so it is being played up as a reduction in the deficit. This is intentionally a play on words to put the best possible spin on the fact that our Government still can’t control their urge to spend.

    The REAL good news in the article I linked to, is that actual revenue to the Federal Government is at an all time high, because of the tax cuts made during the early days of the Bush administration. This has encouraged economic growth in our country, amazing growth, so, even though the Government gets a smaller slice of the pie, the pie is so much larger that that slice weighs more that a larger slice from the smaller pie of the past.

    Of course, our dedicated politicians have managed to increase spending at a higher rate than our income is increasing, much like my wife. Thus, although we are making more, we are still going into debt faster. Thus the need to use confusing financial disclosures, so we don’t vote all of them out and try to find honest people to run the country. The same thing happened during President Regan’s administration. Revenue to the Federal coffers increased dramatically after he got Congress to cut taxes, but spending shot up at an incredible rate, making it look like his plan wasn’t working, even though it was. Spin.

    As to politicians making money, Bush and Cheney were rich before running for office, as were Kennedy and Kerry. If you want to follow the money, I suggest you look at both sides of the isle, since they all have a hand out. It’s the nature of the beast when there is such low attention on these matters from the general public. If you need an example, Kerry and his extremely rich wife paid tax on their income at a rate of 15% in the year he ran for President. I’m not singling out one party in this, that is just the example I researched. However, it should give an insight as to who politicians mean when they insist we place heavier taxes on the “rich,” as they know they will avoid them.

    The devil, or so I have heard, is in the details.

    the Grit

  39. BRAVEHEART Says:

    To all of my patriotic brothers and sisters,
    Being a Vietnam Vet and proud of it, I wish that all AMERICANS would go study AMERICAN HISTORY! The following Democratic Presidents FDR,TRUMAN,and JOHN F KENNEDY gave outstanding speeches during times of which this great country was at war.If you studied or listened to those speeches, you just might find that the Democrats of old were PATRIOTS!!!!!!!! However their new party reminds me of the peace Democrats of old.During the CIVIL WAR PRESIDENT LINCOLN would not give up even though the north was getting their BUTTS kicked. It was not until the VICTORY at the battle of ANTIETAM did the North win and LINCOLN gave his SPEECH OF FREEING THE SLAVES. LINCOLN went through many GENERALS before He found General Grant.The Democrats wanted to give up then,but Lincoln fought hard and the Civil War was soon over. If we would have given up then,would Presidential hopeful Obama still be a slave?
    Listen people war is not easy!! In that CIVIL WAR we lost as a country 900,000 people!!!!!!!620,000 soldiers and 280,000 civilians!!!!!!!
    If JFK was alive today he would kick TEDDIE’S FAT DRUNKEN ASS! The old time Democrats and Repulicans,in time of war,allways fought our enemies as one nation. There is not 2 Americas,just one.
    If this country would UNITE AS ONE,without fighting for sqaubbles of power and money, this war would allready have been won. Our enemies are using all these LIBERAL TALKING POINTS FOR THEIR PROPAGANDA WAR AND THEIR WINNING THAT POINT. For the love of GOD please study you’re AMERICAN HISTORY SO WE DON’T REPEAT IT!!!!!!!!!!!
    In Vietnam I lost 58,044 brothers in a war which was lost at home,NOT IN VIETNAM!!!!!!!!!!! The news reported that we lost the TET OFFENSIVE,thanks to Walter Cronkite and his chickenshit MEDIA! At the beginning of that battle we were overun and lost around 2.000 soldiers,however we turned it around and killed over 20,000 VC and won. However the news would not retract their mistake.Do you people know that HO CHI MING figured they had lost the war,however the American people were dupped into thinking we had lost.For GOD’S SAKE STUDY THE FACTS.There is more sources out there. I would suggest you study from one of the greatest History Professors of today. POrofeesor Rufus Fears at the University Of Oklahoma!!!!!!!

  40. Kim Says:

    To the liberals who are spewing their usual stupidity, why don’t you tell us just exactly what the “plan” the wonderful dems have for Iraq? They are consistently saying that “this President” or “this administration” has no exit strategy, but the only strategy that the dems have is to cut and run…leaving Iraqis, and the region ripe for a blood bath. If you don’t understand what is at stake, and not surprisingly, most of you have not a clue, then try to do some research. ALL muslims, including “moderate” have a deep and faithful belief that Islam is the last religion handed down by God and that the world must be put under the “Banner of Islam”. Do a search on the banner of Islam. There is a growing movement, that will not be denied, to either kill or convert. Some of the lame arguments I have seen, and COWARDLY LIBERAL whines about “why don’t you sign up or send your children to Iraq”. Most people who post and support our country and our troops HAVE served, are serving or have a family member in Iraq. If we do nothing, we will become a nation of muslims under the control and authority of a souless group of hate filled zealots. Nancy Polosi is the worst example of representation. I am ashamed to say she is from California and the liberal fools in California are ruining our beautiful state. If you don’t agree with the war, then I am sure you will have no problem accepting Islam. But just remember, there are those of us who are willing to fight for our freedom and happiness….just stay out of the way because this is not a time for cowards.

  41. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Srgnt. Dave T.,

    And I assume that Srgnt stands for Sargent, in which case I offer my thanks for your service. Well said, sir, and I hope you will grace us with your electronic presence in the future.

    the Grit

  42. surfsander Says:


    In reply to your assumption that the Clinton administration left us with a surplus, let’s please remember that such an influx of money was made on the dot-com boom that had all to do with timing and little to do with politics was the cause of said surplus. Now let us also remember that Clinton was responsible for NAFTA which, as a direct result, has caused the loss of over 3 million American jobs, thereby cutting our tax base significantly. The Enron, Worldcom, etc. scandal was in full swing during the Clinton years and did not come to an end until not even the end of the first year of Bush’s Presidency. Now let’s look at the factors that Bush has had to deal with since he has taken office; he had to rebuild the military because of Clinton’s cut backs, he had to overhaul the tactics and logistics of that military to deal with a different type of threat, which coincidently was happening all through the Clinton years. (Doesn’t anyone remember the first attack on the WTC where a car bomb exploded inside?) These things could have been addressed during the Clinton administration if he were such a great leader and now everyone is blaming Bush for trying to update and fix what the previous administration failed to do. These things cost money! Especially when it has to be done in a short time.
    As far as the tax breaks to the top 1%, do you have any idea who the top 1% in America are? It is the large corporations who employ ALOT OF PEOPLE!!! These tax breaks are so they can use that money on benefits and pay increases for their employees. If these companies do not use this extra income to help out their employees, you can not blame the administration for the companies lack of compassion and greed.
    To everyone: stop buying in to what the media is telling you and look at the larger picture! Please be skeptical of their intentions, the media is quickly becoming more dangerous than the government because they control the information you get. Use common sense, intelligence, do the research, and always remember there are at least two sides to EVERY story.

  43. NoFanOfBush Says:

    Staying the wrong course is never the right thing to do. How many lives must be shattered before the right wing fascists will do what’s right for the Republic and not what seems to be in the best interest of the republican party.

    For you couch warriors who don’t want to remember, it was Reagan who cut and ran after the Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut and it was Eisenhower who cut and ran from Korea and knowingly left 1000 American POW’s behind. Too bad the republicans haven’t finished burning all of the books yet – facts are a bitch.

    I want to vomit everytime I hear another republican whining “…gee, the Democrats don’t have a plan….”. Do you seriously mean to say that the Republicans do? We have had 4+ years of the best of what the Republicans have to offer, and it is a cl*ster f*ck of grand proportions.

    Finally, for the self promoting ‘man with a spine’ who says that the Democrats have no morals, let me say: Ted Haggerty, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, George Bush – and that’s just a few headliners from last year. The moral majority is neither.

  44. britandgrit Says:


    Thanks for your service. I have many friends that served in Nam, and are still suffering for it. Keeping me from going is one reason that I feel Nixon is tied for best President in my view.

    As to the War of Northern Aggression, that wasn’t about slavery. For economic reasons slavery was on the way out before the war started. The struggle was about States Rights, and you see the results from the side of liberty loosing. It is a large factor in the continued existence of so many Democrats in the South. Amazing how History keeps a grip on people.

    In case you can’t tell, Grit is short for Grits, so it rhymes with Brit. I live just outside of Memphis, Tn. (home of the King) and the Brit lives somewhere near London.

    the Grit

  45. surfsander Says:

    Thanks for knowing that the civil war was over states rights, so few people realize that! (This is also the reason why Bush couldn’t deploy Federal troops to Louisianna in the aftermath of Katrina until the state asked for them– remember Fort Sumtner anyone?)

  46. britandgrit Says:

    Hi all,

    Just a note to say that we don’t normally get this many visitors, so we’re not set up to maintain our usual policy of responding quickly to every comment. This reminds me of Katrina when my son, who lives in NOLA, called to say that he and, 30 of his closest friends would be arriving shortly. Well, we handled that (fed and slept them for a week), and every one of our welcome guests will get our attention ASAP!

    Generally, thanks for dropping by!

    the Grit

  47. The Middler Says:

    We have all been “HOODWINKED” by the Democrats and Republicans! Don’t believe the HYPE!

    Let’s hold them ALL Accountable!!


  48. Kim Says:

    To NoFanOfBush:
    On 9/11 terrorists took the lives of 3000 people in less than 2 hours. If this is how you want to live, facing uncertainty daily, then you will probably get your wish with the “cut and run” crowd. Iran and Syria will swoop down on Iraq faster than you can say Murtha and the entire region will become a super Islamic state and Israel will be pummeled to stone. After that, they will undoubtably take on the USA and our country will become a war zone. I know it’s hard for some of you to understand, but reality trumps liberal fanstsies. I do wish Bush would ignore the liberals in Washington and seriously kick some ass in Iraq, but God help us, we have Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of their ilk ready to abandon Iraq and lay the foundation for our ruin. Which books are the republicans burning and how in the world do you explain your assumption. The democrats are fast approaching socialism, and if you haven’t noticed, Islam is pretty much a socialist idealogy. Your post was laughable and I truly wish you would vomit because maybe you would get all that stink liberalism out of your system. You listing republicans who have fallen by the wayside, there is an equal or larger list of liberals to compare. The reason it does not matter is because in the end, the goal is to save our country, not to whine about people who cannot add or take anything away from what we are fighting for. I think it is you who needs to grow a spine and realize that freedom comes with a price.

  49. britandgrit Says:

    Hi surfsander,

    Exactly right. If it had been a Democratic President in office, the news media would have praised his/her (is that PC or what?) effort. Honestly, what was FEMA supposed to do, position resources in the path of the hurricane?

    As to States Rights, my thoughts on this, and I hope I am wrong, is that we will have another go at settling it through force in the not too distant future. While it will be labeled as a struggle between Urban parasites and Rural rebels, the basic issues will be the same.

    I live near Memphis; nothing about the War is ever forgotten.

    the Grit

  50. Middler Says:

    No More Excuse surfsander!!!

    The Fed, State, local, etc. (Pres./Gov./Mayor/etc.), Democrates and Republicans let down the People of New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.

    Let’s all stopped the game playing with our lives and the lives of others and be honest with ourselves. Too much gamesmanship at the expense of others. It’s Shameful..

    We need elected leadership with who truely care…. LETs Stopped this game call “Politics” and play the READ GAME Called “LIFE!”

  51. Anonymous Says:


  52. surfsander Says:

    There is definately tension growing in America between the two ideologies. I think that in order to avoid another such war, the people of the United States need to take an active role in politics on a large scale, form an independent party, one with the good for all of America in mind, and hopefully end this two party monopoly, where their go-nowhere bickering is severly damaging to the citizens.
    P.S.–I grew up in Virginia so the civil war was always at my doorstep as well.

  53. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Kim,

    I’m sorry if my post wasn’t extreme enough for you. Perhaps, if you browse through our other attempts at writing, you’ll find something more to your liking. We have been pretty hard on the Global Warming Alarmists. Or, if you scroll up the comment list, our friend Brent, has linked to his post suggesting we nuke Iran, which you may find interesting.

    the Grit

  54. dpcough Says:

    Democrats are awful.

    They are all paid now to do stuff, they do nothing and only care for themself. Vote Republican in 2007 and 2008.

  55. surfsander Says:

    It’s not an excuse! It is the reason.
    I agree things could have been handled far better but don’t attack the things that the President could not legally do.
    And as far as that experience goes, I now live in Florida where I have had to deal with 9 hurricanes in the past three years. I was without power for collectively 37 days, 19 of which in one stretch, and yet I didn’t find it necessary to rob my neighbors houses and stores. I can truly sympathize with their plight, but I condemn their actions. People need to stop relying on the government for every aspect of their lives and only then they will stop being disappointed

  56. Kim Says:

    you assume I am proposing a radical move by the USA. On the contrary, I am suggesting that we must finish our task in Iraq and make sure that it is stable. I have 2 dear Iraqi friends who have suffered tremendously under Saddam and now constant threat of terrorism by radical Islamists. They both understand the stakes and pray the USA will sustain their efforts. I have studied Islam and the Islamic movement for over 10 years and I understand the grave risks that the world faces. I apologize if you found my comments too stark, but we are in for the fight of our lives, and yes, it is a religious war for Islamists.

  57. britandgrit Says:

    Hi The Middler,

    If only it was possible to prod the general population into paying attention to the important things that are transpiring while they worry about Britney Spear’s hair. Unfortunately, it would seem, that things must get much worse before that happens.

    Not that long ago, Representative Rangel ( D-N.Y) offered a bill to reinstate the draft, on the basis that it would make people wake up the the consequences of the war. While I hate to admit it, and even though he didn’t vote for it, he may have a point. We, as a people, are far to removed from the real world.

    That, of course, is one reason I devote so much time to blogging. The other reason is to make a fortune and, some day, rule the world. Neither, unfortunately, seems likely to happen.

    the Grit

  58. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Kim,

    On subjects like this, people often type faster than they think. I know I do 🙂 Where I live, we get TV ads paid for by the Kurds thanking us for their liberty. Even if everything else falls apart, that’s enough for me.

    As to britandgrit, there are two of us who share this blog. I live in the Southern US, and the Brit lives near London. What got us into blogging was exploring the differences, many of which are not commonly known, between our two countries. My partner is not on line today, some silly excuse about his significant other dragging him away from the computer, but I am sure he will swing by tomorrow (late tonight for me) to add his views on all of this.

    the Grit

  59. britandgrit Says:

    Hi surfsander,

    The South will rise again!

    As to taking care of myself (and my wife,) I do my best. After we had an ice storm, several years ago, which left our area without power for day, and weeks for some people, I’ve taken every effort we can afford to prepare for the worst. Of course, living on the New Madrid fault line makes this an even better investment!

    the Grit

  60. surfsander Says:

    I agree that our efforts must be continued in Iraq. It is of the utmost importance to stabilize the country not only to help Iraqis, but to prove to the rest of the Muslim world that we have the determination to fight their radical ideology. I also firmly believe that fewer lives will be lost in this struggle if we confront it sooner rather than in another fifteen years. If we pull out with out achieving our goals, it will do nothing but bolster their morale, numbers, and embolden future attacks.

  61. britandgrit Says:

    Hi s,


    the Grit

  62. echo Says:

    First of all, it would not be brave to cut off funding to the troops, it would be cruel. And I suspect that if Congress did cut off funding, there would be a howl of protest from the very people who say they are cowardly for not doing so. Reality is not binary, even if our political system currently is. How would the non-binding resolution stating their opinion that more troops should not be sent constitute spitting in the face of the troops that are there? Cutting funding to force the issue would be showing contempt-which they are not doing, which is being called cowardly. How very odd. But let’s be realistic. Unless we institute a draft, our troops are going to be overextended very soon, if they aren’t already. Tours are being extended, units being redeployed. Aside from putting them in jeapordy longer, it puts them at greater risk for developing PTSD. They’re not going to get enough time to rest and retrain. They’re going to get tired. And while we’re surging into Iraq, we seem to have forgotten Afghanistan. Did you know that there are relatives of people deployed in Afghanistan who monitor the “other” war through Canadian media because our media is giving it short shrift? And we have people in the Balkans, Sarajevo, etc. I have a friend in Iran who is on pins and needles, telling me we’d better elect a good man (or woman) next year. He doesn’t understand all the hostility toward his country, doesn’t see how our government can accuse his of “meddling”…look, we armed Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. We trained bin Laden. And we’re complaining because Iran might be providing arms to the Iraqis? It’s free trade between two supposedly sovereign nations, if you really must look at it dead on. If Iran is currently providing weaponry to Shi’a militia (and these aren’t confiscated from an earlier conflict), it would be so their brother Shi’a could protect themselves against Sunni insurgents. We ourselves are arming the Iraqi military for the same purpose. The Mahdi militia goes against the grain, is counter productive from some points of view. But arming them has nothing to do with us. It’s sort of a clan war, goes back centuries. It also may be a rather harsh way of keeping the Shi’a on top, thus keeping a Shi’a government on top-which is something Iran definitely wants. A friendly-read Shi’a-government in Iraq is very much in their interest. They well remember the war, and poison gas being used on their soldiers and citizens…the US didn’t say anything about Hussein’s use of chemical weapons then, because it was in our interest. It’s not a binary world, folks. As for the individual-Kim-who equates having problems with the war to having no problem accepting Islam I confess I am confused. We’re over there to prevent the spread of Islam now? Is it a disease? Yes, in some Islamic countries non-Muslims are somewhat second-class. So don’t move there, Kim. Anyone who believes there is a serious threat of Islamic world domination needs to invest in a tinfoil hat and some therapy. The Middle East was the world center for art, science and learning for many hundreds of years. And then Europe got big enough to notice them, and war born of jealousy and rationalized by religion began. The Crusades. We wanted to take back our Holy Land from the infidel, who were doing nothing but living there. So we went, we fought, we sacked, pillaged and burned. And stole a whole lotta loot. Ended up evening things up, conquering some regions, colonizing the area…jealousy started it. Jealousy coated in religious flavor. Sound familiar?
    We’re the ones who send missionaries all over the world, trying to convert everyone to Jesus so they won’t go to hell. But we cringe and shudder because Islam is now the fastest growing world religion. They think they’ve got the one true faith too, you know. Who’s right, who’s wrong? Guess it depends on where you were born, to a large degree.
    I just get tired of wrong, right…name-calling-repubes, demobrats…please. How old are we anyway? My problem with the war? We have no idea why we’re there, thus no real plan. It’s not WMDs. That was a lie, which pisses me off. So we’re there on false pretenses…but we’re there, so we’re there. We dethroned and executed the man we supported for so long. Bravo. Now we’re staying to clean up the mess we made. Makes sense. But why did we really go? What started this clusterf*&k? What is the objective? I know what we have to do now, fix the mess we set in motion. But why did we really go over there? What was the objective, to depose Saddam Hussein? Okay. Why? What are we shooting for over there, if you’ll pardon the pun? Don’t wave 9/11 in my face, most of the hijackers were Saudi-our allies? 9/11 is why we’re in Afghanistan, not why we’re in Iraq. And now noises are being made that suggest our president might be setting his sights on Iran. Oh boy. Let’s just totally alienate Russia, okay? Please remember that Russia has its own oil reserves, doesn’t care about the price of oil in the Middle East, and has close diplomatic and trade ties with Iran. Realize because of this that any weapons found might have ultimately originated in Russia. Realize Russian is a nuclear power, and realize again-this is not a binary world.
    People, Iran is not going to try to take over the world. Iran is not going to nuke Israel. That “wipe Israel off the map” speech was not only a quoted passage from one of Khomeni’s writings, but a mistranslation. What he actually said, in Persian, was that the REGIME in Israel must pass from the pages of history. In other words, he doesn’t want a Zionist state. Iran’s president is an anti-Semite, yes. He doesn’t like a Jewish state to exist, granted. But he has no intentions of bombing them off the map. He’d never get away with it, and he knows it. Israel, after all, has nukes. And allies. Us. Want to provoke a nuclear volley? Attack Israel with nuclear weapons.
    Thing is, we’re in a war so we start looking for whys. We want to justify it. But this thing began with a lie. I’d like to know what the true objective and motive was. In the meantime I’d personally like for the American military presence to be cut back, so that they could send some people home, allow others to furlough. Greater numbers won’t accomplish anything if those numbers are made up of tired, incompletely trained troops. We’re there, so let’s do it right. But that means taking care of our own.

  63. aremus Says:

    You’re right on. Keep up the good work.


  64. Srgnt. Dave T. Says:

    Yes I served. A little higher than Sargent, but that’s what folks call me because of my haircut and build. During the evacuation (runaway) in Saigon, I saw horrible situations made worse by the likes of liberals like Hanoi Jane. I still have flashbacks. I pains me to see all these little squid pantywaist commie youth promoting the “virtues” of cowardice. They know nothing about war or it’s purposes and consequences… may they, by the grace of God and the brave of this country.. never have to.
    I have no personal angst towards them personally, because they “know not what they do”, but I would love to kick their faggot asses collectively.

  65. britandgrit Says:

    Hi NoFanOfBush,

    Since you had so much to say, let’s go through it in detail:

    “Staying the wrong course is never the right thing to do. How many lives must be shattered before the right wing fascists will do what’s right for the Republic and not what seems to be in the best interest of the republican party. ”

    Well, I would respond by saying that when we clean up the mess of the left wing Communists, we can get back to the business of what’s best for America, which, as anyone should know, is business.

    “For you couch warriors who don’t want to remember, it was Reagan who cut and ran after the Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut and it was Eisenhower who cut and ran from Korea and knowingly left 1000 American POW’s behind. Too bad the republicans haven’t finished burning all of the books yet – facts are a bitch.”

    As I recall, when the Beirut incident happened, President Regan was also saddled with a spineless liberal Congress, which left him with little choice in how he would respond, considering that the Democrats were pretty much in favor of letting the Jews in Israel being slaughtered, much as they are today.

    As to Korea, let us go back in history to remember that it was the liberals who disarmed America after WWII, leaving a power vacuum in the world that tempted the Communists into starting that conflict.

    And, while we are on the subject, let us recall that the “police action” in Vietnam was thrust upon us by Democrats, won by Republicans, then finally lost by Democrats. It’s not surprising that you choose to forget that one.

    However, let us continue with Kosovo, a nifty little war which Liberals got us involved in, and in which we still have troops involved, where we sided with Muslim radicals, terrorists and drug dealers, against Christians, without any support from the almighty UN. Of course, the liberal press didn’t mention any of this at the time, and has, conveniently, forgotten it in the mean time, as have you.

    As to burning books, last I heard it was a Democrat that was stealing classified documents and burning them.

    “I want to vomit everytime I hear another republican whining “…gee, the Democrats don’t have a plan….”. Do you seriously mean to say that the Republicans do? We have had 4+ years of the best of what the Republicans have to offer, and it is a cl*ster f*ck of grand proportions.”

    Actually, the Republicans do have a plan, which was presented to Congress, voted on, and was passed. It was stated in the beginning that it would be a long and difficult war. The fact that liberals have no staying power doesn’t change the facts, but only demonstrates your weakness.

    “Finally, for the self promoting ‘man with a spine’ who says that the Democrats have no morals, let me say: Ted Haggerty, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, George Bush – and that’s just a few headliners from last year. The moral majority is neither.”

    Allow me to reply with the Kennedy’s. I could name dozens more, but really don’t have time to look up the correct spelling of their names. Still, considering that a leading member of your party is a murderer should be sufficient. Of course, there is that Klan leader that was a senior leader. And that guy from New Orleans that got caught with $90,000 in bribe money in the freezer who Pelosi has just appointed to the Homeland Defense committee. Then again, there was that incident where Nanny Pelosi herself, slipped in a bit of political corruption for her own district in the minimum wage bill (I posted on this, look it up.) In other words, kiss my ass, at least we kick our criminals out of office while you worship yours.

    the Grit

  66. The Dude Says:

    I have hard time not swearing ever since these cowards start this non-binding resolution crap. These are contemptible cowards. How can they send our kids off to fight and then stab them in the back? Not that republicans are better, they aren’t, but democrats, especially liberals are the lowest form of life…….

  67. surfsander Says:

    Wow, where to begin? I am in agreement with some of your points, while others I feel are slightly misinformed. I guess it started with the cutting of funding. It was a useless show. I don’t think anyone in America believes for a second that the Dems are behind the President on the war in Iraq issue, so now you have to ask what was it for? It was nothing but pomp and show in order to differentiate themselves from the previous congress, when every American already knew that. Instead of utilizing that valuable time to address an issue in which there would be consequences, they invited the media to buildup a completely assinign vote, just so they can say “Hey, we pay attention to the polls.”
    Like you said, they didn’t cut spending because they know that such an act would be political suicide for the new democratic congress, but don’t think for a moment that it had anything to do with the troops.
    You wanted to know why we were in Iraq to begin with? After the first gulf war, Hussein signed a treaty granting full access to inspect any and all weapons and suspected weapons facilities. Not even a year went by before he started denying access to sights. Something that is also not well known is that he fired almost daily on jets that patrol the no-fly zones. When we entered Iraq, Powell never once said that Hussein “has weapons of mass destruction” he always was very careful to say that Iraq “had” or “could have” weapons of mass destruction. If Hussein had lived up to the treaty that he signed in order to end the first gulf war, then we would have had no doubt in what he did or did not have, and would not find ourselves in this current situation. Just as a matter of fact, by not abiding by the peace treaty of the first gulf war, the allies of that first gulf war had an obligation to act in response to his actions. After a decade of defiance and reprieve from the U.N., the U.S.A., the U.K., Spain, Australia, and a few others, lived up to their obligations of that treaty by entering the country by force.
    In response to the European Jealousy remarks, the Moor’s (who were muslim) had attacked Spain, Sicily before the crusades were even thought of so we’ll just pretend that you never said that. And don’t forget that the crusades were to “take BACK the holy land.”
    Besides all of that, wars are not about religion, they are about power and threats to power, religion is just the way to get the people behind the “cause.”

  68. elizabeth jackson Says:

    found this post on the word press home page. very refreshing to read. thanks.

  69. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Srgnt.,

    A friend of mine in college was one of the GI’s holding back the crowd while the last choppers were taking off as we evacuated. I understand you. What happened to the people left behind should keep the liberals up at night, if they had a conscience.

    As to Hanoi Jane, why she didn’t face a firing squad is beyond me.

    the Grit

  70. Srgnt. Dave T. Says:

    The memories are vivid and the consequences were nil.
    May God bless you and your endevours.
    I’ll try and get back soon…….
    Sgt. D.T.

  71. Root Says:

    Thank God I am not American. 🙂

    A true Brit here.

  72. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Srgnt. Dave,

    You are always welcome.

    Root, at times it is a pain. However, being a Brit is not all fuzzy and warm, according to my partner, the Brit 😉

    the Grit

  73. Mikki Says:

    Republicans support the troops? Is that why our troops’ body arm sucks, the armed vehicles suck, the war strategy sucks?

    The best way to support our troops would be to bring them home. They can fight terrorism and national security threats just as well, if not better, from the comfort of their own country.

  74. Ed Darrell Says:

    Hey, Grit — all the Democrats who were former Klan members recanted. Can you show us any recantings from the Republican Klanners?

    No, I didn’t think so.

  75. Paul W. Says:

    Mikki, can i get some of the stuff you are smoking????? Let’s pull out of every foreign nation and wait for the terrorist here at home???? That’s a great plan. The stewards/stewardesses can serve them cokes and bags of peanuts as they fly into another building. I assume you were in a coma when 911 happened?

  76. Mikki Says:

    Sorry, Paul W, I’m not smoking anything.

    In a coma on 9/11? I don’t think so. What I remember about 9/11, besides the horror of the day, and worry for friends and family in the area, was a Republican was in the White House. (Not that I think a Democrat would have prevented it)

    I also vaguely remember stories of incomplete and/or neglected intelligence reports. Hmm, something about government employees having reports rejected as nonsense? And weren’t there a few flight instructors whose curiosity about the study habits of a few students was scoffed at? Oh, wait! Wasn’t there also a nut called Bin Laden claiming responsibility?

    And let’s see, wasn’t this the same Bin Laden who was educated in America? Wasn’t he also trained by some American Alphabet Agency? Wasn’t he also BACKED by same American Agency during the Russian Afghan War with money and weapons? Oh, and weren’t he and his country abandoned by Americans after the Russian defeat, leaving his country at the mercy of the “God is Great As Long As I am In charge Taliban Wacko Socieity?” Maybe pissing him off just a bit?

    I didn’t say bring our troops home to wait for the terrorists. If I’m going to be asked to contribute a gazillion dollars to prevent more terrorists, I’d rather the money go toward better Intelligence, better spies, better weapons, better radar, and a better paid military.

    Don’t you think this war, no matter incompetent Republican or candy ass Democrat behind the wheel, is ineffective in it’s goal of making America safer?

    PS: I think they’re called Flight Attendants now.

  77. Brent Says:

    Thanks for your historical contribution BRAVEHEART. I have read about this just as recently as Feb 12 (Lincoln’s birthday). You are correct. Many Americans have no historical perspective at all. Good thing for awesome blogs like this one!

    You rock! Also, thank you for your service in Viet Nam. You are a hero in my eyes.

    Thank you sir.

    By the way, I just want to mention that Joe Leiberman should be commended for standing up to the pacifist Democrats. He stands alone in the party. Actually, he is Independent now, but I think this is great. I admire the man for his courage. It is reminiscent of Harry S. Truman. Just thought I’d mention that while were talking about the anti-victory libs. Leiberman is not one of those. He is a pro-victory Patriot like you and me. Hell, he’s more pro-victory than some of the noodle spine Rinos in the GOP.


  78. abu ameerah Says:

    so what if Nancy Pelosi “spits on troops”….

    aren’t they big boys…can’t they handle a little spit under thousands of dollars of body armor?

  79. Blue Star Chronicles Says:

    Nancy Pelosi Smiles While Telling the World America Can Not be Trusted

    Yes, it’s true. The message that was sent to the world in the 1960s is being reinforced by the democrats in Congress.
    As you all know by now, the democrats made a big splash by passing a non-binding resolution that they disapprove of what they ca…

  80. beth Says:

    By the way, I just want to mention that Joe Leiberman should be commended for standing up to the pacifist Democrats. He stands alone in the party.

    I couldn’t agree more. He stood against the tide and they stabbed him in the back. I thought it was great he won his seat back as an independent. That must have really grated on his cut and run colleagues!!! lol

    abu …

    so what if Nancy Pelosi “spits on troops”….

    aren’t they big boys…can’t they handle a little spit under thousands of dollars of body armor?

    Of course they can take it. These democrats are mostly spitting in the wind and looking like fools. We just don’t want our enemies getting the idea that ALL Americans think like they do. We DO back our Troops and we won’t surrender.

  81. Brent Says:

    Hey Beth! I remember you. How’s it going? I agree with what you say.

    Here’s one thing that the drive-by media never asks: What do the TROOPS think of the liberal position of surrender? Let’s see THAT poll!

    Stay cool-as-hell Beth!

  82. thelonedrifter Says:

    Yeah, the troops are big boys. Which is why they won’t tell you what they really think of democrats in our government. Most of the troops are more mature than our lovely local democratic congressmen.

  83. seesdifferent Says:

    from body armor to vehicle armor to torture to civil war to stop loss to poor healthcare for posttraumatic stress disorder, Bush and the Republicans don’t give a CRAP about the grunts. Murtha is trying to get adequate equipment and training for the troops before they get sent in again. The nonbinding resolution is as much of a statement as could be made, to reflect the sentiments of the country.

    Iraq is the greatest disaster of this generation, or possibly the second greatest (global warming/climate change may end up being worse). Bush showed his incompetence to deal with it. Whatever the Congress can do to get our boys and girls home before more are killed and maimed for no purpose is the right thing to do. Many more people around the world hate us now than ever did before.

  84. weluckyfew Says:

    a few points, if I may

    1. The extraordinary amount of juvenile name-calling from the posters here speaks volumes about the mentality and maturity of your readers.

    2. The Republicans opposed and fought against Clinton’s actions against Serbia. At the time it was called an honest difference of opinion, not treason.

    3. For those who says things about how politicians of old would never oppose a president during war:
    Abraham Lincoln spoke out fiercely against President Polk during the Mexican-America War, saying “show me the spot [where American blood was spilled]” because he believed the war was based on false pretenses. In other words, Abraham Lincoln acted in the exact opposite way as the right-wing historical revisionists are saying he did. Furthermore, although he was elected as a Republican, Lincoln was a staunch Whig who believed in the supremacy of Congress over the Executive. Polar opposite of the situation we see today. (

    4. for those saying “we’d have already won this war if the country was united”– please cite how the Democratic MINORITY prevented Congress or the military from doing anything it wanted in the past three years.

    5. So many here keep talking about “the enemy.” Who is the enemy? the Al Quaeda Sunni, trying to kill Americans for glory (few in number) The Baathist Sunni trying to destabilize the government so they won’t lose all their power? The clan Sunni, trying to protect themselves from slaughter from revenge-seeking Shiites? The Nationalist Shiites, with their death squads and ethnic cleasning? The Iranian-linked Shiites, ready to kill any faction who stands in teh way of great Iranian-Shiite hegemony? the Kurds who will support “terrorist” attacks against Turkey? Please, let me know who you pick as enemy and who as friend.

  85. Brent Says:


    I say, let’s ask the TROOPS who have volunteered to go there. You are obviously against the war. That’s fine. You don’t have to fight. There is no draft. But why insist that those who actually DO want to fight cannot fight, just because YOU don’t want to?

    I say, let’s ask the troops what THEY want to do. I say, let’s let they who are actually over there doing the fighting, decide. They are the ones doing all of the work. Why not leave it up to them? If they all want to come home, I can accept that. What I cannot accept is what the Democrats are doing for political purposes –voting for the war, before voting against it.

    Make no mistake about it. This is not about the troops. This is about power.

    Besides that, it would be foolish to bring the troops home now. We have Iran surrounded. Let’s get the job done, and get it over with before they actually do wipe Israel off the map with nukes, like they threaten to do almost every time Baboon Iwantajihad opens his mouth.

  86. echo Says:

    Thanks for your response, was food for thought…but here I go again:

    Yes, it was take BACK the Holy Land. I said that. But the people taking it “back” had no real claim to it, it wasn’t Jews trying to reclaim their ancestral land but Christians trying to loot it. And in mentioning the Moorish occupation you paint with too broad a brush-the happenings on the Iberian Peninsula had little practical relevance to what was happening in the Holy Land. The only commonality was religion. The culture of North Africa and the culture of the Middle East are not the same. Islamic cultures, yes. Both Middle Eastern cultures, no. It would be like saying there was no difference in eleventh century Bulgaria and eleventh century England because they were both Christian. Anyway, hundreds of thousands did not go to liberate the Iberian Peninsula, or even to Byzantium, when they were requested for aid against the Turks. They went to the Holy Land, drawn by dreams of glory and wealth.
    We all interfere with each other, people just do that. North African nations expanded into the Iberian Peninsula and beyond. Rome expanded many times that-do we distrust Italy? Should we distrust Islam because the Moors, doing what people have done throughout history, were Muslim? Right or wrong-and I think annexing territory is rather wrong-the religion of these North Africans millenia ago had nothing to do with the Middle Eastern RESIDENTS of the Holy Land. The Moorish/Saracen occupation was beneficial in many ways, actually. There was a high standard of living, and education was universal. That meant women too. Women held high offices. This is not something that was then happening in European nations. Of course, Islam is going through some changes, having conservative hiccups. Women’s rights have suffered. That was then, this is now.
    But the people-the ethnic majority-in the Middle East had been there for some time. I’m talking the Holy Land, not North Africa. These people were not invaders. They had nearly as strong a claim to the land as the now-Israelis, and a much stronger claim than the Europeans who started invading in the eleventh century. Again, the Moors/Saracens were invaders from countless tribes and dynasties in North Africa who happened to be Muslim. Did they use their religion as an excuse to expand their territory? Sure. Did Europeans? Sure. During the age of exploration a dominant motive was claiming new lands not only for the crown of England, Spain, or Portugal, but also the spread of Christendom. None of this is relevant to the issue of the Crusades, which were nothing but a series of looting expeditions. Take BACK the Holy Land? How did the Holy Land belong to France in 1095, which is when and where it began? Did it belong to them because they were Christian? They could lay claim to it on that basis, but that would be claiming it, not reclaiming it. Aleusis I- I think-asked for help in turning the Muslims out of Byzantium. Instead, the Pope commissioned all the out of work soldiers-an inconvenient peace had arrived-to retake the Holy Land. It was too much too late. Instead of military reinforcements we had a holy war at least 200 years and nine crusades long.
    There were all sorts of factors that set the stage for the Crusades. Muslim aggression, North African and Turkish. An unexpected European peace, with restless soldiers. A religious revival that spread into a fever. But the Arabs in the Holy Land had been in Palestine since the seventh century, and Christians were thin on the ground, had been for centuries before. Hey, blame the Romans. Europe had no proprietary claim, no treaty binding them, nothing but a desire to aggress and avenge. Which is just people being people. Are we still fighting the Crusades? Can we not get over ourselves yet, any of us? Are we still having a problem with the nature of Islam, that it is a monotheistic religion that claims to be the truth and attempts to spread that truth, as do we? Is it that old saw about being too much alike? Because you see, our very similarity is what we war over.
    Our respective religions are very similar, and grew out of the same general vicinity. But not the same culture-Arab culture and Jewish culture were different as well as similar-and most Christians, today and in the time of the Crusades, are and were not of Jewish ancestry. But leave that be. Thing is, Iraq and Iran are Muslim countries in the same general region their religion developed in. Christendom, on the other hand, has branched out, emigrated, and diversified to the point that there is no longer a Christendom, simply people who identify themselves as Christians. Iran, for God’s sake, is a theocracy. In Iraq they are killing each other over what flavor of Muslim they are. Islam is a younger religion, and still has growing pains…can’t we have a little understanding of that? Look back four, five hundred years, when our religion was in the same stage of development as theirs. What do we find but the Protestant Reformation with war between Protestant and Catholic, extending to the last century in Northern Ireland and the Balkans. We find five million people, overwhelmingly female, executed as witches in Europe, England and America. In certain phases of their development, religions can be quite a growth medium for evil. The potential is always there, in any ideology, but some periods are more vulnerable than others. This is such a vulnerable time for Islam. We’ll have to wait to see what develops. In the meantime, let’s all try not to confuse radical Islam with Islam as a whole, and try to remember that the language of religion will be used to cover a variety of sins. In 1095 the Middle East was much more advanced than Europe. Two hundred years of Crusades and various other factors thrust them into a Dark Age even Europe came out of theirs. Now the region runs the gamut from fully industrialized to third world countries and everything in between. It’s in flux, in transition. Iran seems to be trying to normalize relations with Iraq. The smart thing for us to do, I believe, would be to do the same, and attempt to normalize relations with Iran. What would we lose by simply talking to them? Face? It grows back. Iran needs nuclear power. Their population is growing, so are their energy requirements. They’re starting to miss quotas on oil deliveries. They need to sink a new well-I think Russia got the contract-but until then it’s a juggling act. They have the oil, but they’re disorganized, and they have to take care of their own-growing-population. If they had nuclear power, it would free up oil, create jobs, reduce pollution. Why be so paranoid? Nuclear non-proliferation? We’re breaking that treaty ourselves on a couple of particulars. Iran is isolated, being Persian rather than Arab. They’re in the minority, being Shi’a rather than Sunni, though they do have some company there, so they’re playing on it. I say let them. Stability in the region is going to come from within the region. Reward reaching out, don’t continue Iran’s isolation.
    As for why we are there, or rather why we went, I am aware that Saddam Hussein was very evasive and uncooperative, made the job of the UN inspectors hell in the 90s and eventually expelled them. But the timing…there was no new evidence of banned weapons, and we had UN inspectors in there looking up until the end-gave them three days to evacuate, if you’ll recall. Whatever was there in the 90s, was not there a decade later. Where it went, nobody knows…and it’s worrisome. But it’s no longer in Iraq. When we went in, we went in unsanctioned by the UN. And I don’t know where you were when the war broke out, or how carefully Powell phrased things, our reason for being there was WMDs. Ostensibly. I remember watching the country being ransacked-and basically nothing being found. So it went from being a war to protect ourselves from WMDs to a war to free the Iraqi people, to spreading democracy and stabilizing the region. Wonderful. We’re saving the world now? Iraq was not a clear and present danger, intelligence did not support that. The Iraqi people were in distress, but there’s distress all over the world-and they’re in more distress now. Want to go to a war zone for humanitarian reasons? Try Darfur. Except there’s nothing in it for us, is there?
    But hey. I’m a realist, or I try. We’re there. We need to clean out Sadr City. Just go in blitzkrieg and shut the rat’s warren down. There’s an operation that might be worth the risk. When Sadr City was locked down when an American soldier went missing, violence in the area slowed to a trickle. Almost shut down. When the cordon was lifted, bodies piling up again. If you have a gun and you’re not in uniform, let’s put them in jail. Right to bear arms might have to be suspended, or at least restricted to something reasonable-no semiautomatics, for example, or anything armor-piercing. Arm the Iraqi police and Iraqi military, and of course our people. No one else has a license to carry. Let’s set up meta detectors, for God’s sake. Though I’m sure we have, I’m just ranting. If we’re going to do it, let’s do it. If we’ve identified the Mahdi Army as a criminal entity, go after it. A country with this much chaos, the kidnappings and other atrocities are no big surprise-especially in a country where everyone seems to have a gun. We created the power vaccuum that created this chaos. But we can’t create something to fill the void with authority quite as easily. It will take time. And we should see them through it. But that means settling in for the long term, which may-almost must-mean pulling back numerically so we can rotate troops.
    Look, I’m being honest here. I really don’t understand why we went in the way we did. I think the WMD thing was a smokescreen for something. What I will not do is guess what it is. I think it will be clear in time, and in the meantime it’s probably just another case of people being people, going after power in some way. Simply the way it is. And as long as we’re there, let’s do what we should. But let’s remember we’re supposed to have ideals, maybe remember Afghanistan–and send some serious help for Darfur. Economic pressure is not working fast enough, and isn’t being implemented by our country on a uniform basis anyway.
    The only worth I see in the non-binding resolution-didn’t pass the Senate, did it?-is that it showed the rest of the world that there is dissension at high levels. This was somewhat of a reassurance to my Iranian friend, who has very little respect for his current government and plots to outwit the mullahs by kissing girls and drinking in the forest, telling him that we can have the same problem, to a degree. That our whole country does not agree with what has been said about his country by our president-axis of evil, and all that. The difference is, Bush has a term limit. Our leadership can change-peacefully. So my young friend understands that America is not really his enemy. There’s so much fear in Iran. Arab nations are claiming Iran is the enemy, they are pulling the strings in Iraq, along with us. So they are painted with our brush, yet do not receive the benefit of being our ally. So they allign themselves with Iraq. The two cultures are intertwined, always have been. Why not join in? Start talking to Iran. Just talk. The resolution stating they did not approve of the war, or of actions taken during its pursuit, makes more than a political point. It makes a nineteen-year-old boy in Teheran feel a little less hated. Oh, enough for now, it’s after one in the morning. Did this make my position-if you can call what I have a position-any clearer?

  87. surfsander Says:

    Sorry for taking so long to reply, and now only briefly, for it is quite late. Agree with most of what you’re saying and I’m glad that you seem to have a grasp on the subject. By saying that the Moors occupied parts of Spain, I was simply pointing out what you have in your latest reply about people being people as you stated. I also wanted to point out that they were also responsible for unprovoked acts of aggression/expansion. As far as their religion goes, I could care less what religion they practice, but don’t try and think that because they believe in whatever that the whole world needs to share their views in order to be able to coexist. I could go on for hours about these things but I am quite tired and so will postpone this conversation to a later date, at which, I hope that you are involved.
    As for the Iraq situation, it was the media who turned it into the possiblity of WMD’s being the focal point of the path to war, the administration then followed their lead in making it the prime reason because it was something that they new the people would rally behind. As far as the reasons they had behind closed doors (the real reasons) I have my assumptions but would not dare speculate them as a topic of discussion here, because all it would be IS pure speculation without hard facts. But, your view of staying the course and getting the job done at all costs, I couldn’t agree with more.

    Now we get on the topic of Iran. I refuse to even begin to go into that one because of the hour. I feel for your friend and I am sincerely glad to hear that he is concerned with the leadership in that country because that means he realizes that his leaders are making it harder for alot of nations, not just the U.S. to come to the table, but the blame is, as always, not one sided. Again, a future discussion.
    To all on this site,… Best wishes no matter which side of the aisle, or which side of the globe. It was very enjoyable and I will be back again now that I have found it.

  88. anonymous Says:

    You’re an idiot. You seem to think that being against the war is being against the troops and the two things are in no way separable. Of course they are, but you’re an idiot.

  89. FavoTube Says:

    This is an interesting post, thanks.

  90. Targeted Web Traffic Says:

    I agree, thanks for the article.

  91. britandgrit Says:

    Hi FavoTube and Targeted,

    Thanks for the complement and thank you for stopping by. Don’t be strangers.

    anonymous, then you are the idiot 😉 since that is not at all what I think or said. The point is that this sort of political farce can only give the impression to our troops that they are fighting for nothing and that they are not competent enough to win.

    surfsander and echo, echo, … What a great discussion. As to the reasons for the war, there were several and WMD was only a minor one. The primary reason,as Bush stated several times, was that, once terrorists demonstrated that a single attack could do great damage, it was necessary to take out Saddam because he was likely to sponsor such activity. After all, he was continuing to pocket billions of dollars through the corruption of the oil for food program, and had shown eagerness to assist terrorist organizations in the past. The second reason for the war was to attempt at forming a stable democratic country in the Middle East as a means toward calming the entire area down. That was a good idea, as one can see from the efforts of our enemies in the area to prevent it.

    Brent, thanks for swinging by again. You’re right, at the heart of the issue is a power struggle. Democrats have disliked our military since President Johnson made such a mess of Nam. Since then, they have done everything in their power to reduce the size of our forces and deny them the supplies and training they need. This is one big reason, expanding and modernizing our military during the Cold War, they hate Regan so badly. Remember also, that President Clinton made a big deal about cutting Government jobs, almost all of which were reductions in the size of our Armed Forces. Apparently, the Democrats want to spend the military budget on new social programs with which to buy more votes.

    Everyone else, thanks so much for visiting.

    the Grit

  92. dailymuse Says:

    Because one disagrees with the President’s policy doesn’t mean that one doesn’t support the troops. Supporting the troops means giving them the body armor they need; not putting a yellow ribbon on your bumper and blaming liberals for every problem in the world– as many conservatives love to do.

    And supporting the troops means giving them a clear strategy. If I hear Tony Snow say one more time, “The strategy is to WIN”, I think I’m gonna puke. Tony… “to win” is a GOAL, not a strategy.

  93. Stephen Stills Says:

    “Nobody’s Right If Everybody’s Wrong”

  94. britandgrit Says:

    Hi dailymuse,

    I’ve already covered the supporting our troops part. As to the strategy thing, true, that is a simplified sound bite answer. However, stating an exact strategy in such a changing conflict would be pointless.

    Stephen, thanks.

    the Grit

  95. dailymuse Says:

    Excellent points weluckyfew.

  96. dailymuse Says:

    grit… I’ve scanned this entire thread and do not see where you address the my point about supporting the troops. Perhaps you can quote it again for me (as this is a very long thread and it may have gotten lost). Supporting the troops means real support, in terms of more that enough funds for the protection of the troops we already have over there. It means REAL support, not just “I-support-the-troops-because-I-say-so support” as many conservatives tend to ascribe to. Tell me why, with the clear Republican majorities and Presidency over the last few years, do troops have to scrounge trash heaps for body armor? Why aren’t their enough adequately armored vehicles for them? Why are troops being sent in without adequate training? Providing these for them would be REAL SUPPORT for our troops. Supporting a failed policy is not support for the troops.

  97. Tim Says:

    And in yet another post, with the exception of a brief tirade about the holy land, we have the predictable name-calling from the left and right. Thank you Rush and Al Franken.

    Interestingly Grit, you’ve lambasted a some for name-calling, when re-reading the original post reveals quite a bit of that. You might want to use “fair and balanced” terminology if you’re going to bash people commenting for stating the opposite side in similar terms. As with the Iraq video post, this debate shows all the intolerance and silliness of the current American political process.

    Reading wordpress posts about politics is getting to be like reading the brainless Mac vs. PC debates on Slashdot. People sit around getting pissed off, and NOBODY walks away from this thread with more information or understanding. Please. Tell me. HOW does this add anything to the current political discussion? How does this do anything other than simply push ONE VIEW.

    The Radical Islamist loves the monoculture (complete unification of thought and behavior). They hate diversity. Do we really want America to become a monoculture? Is that truly in our benefit? Sadly, I’m afraid that most of the people reading this post will say “YES, as long as it’s MY monoculture.”

    Long-term strength doesn’t come from blind unity and the abandonment of opinion. Long term strength comes from collaboration and unity of PURPOSE. Unity of purpose comes from… ahhh… what’s the point? – Tim

  98. dailymuse Says:

    I like that Tim.

  99. blucollar10940 Says:

    I’m going to add my two cents here…My dad passed away a year and a half ago, he was a korean war vet. He was totally against this action. While saddam was evil, and I cry no tears about he and his sons being gone, the problems in this war torn country continue, even in their passing. My problem here is the fact that we haven’t finished the job in afganistan yet…Osama is still not caught, and the ” Axis of Evil ” ( you go Bush ) is still spreading. This will beome a two edged sword in the end…I have already predicted that this war will still be going on way after Bush leaves office, the problem becomes for the next administration, do we continue to keep expending americans in a war with people who just are too willing to kill themselves in the name of their god? No easy answers here, but as a people we sent a message back in November that we want a change in the course if you will, and I guess it’s easy to want to stay the course when it’s not your son’s and daughters losing their lives is it?

  100. thelonedrifter Says:

    No, we don’t want a monoculture. We just want people who have guts. dailymuse, to charge the President with not providing enough body armor is rather juvenile and shows how little you really know about both the military and military funding. First of all, only now are vehicles with the manueverability, versitility, speed of the Humvee, which are also impervious to IED’s and the like, only now are these being researched. New materials are finally being discovered to help the armor of these vehicles, but is not a fast process. Also, to have the troops walking around in armor resembling that of the ancient knight would serve no purpose. Special forces often wear less armor than what we would think is necessary to give them greater speed and freedom of movement. This is much more important to them than to be a lumbering giant, because lumbering giants are easy targets. Why do you think today’s tanks are all about speed and accuracy on the fly? I have a friend in the Army Reserves who drives combat vehicles, and trust me, he doesn’t stinking care how much armor the vehicle has, as long as it provides him a distinct battle advantage, which lighter vehicles do.

    Also, to charge our president with not providing enough armor shows just how little you pay attention to congressional and other proceedings in Washington. The President has done nothing but raise military spending. Whether you agree with this or not, he’s certainly not withholding armor. Murtha could care less about armor for the troops. He has shown that it doesn’t matter what good happens over there, he will rejoice in the death of our troops because it gives him power.

  101. surfsander Says:

    Yes, we do want a change of action, that much is obvious, however do we believe that the average American truly knows what that cjange of action is or is going to be? No. We are not in charge of the military, we do not have access to the information that those people do and so we can throw ideas out that are just as useless to the situation as a “non-binding” vote. Also you assume, that it’s not our sons and daughters, brothers and cousins who are out there, please do not jump to the conclusion that some of us do not realize what the cost in loved-ones lives by spouting that intentionally emotionally charged phrase.
    Secondly, to all of those who claim Bush is sending our troops without body armor, the President gives the military the budget and THEY decide how to spend it based on what they think they need. He is an executive administrator, not a micro manager, he does not have the time to sit down with everything he decides to fund to see where every penny goes. Do you really want a politician deciding how many rations, replacement alternators, tank treads, munitions, fuel, and yes, body armor, each individual gets? I’m not trying to defend Bush blindly but I would rather place the blame where it lies, not just on the shoulders of an administration that is in office at the time.

  102. dailymuse Says:

    Had politicians wanted to really support the troops they would not have allowed the ‘Trophy system’ (which can protect US tanks against 98% of rocket launched against them) be delayed because of rather than buying an already working system, developed by Israelis, the US wants to develop their own. Talk about idiocy. Politicians, particularly this Republican administration (and the previously Republican controlled congress) are too beholding to the military-industrial complex. Their actions in this matter show that corporate profits are more important to them than providing adequate support for our troops.

    pertinent links:

    Speaking of all this military spending you mention … how are conservative tax cuts going to pay for this war? I’ll tell you how… they’re not. Who’s gonna pay for this war are our children… and our children’s children… and the poor, who’s programs will be cut due to the compassionate conservative politicians who got us into this mess… and last but not least and the middle class who have a larger tax burden than ever before. All for the rich man’s war.

  103. wws Says:

    Grit, you said: “As to the reasons for the war, there were several and WMD was only a minor one.” Really, the WMDs were only a minor factor in our discussion of whether to go to war? I am hoping this is just some kind of unintentional error and not a malicious re-writing of American history. Grit, are you claiming to have forgotten the events that unfolded prior to the war? First, the issue of Iraq’s disarmament in 2002 and 2003 dominated the pre-war debate. Remember Hans Blix, the evidence showing that Iraq could produce WMDs, and the so-called “eighteenth resolution” giving Iraq a deadline to comply before possible military intervention? To downplay the WMD issue as a “minor part” of the reasons justifying the war is simply propagandistic. How many times have you heard a cowed democrat say “well… based on the evidence of the WMDs I voted for the war… but…”

    You are correct that there were many reasons for the war, among them:

  104. wws Says:

    Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
    Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
    Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
    Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
    Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
    Members of al-Qaida were “known to be in Iraq”
    Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations
    Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
    The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
    The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

  105. britandgrit Says:

    Hi dailymuse,

    Here you go:

    The point is that this sort of political farce can only give the impression to our troops that they are fighting for nothing and that they are not competent enough to win.

    This has gotten unusually long, but it’s a good discussion. As to real support for the troops, they have the best equipment possible. All the talk of not giving them body armor or armored Humvees is just politics. Any temporary shortages were due to changes in need to counter changes in how the war is being fought. What the troops need most is moral support from the people of America. The attitude of many Democrats is far too close to that shown our troops returning from Vietnam.

    blucollar10940, it was mentioned often before we got into this war that it would be a lengthy undertaking. It was also mentioned that this was just one front. Is it the best course, who knows? If the last elections sent a message about how to proceed in Iraq, it was a whisper. The number of seats that changed hands is tiny. As to Afghanistan, we can’t win there without either the cooperation of Pakistan or invading that country.

    thelonedrifter, surfsande, well said.

    the Grit

  106. wws Says:

    My point is, though, that for several Americans, myself included, the WMDs were the only real reason worth going to war. Please, oh please, do not give me that “Saddam was a tyrant” crap. So are many of the world’s leaders, and the atrocities committed by Saddam pale in comparison to some being committed in Africa where genocide and lawlessness reign supreme. It is too late to make this about America being the world’s police force. Furthermore, America shouldn’t try to police the world since all it brings us is foreign distrust and hate. We all know that America rallied around this war b/c we were afraid of the idea that a terrorist could get a WMD from Saddam. Once that threat was discovered to be bogus, we should have left Iraq to self-rule. If they reject their freedom, that is their decision.

  107. wws Says:

    As for it being their decision, remember that democracy is inherently about choice. While communism leaves one no choice but to become another cog in a mediocre national machine, democracy allows us to aspire to reach our ideals. This is what I don’t understand about this Iraq experiment. If democracy is about choice, then how do you force it on someone? Inherently, the Iraqi society must choose “Choice” and embrace democracy, or they will be forced back into a radical dictatorship in which choice is replaced with fascist orders. In short, I believe true democracy can only be created by genuine revolution, and that no country can “force” democracy on anyone. Communism and fascism though, they can be forced….

  108. dailymuse Says:

    I hear you grit… but at the end of the day… moral support and a yellow ribbon isn’t gonna provide defense from a rocket attack. What would show our true moral support are actions that really support them, better defenses for them. For instance the Trophy system that I mentioned above. Thats being delayed for the sake of greed.

    I beg to differ that they have everything they need defense-wise. Equipment issues aside, there still has been no clear strategy laid out. (Other than to trow more troops in there and win.) It’s the responsibility of the Executive branch to set the strategy.

    It’s getting clearer that our own troops don’t know who the enemies are over there anymore. Over here we can dress it up as a ‘war on terror’. But over there, they’re in the middle of a civil war. Let’s stop playing politics with our troops lives.

    I’ve noticed that you’ve started to moderate my comments. Please note that I’m not the one in hear calling people names. So if you are doing this simply because we disagree, that’s very disappointing… but your prerogative I suppose.

  109. dailymuse Says:

    very good point wws… perhaps this will finally teach us our final lesson about nation building. Don’t do it.

    Funny, that nation building is exactly what Bush said he wouldn’t do when he got into office.

  110. dailymuse Says:

    grit… whoops… I just realized that my post went into moderation because of the links I put it. Sorry about the jab. My apologies… my it’s getting hot in here. I need a break.

  111. surfsander Says:

    So true about the impression that the congress is giving the troops in the field and here at home. This kind of action only serves to diminish morale. To illustrate this, in college, in my psych class, we learned of an experiment that was performed. A perfectly healthy person was told that they look ill everyday, and within a month, sure enough, they truly did fall ill. Whether it was unrelated to the experiment is hard to say, having so many uncontrolled aspects, but psychosomatic illnesses are a fact. Now, relate this to the action that congress took. You have the upper echelon of our society, people that many trust to “know what’s best for us,” telling our military that they can’t win they can’t get the job done. Can you honestly believe that this has no effect on our troops? On the public at large?

  112. britandgrit Says:

    Hi dailymuse,

    Sorry your comment got held as spam. Check my posts on spam to see some of the things we get.

    As to buying military from Israel, that would be outsourcing jobs. Hardly something that is going to fly in Washington these days.

    As to tax cuts, I wrote about that here: Lower taxes, higher revenue. By the way, you are wrong about the distribution of the tax burden. The top brackets pay a higher percentage of total collections NOW than they did before the tax cuts. The only tax increasing on the middle class is the alternative minimum tax, as inflation is pushing more people to income levels where they are included in this Democratic attempt to rob the rich. There were several attempts to change the law while Republicans were in charge, but they were blocked in the Senate.

    wws, you are correct. However, my impression was that the WMD issue was not the most important reason to the President. At the time, it seemed he was putting more emphasis on attempting to stabilize the Middle East. If I get the chance, I’ll ask him about that.

    the Grit

  113. surfsander Says:

    The executive branch decides which strategy to approve, and is not responsible for the creation of such a strategy. Again, do you really want a politician to make the decisions that the military should make? They say, “here are our options,” and the President chooses what he feels to be the best one.

  114. thelonedrifter Says:

    wws, I do agree that the Iraqi’s have to make the choice to be free. But perhaps they have. Do you remember the troops rolled into Baghdad? Do you remember what the Iraqis did to that statue of Saddam?

    The fact is that the vast majority of Iraqis, just like the vast majority of Americans, want freedom. Yet there are a few radicals (Islamo-fascists in Iraq, liberal college professors in the U.S.) who want us to simply do what they say. Because they are loud (suicide bombers and IED’s in Iraq, hollwood stars and “scientific” studies in the U.S.) it appears that they are the majority. Not so. Also, please remember that many of the insurgents are from Iran or Syria. And whenever a crackdown on the borders is put in place in Iraq, then the bombings inevitably go down. The problem is, you are misinformed by the mass media, which, as media is prone to do, only reports the bad news.

    dailymuse, the problem with your opinion is that you are only viewing through the limited scope of today. Look at the wars America has fought in the past. The armor and weaponry she has today is so far beyond the rest of the world that it’s not even worth discussing. You completely did not deal with my comments that the troops are actually better off when equipped with lighter armor. View this through the past wars and you will see that not only have the casualties been far fewer, the battle is in fact much more in favor of the U.S.

  115. surfsander Says:

    We are trying to help Iraq to be in a position to self rule. That is why we are still there! If you think the violence is bad now let’s up and leave today; tomorrow, the death rate in Iraq would triple…at least. We would then be blamed by the world for abandoning the Iraqis to the hands of criminals, terrorists, and supremacists. Then the suffering would begin all over again for the Iraqis as well as the U.S. because we would have to expend more money and time and lives to go back there and find ourselves in the same situation that we are now in.

  116. dailymuse Says:

    surfsande.. I didn’t say it’s the executive branches responsibility to create it… I said to SET it… which is exactly how you described. They make the choice and set it on course. I agree with your point of why would you let politicians make those choices, particularly when they are they begging to actively, deliberately influence the strategies influencing intelligence. I agree let the generals make the decisions. Of course, if Bush disagrees with a general at the time he tells him to take a hike (with much irony here: So again who’s making military decisions?

  117. britandgrit Says:

    Hi all,

    Let me say that it’s great having this many people in the discussion. Thank you all.

    wws, I see your point. You can’t force democracy on people, but you can offer them the chance to accept it. At this point, due to out side agitators, they haven’t yet had that chance.

    dailymuse, honestly I am not up to date on military stuff at the moment. It’s been a hectic year, and I am way behind my reading. As to the strategy in Iraq, it would be almost impossible to give one. The situation there is changing much too rapidly for an inflexible approach. You might notice that although many complain about this, the only alternative offered is to pull out, which would come back to bite us later.

    I hate having the moderation on, but I hate even more reading ads on subjects ranging from drugs to child porn. It’s another one of those annoying things that we have to live with. The Brit and I value all of our guests, particularly the ones who take time to comment. I also have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Just check out our blogroll for proof. Politics Plus is about as politically liberal a site as I’ve run across, but TomCat is a pleasant fellow and I swing by as often as possible. Also note Open Mind, run by tamino. I don’t know if you’ve read any of our posts on Global Warming, but we get called “deniers” frequently. However, tamino offers lots of valuable information and explanations on the subject which are well worth looking at. So don’t worry, we want your company.

    surfsander, it’s the start of the same thing that happened in Vietnam. It’s the next step after the ridiculous attempt by Rangle to bring back the draft.

    the Grit

  118. surfsander Says:

    I just read your comment on the trophy system. I agree that the Israeli system is already up and running and that it would be a fantastic thing for our military to have, but I just have a REAL problem with getting in the habit of our country depending on a foreign country to build our military equipment. Call me crazy, call me skeptical, but I just don’t see that taking us to a good place, especially when we have the resources and capability to do it ourselves. Israeli made,…I don’t deny the urgency of such a system, but it sets a precedence that, I fear, will come back to haunt us.

  119. surfsander Says:

    I agree, it STARTS with a whimper, not with a bang. It will be Vietnam all over again, where do you think they learned the tactics? Well, at least someone is paying attention to history, too bad it’s not our leaders.

  120. surfsander Says:

    To everyone,
    I just realized that I said it was vietnam all over again, please do not misunderstand that I was referring to the politics and media, and NOT the war and troops themselves. I will try to better communicate my thoughts in the future, sometimes I can’t type as fast as I think and somethings get tangled.

  121. dailymuse Says:

    lonedrifter… and you haven’t dealt with my comment about the Trophy System. My point stands though that they under equipped (with available technology) and reports are surfacing that they are deploying them under trained as well.

    You know what though, we can all pick and choose our battles here on this thread- taking pop shots at each other. But what about our troops? They have put their full faith and fate in an administration that is abysmal, has made horrible choices for this country and continues to do so. They do this so that we may all do exactly what we are doing, freely exchange our opinions with one another without fear of going to jail or being killed because of it.

    Now I’ll admit that this resolution is pretty toothless as it is, but sometime somewhere someone has to stop this mad trainwreck of a policy. And if that’s the how it starts… then that’s how it starts. To rely solely on the empty rhetoric of “supporting the troops” as a reason to continue to support this blind administration is bull. Particularly when its our troops getting the raw end of the deal.

  122. dailymuse Says:

    surfsander… so you would delay that system and allow troops to die because you just don’t think it’s a good thing for us to use foreign equipment. Gee, I wonder if the mother of one of those troops killed during the delay will agree with you.

    Perhaps the “world is flat” conservatives wouldn’t agree with you. Then again, that’s only about cheap labor. Management needs to stay in the homeland, right? The management of the US military-industrial complex, which is pulling all these strings, is mighty powerful. They wouldn’t want to lose all that Wall Street profit for their shareholders. So what’s a few soldiers lives in the meantime till we get it up and running. Got to keep up those dividends!

  123. dailymuse Says:

    grit… in case you didn’t see, I already apologized about my jab about being ‘moderated’. I completely understand.

  124. dailymuse Says:

    Got to go for the while everybody… Nice disagreeing you!

  125. surfsander Says:

    I agree with your post for the most part. I have not seen the reports of them being under trained so I don’t know what it says, but let’s be honest, can anyone adequately train soldiers that have not experienced anything like this in their lifetime? That’s not a cop out, but merely a rhetorical question to illustrate that undertrained is a severely broad statement.

  126. surfsander Says:

    I know you have left but for everyone else, I never said it was an easy decision to make, I know the consequences of such a decision and on a personal level I don’t agree with it, but, all personal and economic reasons aside, outsourcing military weapons is a very bad idea because you never know what the future holds and I don’t want to depend on a foreign country to build our military. That is NOT a wise idea.

  127. surfsander Says:

    Got to go everyone. I’ll check back later. It was another day of enjoyable discussion.

  128. dailymuse Says:

    One last look here, for now before I go…

    surfsander… I’ll try to find the sources for you, but I recently heard news reports that in order to fill the slots the military is relying on many reserve military personnel who were originally trained for non-combat positions. and that they are rushing them through. Of course, there have also been reports that the military recruitment standards are significantly lower now, including educational standards and recruiting many with criminal records. Again, I will try to find sources for these points.

    everyone…I would like to make a general point about much being said on this thread. There is alot of opinion being bandied about willy nilly with no back up links to support arguments. I think for credible arguments to be bought, they have to have back-up from credible sources… particularly in the political realm that we are playing. I will try the best I can to do that.

  129. thelonedrifter Says:

    As you have not responded to my statement about a light, guerrila type of warfare, dailymuse. I am not aware of the Trophy System, I must confess. However, I am aware that your statement that our troops are undertrained is a gross misunderstanding, once again, of the military. Anytime, anyplace, our troops are called on to put their necks on the line for this country, they inevitably come through if given the proper coordination from the top. Even in disasters like Mogadishu (I think it was Mogadishu), while numbers of them may have died they take down a lot more bad guys then bad guys take down them. You want to know why terrorists fight like cowards with IED’s and suicide bombings? Because that’s a very difficult type of attack to stop, no matter what your training. Because the training of our troops is such that they pound the terrorists when in head-to-head combat. Absolute destruction. No matter the arena, no matter the circumstances.

  130. britandgrit Says:

    Hi dailymuse,

    I did not intend to jab back at you, but was only using your unfortunate run in with our spam guard as an excuse to explain our attitude toward people who are nice enough to comment. In my opinion, the biggest problem we have as a country is that we can no longer engage in calm discussion of political matters unless everyone involved is in general agreement. It’s one reason I like blogging so much; even if people get mad, it’s not very likely to lead to bashing each other over the head with beer bottles.

    With that out of the way, I would point out that, if not for the drastic cuts to the military under the Clinton administration, we would not need to rely so heavily on our part time soldiers. I would also ask our Political Powers That Be, why they haven’t restored our military to it’s Cold War size since 9/11?

    As to links, I try to do that as well, but in this fast flowing discussion, it’s difficult to keep up. Now, if my cable company would get off it’s ass and run cable modem service out here as promised, things might be different! Is there anyone else out there still working off a dial up connection? I feel so alone 🙂

    As to how our troops feel, I’ve only talked to a handful since the war mutated into its current state, but those were unanimously in favor of finishing what we’ve started. One man, a Major, was home on leave to attend his daughter’s wedding. He was ticked that his unit was involved in the action that resulted in the deaths of Saddam’s sons. He also mentioned a fact that was left out of the news; many of the initial problems came from the pre-war release of all criminals by Saddam. However, if you want a real measure of how our troops feel, the fact that re-enlistment numbers are up, despite the heavy call to duty, says a lot.

    Thanks everyone! I’m greatly enjoying this discourse. As we are about to move to our own domain, y’all have inspired me to investigate the possibility of adding a discussion board. What do you think, Brit?

    the Grit

  131. surfsander Says:

    Back momentarily,
    Don’t mean to pick you out, but just a comment about the world is flat conservatives, let’s not forget what party was responsible for NAFTA. Looking forward to the links on ‘undertrained’
    Good call on the head on fight, as I believe someone mentioned earlier, the Tet offensive illustrates this point. Too bad the media didn’t portray it as so.
    Three words–‘discussion board, please!’ If only for those of us who are presently involved in the current discussion. I look forward to continuing this and other topics with all of you. And Grit, especially this Global warming topic, (I’ll jump over to that one when I come back later to check it out.)
    Bye for now.

  132. Tim Says:


    The reason we don’t have civilized discourse in this country is an absolute lack of trust. Read virtually any comment in this thread, and you can find a significant trust issue. We have the most basic problem noted in Lencioni’s “Five Dysfunctions of a Team,” but we have it on a national level! Until we can learn to trust someone from the other side of the aisle (and trust that they too, have the best interest of the US at heart, and not their own), we won’t be able to have “healthy conflict” that leads anywhere. Without that, the other three dysfunctions are certain to follow.

    It’s not just a matter of us distrusting the motives of politicians or military leaders. We don’t trust our neighbor who’s registered for a different political party. Our kids may go to the same schools, we may sit in the same pew at church, or we may sit in the same section at the ball game, but if someone is registered to the other party (or says something complimentary of them), we immediately “flip the bozo bit.”

    Now, with that said, there are the beginnings of trust in a couple of comments here. Instead of just looking at lonedrifter or dailymuse or wws or Grit and say “oh yeah… another one of THOSE guys,” we need to find out why someone else thinks the way they do. Maybe they have lousy reasons, or maybe the reasons are good. However, until we get to the point where someone can say “Even though I disagree with _______, I am convinced that they are just as committed to our country, and love it as much as I do,” then we won’t even bother with reasonable debate. Until that happens, we’ll just sit around and call each other names. – Tim

  133. britandgrit Says:

    Hi surfsander,

    I get the feeling that a discussion board is possible. The question is, are my computer skills up to the task? I took me four hours the other day to add Google Analytics to our new blog, something that should have taken, at most, 20 minutes! Of course, the fact that I did it demonstrates my stubbornness! Dang, I take 5 or 6 years off of programming to try my hand at farming, and the world changes. Go figure.

    To all who have participated in this discussion, before we hit the Internet lottery, and my post on “Pelosi Smiling” garnered such attention, the Brit and I were in the process of moving our blog to our own domain. Yes, we now own our own virtual world! Ah, the rush from that!

    However, the motivation is to have a bit more freedom to let us say what we want to say, and in the way we want to say it. Plus, having a bit more control over the background in which what we say is presented is important. Oh, and, being good capitalists, if we happened to make a little pocket chance in the process, that would be nice. So, sometime this week, if we don’t get side tracked (we’re still in a quandary over the color scheme), we will post a notice pointing to our new blog.

    Y’all have been such good guests, we would be most proud to have you visit us at our new home.

    the Grit

  134. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Tim,

    Great insight. I’m not sure when we developed this great divide. Back in my college days (the 70s), we could discuss almost anything over, a game of bridge, without things sinking to the level of generalized name calling we have today. Where did we go astray?

    Don’t be a stranger.

    the Grit

  135. surfsander Says:

    I don’t think my last comment posted, so at the risk of repeating myself:

    Grit, I hope to follow you to your new domain.
    I honestly believe that most everyone here has, what they feel to be, the best intrest of their country at heart. While I may not agree with some of the things they say, I do respect them for taking the time to express what they feel is the best course of action. The only problem that I see with this type of discussion is that, the opinions that are tossed back and forth, are based on the information we receive from the media. How can we trust a news source that is openly siding with one or the other political parties? It is not the fault of the people who express their opinions here that the information they are getting is intentionally guiding all of us to choose a side; it is in their diction: red, blue, left, right. They make it one or the other, no middle ground to be had for any of us. They leave us to speculate on the facts that are not stated, the rest of the story that will go unheard and then want to hold the American public resposible for not being better informed on the representatives that are elected by saying “this is what the ‘moral majority’ has done for us!” How can we, here, as citizens, make informed decisions on candidates when we know that we are only receiving the information that they want us to hear about them? Yes, you are right, there is a trust issue underlying almost every thread in this discussion, can you blame us? It’s not that I don’t trust the people expressing their opinions, I don’t trust the information that ANY ONE OF US is receiving. I for one have lost almost all faith in both political parties. I believe that the time is past due for a viable third party. One that represents the intrests of the people. Candidates who are not in other people’s pockets so that they only have to answer to the welfare of the nation and protecting the intrests of the people. I understand that this is extreme idealism, and I consider myself to be a realist. I understand that we all live in a real world, and idealistic beliefs are about as attainable as dreams. But I feel that this is one dream worth having, even if only as an ideal.
    And Tim, I trust my neighbors, friends, and family to do right by me, my fiancee, and my home, regardless of what party they are affiliated with. I realize that politics are very personal views, but I also know that they should not affect how we regard one another in day to day life.
    Best wishes to all,

  136. thelonedrifter Says:

    There is a distinct lack of trust in this country, that I will agree with. However, I don’t think that’s anything new. Late last fall I went to the Abraham Lincoln Museum in Springfield, Illinois. One of the exhibits featured a room where you heard actors voicing the various derogatory statements made about him and his family. Some of the stuff we have now pales in comparison.

  137. britandgrit Says:

    Hi surfsander,

    You will be most welcome. We’re looking at, maybe, Thursday for the switch.

    thelonedrifter, that is what the Founding Fathers meant by freedom of the press. Many of the political news papers from that time were quite nasty. Of course, there were frequent fist fights in Congress, and, if memory serves, at one point they had to pass a rule forcing Representatives to leave their pistols in the cloak rooms to prevent shootings during debates. Good times, good times.

    the Grit

  138. extrapolater Says:

    Wow. Tempest in a teapot much?

  139. Corey Clayton Says:

    Very nice…I too think the Dems should advance the “cut the funding” bill, just so the American people can see where their reps stand.

    And then, we’ll see which of the soldiers’ parents stand up for the Dems’ efforts to cut their sons’ and daughters’ safety, equipment, and so on.

  140. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Corey,

    Well, the Democrats have, for a long time, been just as happy with symbolism as with substance. After all, if you have no real political ideology beyond staying in power, symbolism is so much easier to accomplish.

    the Grit

  141. Ed Darrell Says:

    Democrats “cut the funding” bill? Hey, it was George Bush who threatened to veto armor for the troops, because, he said, it costs too much.

    And it’s on George Bush’s watch that we find Iraqi veterans, amputees, housed in rat-infested, moldy hospital rooms. Bush is too busy and too cheap to do his sworn duty.

    Don’t lay that traitor crap on Democrats with chicken president who urinates on veterans every chance he gets.

  142. Sgt. Dave T. Says:

    Response to “weluckyfew” ~

    You sir, are NOT enlightened while the rest of us plunder in the darkness. Pop your little swollen head and get a grip on reality. In fact, you have been blindsided and brainwashed by the mass. Wake up and smell the napalm before it’s on your doorstep. Yes.. if all keeps going as it is, this country is in mucho troublo (a little slang there for all our illegal aliens out there that you liberals love so much), and naplam thrown on your house by some “tolerated and understood” illegal is what you will have reaped. The problem of course, is that you commies are taking the rest of us with you in your “meth” blinded search for nirvana.
    I feel sorry for your spawn…

  143. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Sgt.,

    I just wanted to point out that the Brit and I have moved. Being good capitalists, we purchased our own domain. We would value your participation at:

    the Grit

  144. Larry Hinze Says:

    Brit? You accuse me of incohernent ramblings and not being civil? Read the posts…I think you folks have it covered. You must be the same loony crowd that say Bill O’Lying has a great show on the tube. Don’t say LIBERALS like you are any better than me. You are just corporate dollar chasers that want more lies covered up. Call me names. Make accusations, Brit… that is what Repube’s do best! Don’t need to answer, I am gone forever! And so will be the Republican “AGENDA.”

    Brit…are you a capitalist-or an opportunist screwing anything that walks?

  145. Achieve Leadership Says:

    Achieve Leadership

    Achieve Leadership

  146. Carol G. Says:

    As a woman, and in terms of sisterhood, Pelosi let me down big time. More than the current issue, but multiple “wet noodle” reactions that she gave. She is a token, spineless man. She will only ever be a token in the history of the U.S. government.

    (Paul, if you could contact me, I have a question. I need your answer like the good old days on the community board,)

  147. Generic Anabolic Steroid Says:

    Generic Anabolic Steroid

    Generic Anabolic Steroid

  148. Bextra Overdose Says:

    Bextra Overdose

    Bextra Overdose

  149. Ed Darrell Says:

    For someone working with barely more than a razor-thin majority, Pelosi’s doing great. She has 50% of the House — the Republicans — working hard to make sure no budget bills pass at all.

    Don’t blame Nancy Pelosi for the ill-will and malfeasance of the Republicans, please.

  150. mahtob Says:

    Not bad

  151. Make money online Says:

    Pelosi smiles while Democrats spit on our troops! | Conversations with Brit

Leave a Reply to The Middler Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: