See other Editorial Articles
Title: The Price We Will Pay For Reid's Perfidy
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news ... 7&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6
Published: May 10, 2007
Author: Douglas J. Allan
Post Date: 2007-05-10 13:59:44 by BeAChooser
Keywords: None
Views: 503
Comments: 43
The Price We Will Pay For Reid's Perfidy By: Douglas J. Allan, For The Bulletin 05/10/2007 If Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, is not a traitor, then the word has no meaning. Mr. Reid, as the entire world now knows, said last week that the war in Iraq is already lost. This week we learn that Senator Reid's remarks are being quoted on Islamist jihad Web sites. The damage Reid and his comrades have done to the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan is incalculable. Their primary motivation of course, has been to try to make Bush and the Republican administration look bad or incompetent, in order to seize political power. Claims of their "supporting the troops" are exposed by their continuous undermining of the very mission carried out by those troops. Now Congressman John Murtha is talking about impeaching the president. Reid, Murtha and Co. have attacked and vilified Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, Tom DeLay, and above all, Karl Rove. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the notable exception, because she is a black female, and attacking her might hurt them politically. Such principles have these honorable men. Some observations and background. First of all, no one can predict a war's outcome with certainty. Neither Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld nor Tommy Franks ever made any claim of knowing the future. They spoke in probabilities, both about the war and likely events after. The Democrats and "mainstream media" (a disingenuous misnomer) claim we rushed into war. That is demonstrably false, and General Franks, the man who led us in battle, recently confirmed that exactly the opposite was true. Bush deliberated for many months, advised by many of the world's top experts. Saddam had to go, for many reasons, and most Democrats supported the mission - at least when it served them politically. Our country's leaders were the architects of one of the greatest - and shortest - major military victories in history. It wasn't just because of our military's superb capabilities; it was because of the tremendous talent and planning that went into the war. The Democrats and their "mainstream media" lackeys then claimed that there wasn't any planning for the aftermath. That is false. There were hundreds at the Pentagon alone working on various scenarios including a civil war directly following the 2003 campaign. We now know that Saddam planned an insurgency among the Sunnis before we even attacked, as he knew very well the U.S. would prevail in an all-out war. Many Shiites then rallied around the murderous cleric Al Sadr, backed by Iran and Syria which supplied weapons and IED's, anticipating an oil grab. Al-Qaida, decimated or worse in Afghanistan, has now been reborn in Iraq and is working to kill all the innocents they can - to intimidate the masses and grab power themselves when chaos results. There is only one force stopping them - the United States military, and the Iraqi army and policeman we're training. If you read Soldier of Fortune, or Oliver North's columns, or go to any military oriented site, or talk to several soldiers, instead of "the BBC reporting from Toronto," or Katie Couric, military expert, you will learn that we are winning overwhelmingly. Our troops are killing 20 terrorists for every one of our own, and are ready to stay - and adapt - until the insurgency is no more. Yes, the troops are overextended, overworked, and sleep deprived. They are also gung-ho, believe in the mission, and they will prevail, if only we let them. Much of the country is pacified already. As even the anti-U.S. government New York Times now reports, many Sunni tribal leaders are advising their followers to destroy the virulent al-Qaida and join the Iraqi army and police. If it takes another year or five years, this war is a must win. Make no mistake though - Iraq is a war of wills. Our troops are getting their legs blown off and yet can't wait to get back into the fight, while a traitor leading the United States Senate says "we've already lost," and Democratic presidential candidates are falling all over each other trying to abjure having voted for a war for which they overwhelmingly voted in the first place. They are beneath contempt. Almost as onerous are those Republican "leaders" who are now starting a "we made a mistake but we're stuck with it, at least for now" routine - this in response to the latest polls. Note to the Congress: The wars against Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida were both urgent, and we were right to go in. Because it's been more difficult than most thought doesn't mean it was a mistake! No one was guaranteed a cakewalk, and major wars don't always work out as planned. The solution is to re-evaluate, adjust and win - which our superb military has been doing. Yes, there is an insurgency, and Americans (and our Iraqi allies) continue to die. As General David Petraeus has made clear, in the short term, we'll probably take more casualties, because we have more troops in harm's way. There is no question we will win in the long term - if we stick it out - because the democratically elected government of Iraq's forces are growing stronger and the U.S. troop surge hasn't even been completed, much less been given a chance to succeed. Meanwhile, the "mainstream media" continues to broadcast defeat. The Senate Majority Leader - incredibly - says we've already lost, and he very obviously hopes that we do. A-Qaida and the Baathists could not hope for a better ally, and as has become increasingly clear from Mr. Reid's own words, he expects political gain from a defeat. What a patriot! Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, has made things infinitely worse by her ill-advised trip to chit-chat with our enemies in Syria. The only thing she accomplished was to add to their disdain for the world's superpower, as represented by a ditzy Congresswoman looking for surrender terms in the middle of a war. The Democrats are now saying that the only viable solution is to negotiate with all parties, i.e. by talking. By talking? Are they kidding? As men far wiser than I have stated throughout history, most major international crises are resolved - for good or ill - by military action. I've long observed that that liberals live in a make-believe land of how they feel the world ought to be, rather than how it is. They are convinced that talking and feeling empathy for our enemies is the cure, with globs of self-analysis as to why it's our fault that al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center. "Free health care for everybody!" - "Gun-free zones!" - "Zero tolerance!" - "War is not the answer!" It's not reality, but platitudes do make liberals feel good. A "political solution" (with whom, pray tell?) and "we must work with the U.N. and the 'International Community'" will get us exactly where we are now in Darfur, and what Neville Chamberlain achieved before WWII, and what the Europeans accomplished in Bosnia before American power was asserted - catastrophe. Unfortunately, a majority of U.S. voters, brainwashed by the barrage of defeatism and bad news, voted last November for a Democrat majority. No matter that soldiers are e-mailing their families that the "mainstream" media is not to be believed. Most citizens don't know that the New York Times provides talking points every day for CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. and dozens of liberal and radical left city newspapers. You'll rarely hear good news from any of those sources. Then again, a large percentage of citizens don't know the name of the vice president or for that matter Senator Reid or Speaker Pelosi. It would seem a large number of our fellow citizens have been getting their foreign policy news from "The View." Rosie O'Donnell and Joy Behar - Statespersons! No wonder then, that Bush and Cheney, who are heroic in their steadfastness, have such low approval ratings. They are not driven by opinion polls, unlike the "world's smartest woman," who has yet again dropped the Rodham from her name during an election (what integrity she has!); or her husband, or the pretty-boy with his $400 haircuts, who is so very, very sorry he voted for the war. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, now Senator Clinton, has begun spinning the tale that it was only because she was misled by "this president!" and "this administration!" that she voted for the war. For the record, at the time, both she and President Clinton said there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam had WMD's, one of several reasons for which America took him out. But now, thanks to Reid and his minions, al-Qaida and the other terrorists are telling their followers to just keep up the pressure until the next election. If the Democrats get in, the U.S. will immediately surrender; er, I mean "re-deploy.. The mass murderers of innocent children will have won, and Bush will be blamed for the catastrophe caused by the very same defeatism used by the Democrats from the minute they lost power in January 1969 - with the same very predictable result. Oh yes, every serious observer of the Middle East agrees that an enormous bloodbath will ensue, but none seem to get any more specific about what that means to us in America. Well, I for one am ready to make some predictions. If the Democrats force us out of Iraq, al-Qaida will grow stronger, and Iran under the insane Ahmadinejad will obtain nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia (Iran's enemy) will descend into chaos, and the oil supply on which Americans depend will be in very serious jeopardy. The Europeans, who mostly chose not to get involved, will see their oil prices go up exponentially. Israel will be forced to use nuclear weapons or be obliterated, and all hell will break loose. A third world war will not be unlikely, and if you think that's impossible, may I suggest you read what was said about all-out war in 1910 and 1938. Winston Churchill for example, was scoffed at by liberals and "moderate" conservatives in Britain. That's not important to Senator Reid though, so long as he and his crew of "we support the troops, but not the mission (!!!)" Democrats will have achieved their political victory. Oh, one minor last prediction. The United States military will be forced to go back in, with many times the losses we've incurred thus far, in one of the lowest casualty wars ever fought by a major army. That isn't exactly what American voters thought they were voting for. Fortunately, the president and vice president, Gen. Petraeus and our troops, still intend to win. We should unequivocally and unwaveringly support them. Douglas J. Allan is a Bryn Mawr resident, a strategic consultant and president of the Napoleonic Historical Society. He can be reached at paladinmer@aol.com
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
#5. To: BeAChooser (#0)
Perfidy, say, that's like when rich spoiled brats go AWOL from a served to them on a silver platter Air Guard pilot's job to keep from going to war, isn't it? Bush's brand of hypocritical perfidy is purile. He's like Patton was once described, as 'old Blood and Guts.' But the punchline of that, 'our blood and his guts' really and truly applies to him far better because unlike chickenhawk Bush, General Patton was a brave warrior. Bush has a yellow streak where a backbone gose in a normal human. Having him as POTUS is like giving a two year old a loaded gun to play with to keep him quiet.
Bush didn't go AWOL. From "The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either" By Peter Keating and Karthik Thyagarajan ... snip ... "Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge". Bush flew many hours in one of the more accident prone (and therefore dangerous) planes in the US arsenal. Bush flew F102s in performance of a mission in the cold war. And lastly, he would not have gotten the opportunity to fly one in Vietnam anyway because someone else decided to phase them out about the time he completed his flight training. Now let's contrast that to the behavior of Kerry, who (didn't you say?) you voted for? Granted, Kerry ended up in Vietnam but he didn't want or expect to go. He initially tried to defer military service a year but was turned down because he'd already completed his degree course. He already knew how to fly but what does he do? Join the navy ... actually, the Naval Reserve. At the very worst, he expected to serve on a ship in the waters OFF Vietnam. In fact, at the time he started training for swift boats, they were not being used in Vietnam in the role they had when he actually got there. And then we all know how soon Kerry was able to accumulate the medals that got him home and how suspicious the circumstances are (http://www.swiftvets.com/swiftvetsandpows/ ) surrounding some of the *wounds* those medals reflect. But that's all water under the bridge. Right?
He's right, Mike. It takes a special kind of man to phase out a plane stateside while the surface-to-air war was raging in North Vietnam.
Kerry's militaty record is far more impressive then that of Bush. Comparison of Kerry's military record with that of Bush Bottom line, Kerry served in war, Bush failed to meet requitements to stay on flight status, has not produced records to back up many claims about his record and overall was a substandard officer. Regardless whether one likes or dislikes John Kerry, 'Swift Boating' him was a tactic that devalued the currency of military service giving notice to any vet entering politics that his combat service was only as good as his political views. 'Swift Boating' is an interesting thing for BAC to bring up, because if you look at how he tactically approaches his attacks on the Truth Movement, they are quite simular. I noticed that a long time ago, and it shows that he operates only to shill a NeoCon agenda, not to serve the task of bringing out truth and justice. He actually has no true idea what either word means.
I just posted an article stating that "more than 500 Delta Daggers would eventually serve with 23 ANG units across the US". Were all those who flew them dishonorable cowards? Is that what you think? Or were they honorably helping to fight AND WIN the Cold War. You are not just smearing Bush, you smearing everyone who flew fighter aircraft anywhere outside of Vietnam during that period. You are saying that what they did was cowardly ... because they ALL could have volunteered for Vietnam. In a plane that was being phased out at the time from use in Vietnam. Completely false. Just like much of what you post, Ferret. Records show that Bush put in the number of hours required for an honorable discharge. Numerous news sources confirm this. He also had permission to be away from duty for certain activities. So you're claim that he was AWOL is a lie? Or do you just not know the facts? ******* From http://terpsboy.com/Articles/bushpilot.html But later reporting proved Bush wasn't AWOL. National Guard magazine said it best in its Jan. 2001 edition: The New York Times also looked into the charge and found it lacked substance: Here's a link to the abstract of the NYT story. The text I provided came courtesy of http://AndrewSullivan.com Even the Boston Globe's story admits Bush served more than the minimum time, and was a fine pilot: ... snip ... Bush volunteered to serve in a unit at the very moment it was seeing combat in Vietnam, and only a restructuring of the unit's mission before he completed his flight training made it unlikely he would fly in combat. And he was never AWOL - he completed his required service and even served beyond the minimum. *********** You call it "swift boating", I call it stating facts. There are many serious inconsistencies in the story told by John Kerry and his supporters about activities in Vietnam. And for the most part, questions about those inconsistencies have been ignored or deflected by throwing out that term "swift boating". I'll give you some examples ... You think he got his medals honorably, I suppose. Well, first, the officer who wrote up the citations says he based them SOLELY on what the after action report said. If the after action report is a lie (and dozens of people who were there but not on Kerry's boat say it's a lie) and it was written by Kerry (which a journalist showed must be the case), then the medals given in the third incident were a deliberate scam by Kerry. Second, Kerry clearly was medal hungry. He looked for opportunities to get them. We know his first medal was a fraud because his own journal betrays him. An entry written nine days after the incident which he used to get his first purple heart (going outside the chain of command to do it, BTW) states "hadn't been shot at yet". Third, the other officer in the incident where Kerry got his third purple heart who got a medal is on record saying he didn't know about the medal he was given until after he was out of the military and he didn't deserve it. He says the after action report is a lie. Fourth, the question remains whether there was gun fire as Kerry after actions report claimed. Neither of the purple hearts was awarded for being hit by gunfire. NONE of the boats was apparently hit by gunfire. Yet the after action report Kerry wrote up to describe his heroism indicates they were under heavy gunfire for what must have been an hour or more (since they had to rescue the crew, salvage the boat and run a gauntlet a couple miles long) ... all in a narrow channel. And not one bullet hole in the boats. A little less than unlikely. Here is the truth about Kerry and the swift boat veterans:
"You call it "swift boating", I call it stating facts." Heehee, so, I am slighting veterans who served honorably for political reasons and you are not? A wee bit of a hypocrate you are I see. Well, 'Swift Boating' is as much a verb as 'Borking.' And you are slandering an honorably discharged combat veteran and are a non veteran passing judgement on Kerry's service and awards solely to serve a political agenda. Silly boy, the general slang term for awards, both personal and campaign in Vietnam was "Gongs." The command structure had an extremely difficult situation in Vietnam with military units disintergrating under minimal combat stress because of serious problems concerning unit cohesion. Sending officers for six months and enlisted members for twelve meant people had inexperiance leaders they could not rely on. The ethos of managing your men, not leading them with poorly screened and trained officers meant trouble in Vietnam for U.S. forces. What small criticism anyone could direct John Kerry's way is pointless. The trouble with awards was well known by many in Vietnam. Silver Stars were awarded for things that had garnered a Bronse Star in WW II. Troops were handed a packet of campaign and other ribbons upon arriving in Vietnam and it was the command structure that desparately tried using "Gongs" as an ill suited bandaid on a bad situation. You blame Kerry in a contrived way that is infamously known now as 'Swift Boating' for the sins of the Brass in Vietnam. Read 'Crisis in Command: Mismanagement in the Army' by Richard A. Gabriel and Paul Savage for a more detailed discription of the situation concerning the systemic problems with the problems of command and control of troops in the Vietnam War. I know it well having used it for source material for papers on this topic I did both in High School and at the University of Oregon as an undergrad. Back to my post's cental notion: You slam Kerry unfairly for political reasons, you accuse me of doing the same in regard to Bush. You can't have it both ways, sport. In doing what you do and say, you slander and besmurch all decorated combat veterans who served in Vietnam. You have no basis to second guess awards of any nature. I don't envy the burden you have of defending someone who successfully avoided Vietnam who got his billet in the Air Guard because daddy was rich and influential as you do with Georgie Bush here. The best you can do here is try to claim I am doing to Bush a simular thing you try to do to Kerry. You can't have it both ways. To claim I am doing this and you are not would be to contradict your own posts in this thread.
I shall again donate my last post of the day to you. Slander is an untruthful statement about a person that harms them. Sear that into your memory (ROTFLOL!). Nothing I've said about Kerry or the circumstances surround his service and medals is false. And here are some more facts that you can now ignore: - The soldier who manned a machine gun immediately behind and above Kerry's station says Kerry is lying. - At the time he joined the swift boats, they weren't being used up the rivers. I guess he just pictured himself as JFKennedy, crusing the Pacific blue. It was AFTER Kerry joined them that their mission was changed. And reportedly, Kerry was none too pleased when he found out. - In the Bronze Star instance, his campaign originally claimed that Kerry stayed and the other boats ran. Perhaps because that's the story he told Brinkley for that book about Kerry's exploits. The campaign eventually admitted that the boat that left the scene was Kerry's while the others were the ones that stayed to help. - Kerry claims there was a hail of bullets. ALL the captains other than Kerry say there was NO gunfire that day. Several others on the other boats are on record saying there was NO gunfire. And they signed affidavits to that effect. - Kerry claimed to be 5 miles inside Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 ... an event SEARED in his mind (so much so that he repeated it on more 50 occasions over the years) and which he said was life changing. How many life changing events have you made up. Because even he now admits he wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. Near it, he said. The problem is, eyewitnesses put him over 50 miles from Cambodia at the time. That's not near. That's more than half way to the coast of Vietnam. You know nothing about me, Ferret. You have no idea whether I've been in the military. You can't argue the facts so you try adhominems based on NO information. And you didn't do that with regard to Bush? ROTFLOL! My interest is in setting the record straight ... in the truth. False. There are documents, eyewitness statements and Kerry's own changing stories about the circumstances that resulted in medals for him and his crew.
#32. To: BeAChooser (#31)
I sup the aged wine. Give it up, rebe, you're busted.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#13. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#5)
Perfidy, say, that's like when rich spoiled brats go AWOL from a served to them on a silver platter Air Guard pilot's job to keep from going to war, isn't it?
#16. To: BeAChooser, christine, Ferret Mike (#13)
Ferret Mike
#18. To: HOUNDDAWG (#16)
#24. To: Ferret Mike, HOUNDDAWG, ALL (#18)
Bottom line, Kerry served in war,
Bush failed to meet requitements to stay on flight status,
has not produced records to back up many claims about his record and overall was a substandard officer.
Bush also was accused of skirting the draft by joining the Texas Air Guard in 1968. He became an F-102 fighter pilot before being discharged as a first lieutenant in 1973. [Former National Guard Bureau historian retired Col. Michael] Doubler says it is unfair to criticize those who joined the Guard during the Vietnam War. "The government allowed it and in many ways encouraged it," he said "There were a lot of things the government did to authorize people to serve in places other than the front lines."
Bush's drill performance also stirred controversy during the campaign. Some reports charged that he was absent for a year. However, probably the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." The review was done by http://Georgemag.com, the online version of the magazine founded by the late John F. Kennedy Jr.
Guardsmen say Bush's service record is not unusual. "In any six-year time frame you probably can find some problems," says retired Rep. G.V. 'Sonny' Montgomery, D-Miss., founder of the House Guard and Reserve Caucus. "Just learning to fly the F-102 and not getting hurt and not hurting anybody is an accomplishment." Montgomery called Bush's election, "nothing but a plus for the Guard."
Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. The Times examined the record in response to a previous Boston Globe story.
Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question... On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later.
Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe.
Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ''weekend warriors.''
Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam, logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early release from service.
Regardless whether one likes or dislikes John Kerry, 'Swift Boating' him
#28. To: BeAChooser (#24)
(Edited)
"You are not just smearing Bush, you smearing everyone who flew fighter aircraft anywhere outside of Vietnam during that period."
#31. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#28)
you are slandering an honorably discharged combat veteran
and are a non veteran
passing judgement on Kerry's service and awards solely to serve a political agenda.
You have no basis to second guess awards of any nature.
Replies to Comment # 31. They call me Mr. Knowitall
I will not compromise.
I will not be told what to do.
I shall not step aside.
They call me Mr. Knowitall
I have no time to waste.
My mouth it spews pure intellect.
And I've such elegant taste.
They call me Mr. Knowitall.
Oh I could tell such wonderous tales
if I should find the time.
I must be Mr. Knowitall
For ideas they come in bounds.
I am Mr. Knowitall
So spread the word around.
They call me Mr. Knowitall
I am so eloquent.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.