The last letter.

[Nebe]

Pretty moving piece by a vet.

Truthdig - The Last Letter

[Jim in CT]

Due respect to the guy, the letter, and the publicity it's getting, is pure liberal horsesh*t.

We only went to war in Iraq because of Bush's "thirst for wealth and power"?

How did Bush get richer by launching war? Specifics, please?

And the Bush-bashers would do well to look at the Senate vote to approve the war. That war was approved by senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, and Biden (among other liberal Democrats).

I recentl;y saw video of a speech Bill Clinton gave when Bush was president. In that speech, Clinton said that Hussein almost certainly had weapons of mass destruction. Bill Clinton says that, and yet the liberals still love him.

Bush wasn't a king, he didn't get us into that war unilaterally.

And when this vet signed up, his recruiter should have told him that you don't always get to pick your assignments. You go where they tell you to go.

Bush has a "hollow character"? Tell that to the estimated one million Africans whose lives were saved by Bush's AIDS plan, the most effective African relief effort in the history of our planet. Tell that to all the senior citizens who saved lots of money on presciption meds thanks to Bush.

Iraq is fair game to criticize. That doesn't mean Bush doesn't have a genuinely good heart.

Thoughts and prayers to that sad, wrongheaded, vet.

[justplugit]

Too bad the two Seals in Benghazi didn't have a chance to write a letter
to the current Administration on how they were left to hang out to dry for 7-9 hours
without any help in an area that had been a hot spot for months.
Must of been a helpless feeling to be abandoned by your own.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Too bad the two Seals in Benghazi didn't have a chance to write a letter
to the current Administration on how they were left to hang out to dry for 7-9 hours
without any help in an area that had been a hot spot for months.
Must of been a helpless feeling to be abandoned by your own.

I think it's fair (and a good idea) to discuss the Iraq War, and debate whether or not it was a terrible idea. That's fair.

And the buck stops with the Presisent, at least it did until Obama was sworn in. So if you are going to criticize someone, it starts with Bush.

But many liberal Democratic senators voted for the war, and strongly supported the war, until public opinion turned against the war, then all of a sudden, these senators hated the war.

I respect anyone who disliked the war from the start. I despise the senators who were cheerleaders for the war when it was popular, and acted like they were always opposed to the war once it became unpopular. THAT'S a disgrace.

And anyone who says Bush/Cheney started the wear for money, or oil, or because Hussein tried to kill Bush 41, is blinded by ideology..

Bush deserves some criticism for Iraq, and he deserves criticism for Hurricane Katrina (though the Democrats in New Orleans re-elected mayor Ray Nagin, amazingly...). He also deserves a helluva lot of credit for what he did in Africa, but the liberals (who claim to be the ones who care about people like AIDS patients in Africa) rarely discuss it.

And it's very rare for a liberal to criticize the Democratis senators who openly supported the Iraq War. To them, Bush was the only one responsible for any of it. Bush is the most responsible, but he's not the only one responsible. The Senate, including many liberal Democrats, actively supported the war, based on the same intlligence Bush was looking at.

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;991127]I think it's fair (and a good idea) to discuss the Iraq War, and debate whether or not it was a terrible idea. That's fair.

[QUOTE]
I agree it's fair and agree with most of what you said in your 2 posts.
However, it seems we never learn.
Never learned from the French that Vietnam would be a losing cause. Never
learned from the Russians you couldn't win in Afghanistan.

When it comes to Iraq, Saddam was known to use gas on his own people,
and all international intelligence said he had WMDs. He refused inspection.
A time table was laydown for him to allow inspection or suffer attack backed by many in Congress who flip flopped when things got tough.
He was given every opportunity but refused and time was up. It was his choice and he chose the consequences. In hindsight it would have been better to take him out alone, but with all his doubles and hiding places, no one knew where he was and time seemed to be of the essence.

It was my understanding that the reason for going into Afghanistan was to knock out the Taliban training camps. Once that was done we should have gotten out of there. These people have lived their way of life for 1000s of years and there is no way they could or want to be swayed to live our Western style.

I hate war for the same reasons the Vet wrote about, the affects on the troops and their families. They are the only ones who truly sacrifice. I have so much respect for all our Vets and hold them in the highest honor.
The only common sense thing I ever heard about preventing war is to pass a law, that only people over the age of 50 yrs. of age could fight. But no one ever learns, way too much quest for power and dominance.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=justplugit;991189][QUOTE=Jim in CT;991127]I think it's fair (and a good idea) to discuss the Iraq War, and debate whether or not it was a terrible idea. That's fair.

I agree it's fair and agree with most of what you said in your 2 posts.
However, it seems we never learn.
Never learned from the French that Vietnam would be a losing cause. Never
learned from the Russians you couldn't win in Afghanistan.

When it comes to Iraq, Saddam was known to use gas on his own people,
and all international intelligence said he had WMDs. He refused inspection.
A time table was laydown for him to allow inspection or suffer attack backed by many in Congress who flip flopped when things got tough.
He was given every opportunity but refused and time was up. It was his choice and he chose the consequences. In hindsight it would have been better to take him out alone, but with all his doubles and hiding places, no one knew where he was and time seemed to be of the essence.

It was my understanding that the reason for going into Afghanistan was to knock out the Taliban training camps. Once that was done we should have gotten out of there. These people have lived their way of life for 1000s of years and there is no way they could or want to be swayed to live our Western style.

I hate war for the same reasons the Vet wrote about, the affects on the troops and their families. They are the only ones who truly sacrifice. I have so much respect for all our Vets and hold them in the highest honor.
The only common sense thing I ever heard about preventing war is to pass a law, that only people over the age of 50 yrs. of age could fight. But no one ever learns, way too much quest for power and dominance.

"Never learned from the French that Vietnam would be a losing cause."

We won in Iraq. Hussein is gone, and there are now free elections. Political dissidents don't get whisked away and tortured by the thousands. Little girls can now go to school, make something of themselves, and maybe elevate that country even more. The majority of those people love America so deeply, you can't imagine. Too bad that 99% of the media ignores that, since it doesn't support their narrative. We gave those people a real shot at freedom. To quote the Battle Hymn of The Republic, "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make them free..." Now, of course, liberating the people of Iraq was not the stated misison of that war. That doesn't mean that's not a noble end, however.

"It was my understanding that the reason for going into Afghanistan was to knock out the Taliban training camps. Once that was done we should have gotten out of there."

If we did that, there's a good chance that Al Queda comes right back into Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a real mess right now, and I have no solutions, I'm not a diplomat or a nation-builder.

"The only common sense thing I ever heard about preventing war is to pass a law, that only people over the age of 50 yrs. of age could fight."

There was a time when that law would have worked. Not now. Because our enemy isn't going to sign any treaty and abide by the rules.

No one hates war more than someone who has been there.

The letter posted by the original OP was putrid. How about posting a letter from a little girl in Iraq who can now go to school and make something of herself, instead of being gang-raped and doused with acid for even thinking about going to school?

[JohnR]

I don't have time to watch that. Maybe later tonight but...

Maybe the number one thing that made me move from being a registered and voting Democrat to a solid Independent, often voting (R) was the lying, duplicity, revisionists in the Democratic party and the supporting media (newsflash, the media other than Fox - that is also marginal the other way - especially TV and Cable News, leans heavily Democratic rather than being apolitical as they should be).

[spence]

I think he's earned the right to speak his mind...and the message isn't that complicated...he feels as though he's been betrayed.

No wonder he's so angry, if I felt that way I'd be too.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think he's earned the right to speak his mind...and the message isn't that complicated...he feels as though he's been betrayed.

No wonder he's so angry, if I felt that way I'd be too.

-spence

Of course he has earned the right to speak his mind. However, he has not earned the right to lie. The guy said that Bush started the war out of a thirst for wealth and power. There's precisely zero evidence of that. Zip. Bupkus.

The guy called Bush a war criminal. If Bush is a war criminal, aren't all the democrats who voted for the war (and that's a LONG list of prominent democrats, including the next democratic presidential nominee, Hilary) also war criminals? Aren't the leaders of all the other countries who sent troops to Iraq, war crinminals as well? Why were none of these people tried at the Hague?

Which law did Bush break that makes him a war criminal? At the end of the first Gulf War, as part of the cease-fire, Hussein agreed to give the weapons inspectors unfettered access. He repeatedly violated that. Bush warned him again and again and again and again. If Bush wanted to invade just to get rich, why would he have given Hussein so many opportunities to comply with the treaty?

There's lots of valid, sane reasons to criticize Bush for his handling of the war. Saying he did it to get rich is crazy, and reaks of political motivation.

I pray that vet gets the help he needs. His letter sounds about as rational as the Unibomber's manifesto. Bush has an 'empty character'? Again, tell that to the 1,000,000+ Africans who are alive today because of Bush's Emergency Plan For Aids Relief. Tell that to the unborn, who never had a better advocate in the Oval Office. Tell that to the little girls in Iraq who can, thanks to this vet and his commander-in-chief, now go to school and make something of themselves, and who can now vote in free elections.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I think he's earned the right to speak his mind...and the message isn't that complicated...he feels as though he's been betrayed.

No wonder he's so angry, if I felt that way I'd be too.

-spence

you dont have to earn the right to speak your mind, we all have the right in this country. Maybe this guy should realize that many people in Iraq and other middle east countries have the right now too. I dont think there would have been an "Arab Spring" without the US Invasion of Iraq. As Jim said, Bush didnt get rich from Iraq, and neither did his oil buddies. Its just not true and anyone with any understand of supply and demand would get it. My hear goes out to all vets, many of our nations finest perished in bad policy, bad military decisions. But to say there was malevolence and deceit from Bush is plan crap.

[GregW]

I hate discussing politics. Even more I hate discussing the Iraq War. So I will not debate it.
This article was sent to me, and I have two problems with what he writes:

1). First he says: "did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States.". Then in another paragraph he called it a "Pre-emptive war".
How would it be pre-emptive if there was never a threat?

2). I am not a defender of Bush, but he has had no say with the VA for over 4 years, and it is backlogged more now than ever. Why is no blame being placed on the current president?

Seems a bit skewed to me.

[RIJIMMY]

everyone views history with their own lens. I attended an irish catholic private high school (very liberal). We wacthed videoes in govt class on how Johnson as VP was LYING on sending troops to Vietnam while Kennedy was funneling combat troops behind americans back. Kennedy got us into Vietnam, lied while he was doing it. yet Kennedy is always seen as this great president and no one blames him for Vietnam