The Sadaam trial is also taking forever. That'll need to come near the end of the Bush term in order to avoid early closure and improper choreography.

I can't figure out what is honorable about cutting and running before the job is done. Neither can I see the logic.

If you want to rant against Bush go ahead, that is the typical liberal approach....if you want to understand the overarching goal and rationale behind Bush's strategy of trying to create democracies within Jihadistan, read Natan Sharansky's "Case for Democracy".

We are in a long-term global war of ideas...no less so than when we were in a war against fascism, and later communism. This is a fight to the finish against jihadists, and Rumsfeld was right the other day when he said we could be in the "hot phase" for a generation. You are sadly mistaken if you think if we just quit the Middle East, the jihadist terrorists will leave us alone.

When Saddam is executed, you'll have your antichrist.

Aprroximately the same number killed in Iraq have been killed in Chicago during the same time period. I think the only "honorable" thing to do is to pull out of Chicago and the other really dangerous places, L.A., NYC, Phila., New Orleans. Why must so many people die in these places? What do they have in common? The insurents there are homegrown!

Tony Moschetti

That would be a great letter, Mr. Burch, if you weren't ignorantly wrong on every point.

Jackie Keys,

Enlighten me then, as to my wrongness.

"The honorable thing to do is to pull out now" You guys are soooo stuck in the 60's and 70"s dreaming of your glory days when Vietnam was in full swing. Things are different now,Bruce. We have a president who is there to win. As he plainly stated last week "We will set the timetable for withdrawal when victory is achieved".
As for the troops not clapping at every statment,they were instructed not to do so. I watched the speach and I also saw the crowd gather around him and stand in line to shake his hand and have their pictures taken with him. They were not made to do this. No one forces anyone else to pose with the pres.to have a photo taken. The troops at fort bragg are behind him. Reinlistment rates are up!

Mochetti's loose again - grab the butterfly nets - no wait buy him a one way ticket to Chicago.

Yard Dog,

We must live in parallel universes. The Speech was scripted for 40 minutes, and it took only 28. This was admitted by Scott McClellan. They figured in for applause, and only got one applause that was prompted by a White House Staffer.

So, what is this week's reasoning for the occupation? Is it to defeat the terraists? or to make us safe from WMD? or to depose a tyrant?

There have been so many reasons for this occupation, it's hard to keep up.

My biggest problem with Bush's address the other night was the ambiguity. He never EXPLICITLY stated what would determine victory. From what I gathered, he thinks we can "take out" every insurgent. By my calculation, we've been in Iraq over two years, and our prolonged stay will only create more insurgents namely teenagers and late adolscents who will have been socialized to view the Army fatigue as evil and to kill. So Bush's rationale to kill every insurgent is absurd and irrational, and above all else impossible. Without some change in course, we will continue to lose this war in two facets: Number of lives lost and respect in the global community.

Bruce, the reason for the DEPLOYMENT in Iraq is to meet the terrorist on their ground and not here. I guess we are in different time zones,because the news anchor I was watching told the audience before the speech began that it would last appx. 1/2 hour.
No coment on the photo ops?
I'm waiting on you guys to go to DC and start marching and chanting "no more war! no more war! And "Hell no we won't go"! Aaahhhhh What ever happened to the good old days?

Mr. Burch, you're wrong on every point.
You claim:
"his failed Iraq war"
How can you say it's failed when it isn't over yet? Let me quote you a few facts on our "failings":

Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20
Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2004 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 100-foot
patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operation squadrons,
reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 bell jet rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando
Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over
3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad
stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and
phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio
stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004 and that the Iraqi economy is BOOMING?
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a
televised debate?
(All of these facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense website and
many other independent sources.)

"a definite lack of response"
I've talked to several of the soldiers present during the speech, they were most enthusiastic. They carry this fight to the bad guys, and are proud of doing it. To suggest otherwise is to besmirch our military.

"Sept. 11 is not connected with Iraq in any way"
It is, but what if it wasn't? The global war on terror is much more than a response to 9/11, thank goodness. To stop there would be disastrous.
Let me quote a few findings:
Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
"In 1992 the Iraqi Intelligence services compiled a list of its assets. On page 14 of the document, marked "Top Secret" and dated March 28, 1992, is the name of Osama bin Laden, who is reported to have a "good relationship" with the Iraqi intelligence section in Syria."
"In 1993, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden reached an "understanding" that Islamic radicals would refrain from attacking the Iraqi regime in exchange for unspecified assistance, including weapons development. This understanding, which was included in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in the spring of 1998, has been corroborated by numerous Iraqis and al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody."
"In 1994, Faruq Hijazi, then deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met face-to-face with bin Laden"
"In 1995, according to internal Iraqi intelligence documents first reported by the New York Times on June 25, 2004, a "former director of operations for Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19."
"When bin Laden left Sudan in 1996, the document states, Iraqi intelligence sough "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location. That same year, Hussein agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state television."
"In 1997, al Qaeda sent an emissary with the nom de guerre Abdullah al Iraqi to Iraq for training on weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell cited this evidence in his presentation at the UN on February 5, 2003. The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that Powell's presentation on Iraq and terrorism was "reasonable."

You also claim "terrorism didn't begin in Iraq until after Bush flew onto the aircraft carrier and proclaimed with gusto that major hostilities in Iraq are over."
Saddam killed between 180,000-200,000 Kurds in Iraq during his reign of terror. Does that not define "terrorism?"

It dosen't matter what you say Jackie. At this point they are probably holding both hands over their ears and running around in circles stomping the ground screaming "I hate Bush,I hate Bush".
Hey, just thought of this: Why don't you try to get Jane Fonda to break off her book tour long enough to fly over for a photo op with Sadam? Maybe that would make you guys feel better.

Mr. Burch,

Appears as though Jackie Keyes has overwhelmed you with unassailable facts. Best to lick your wounds and rethink the emotions that prompted you to write your letter in the first place. Peace.

Yard dog said: "I'm waiting on you guys to go to DC and start marching and chanting "no more war! no more war!"

You know what would be even better yard? I'm waiting for them to go to Iraq and become human shields. Whatever happened to those human shields anyways, I thought they wanted to protect the Iraqi people, so where are they? Why aren't they protecting the Iraqi people from car bombs, RPG's, IED's and head choppings?

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Those people are wimps, just like republicans are Trish and Yard Dog!!

Where are you? You're hiding behind the flag and me your supreme leader of the republican party! You will never go and defend this country. You will allow the poor to send their children to die for your war. It's beautiful baby! Keep up the good work! I'll see you both down here!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Ok Jackie -- I'll take on your list.

first a couple qualifications:

I'm as American as you.
Some of these are tongue in cheek, other deadly serious.
Don't be so sure you are the only "Patriotic" in this blog.

"How can you say it's failed when it isn't over yet?" I agree; please tell Cheney. By the way - what does "winning" look like?

"47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?" News to me; how many were there in 2001?

"Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?" Are you a conservative like me that thinks that government is best that governs less ... or are you a flaming liberal - there is apparently no middle ground.

"Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?" Jeeze we need that type of work here, considering America has slipped to beyond 20th place in Math and Science.

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers? News to me; how many were there in 2001? Are we to discount earlier research centers working on WMD's

"Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2004 for the re-established Fulbright program?" "... to increase mutual understanding between the people of the U.S. and the people of other countries." Thank God and about time.

"Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment." I'll tell all the insurgent to put IED's on their cannoes.

"Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operation squadrons, reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 bell jet rangers?" All provided by the USA, I'll bet.

"Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?" Well it's about time!

"Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?" I don't know this, and neither do you. Start by defining "fully trained".

"Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?" Another Police state - just what the world needs.

"Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?" At this point, they need it! How many are going on in a similar sized USA site, perhaps Pennsylvania or Arizona (totally guseeing on size and popularion, but you get the point.)

"They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities." See above. Who's paying for all this, by the way?

"Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?" Good. Did you know that 46% of American children - under and over the age of 5 - have no medical care?

"Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?" Please provide comparison data to like-sized sates.

"Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?" I sense a whole lot of traffic accidents about to happen ....

"Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?" Did you know that America has a rapidly shrinking media that consists same-source radio stations / newspapers television stations repeating the same drivel and missing the important news?

"Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004 and that the Iraqi economy is BOOMING?" How's your portofilio doing? Any living wage jobs in your neighborhood?

"Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate?" We did too - but here we had two buffoons.

I'm now tired of this game. There are different views on this, and we will never agree - but don't be declaring your side as "Patriotic" and calling "Un-Patriotic" those that may have a different cut because if you do, Ms. Carole King, I'll no longer love you, tomorrow. (Subtle joke there.)

Wow,
I guess I touched a nerve, huh. So we blow stuff up, then rebuild it. That defines success? What I see is that June was the Deadliest month yet in Iraq, and that 92% of the deaths in Iraq happened after Your President declared major combat operations over.

Am I missing something? Would that not mean that we won?

I believe wholeheartedly that what is now occurring is an occupation. Not a war. That ended two years ago. If the Iraqis are that forward-moving, then we should be able to leave in a month or two, by Jackie's assertions.

I, by the way, vote every chance I get. I participate in this democracy, and I believe in this system of government. I am not communist, socialist, or anything else. To besmirch my reputation because I disagree with this occupation is nothing short of mean-spirited.

You have the right to call me names, though. You have the right to think or say anything as long as you don't threaten me. Thank God we still have those rights.

I concur with Mr. Rockefeller. Some of us will not agree about the Iraqi Occupation, and that disagreement is what makes America great.

I shudder to think of a day when we are all of one mind.

Cheers!

Jackie Wrote: ""a definite lack of response"
I've talked to several of the soldiers present during the speech, they were most enthusiastic. They carry this fight to the bad guys, and are proud of doing it. To suggest otherwise is to besmirch our military."

Ms. Keys,

I support the troops. In ways I am not at liberty to reveal here, I am most supportive of veterans, and am very grateful for their sacrifice. Their Honor is above reproach. The persons I am not supportive of is their commander-in-chief, and his inner circle of advisers. They miscalculated this situation from day one.

As I said: Scott McClellan himself said they planned the speech would take 40 minutes, figuring for applause. It took 28. That doesn't say anything to you? The only possibility I can think of is that the Brass didn't communicate with the speech-boys regarding applause. That would account for the stony silence.

Where did I call you any names, Mr. Burch? I argue facts, I don't attack those who are uninformed. If you think the war ended when major combat to secure the cities was over, you're sadly misinformed. You fail to understand the most basic military operations.
Mr. Burch, I suggest you contact some of the trooops at Ft. Bragg and ask them that question. Large groups of military men are not like spectators at a sports event, they exercise far more restraint in a formal setting, such as the speech. You'll find that's the reason, not any lack of enthusiasm for their Commander-in-Chief.
If you fail to support the Commander-in-Chief, who is a military leader, then you don't support the troops, because he's one of them.
Nice tongue in cheek response, Mr. Rockefeller. I guess you can't handle the truth, can you? Do you see this war as funny? Try going there and experiencing it yourself.
Be a human shield, like Trish suggested. I can refer you to a few guys who would love to have you walking in front of their convoys "shielding" them from the terrorists you seem to support.

"If you fail to support the Commander-in-Chief, who is a military leader, then you don't support the troops, because he's one of them."

That is one of the most illogical statements one can offer. Please consider: Does one have to be married to support marriage? Does one have to have children in order to support children? Does one have to smoke to support smoker's rights? Does one have to be a woman to support women's rights? Does one have to be an atheist to support a person's right to choose not to believe in God?

I support our troops as much as you do but I do not support the man who sent them into a personal war. And, no Bush is not one of them. If he had been one of them he would not have "disappeared" during the Vietnam war.

Apparently you know little about the military or the chain of command. President Bush is the highest ranking military member in our system. So support the military is to support the highest ranking member of that military as well as the lowest.
Bush VOLUNTEERED to serve his country, and did so when many fled or refused or sought a way out (Clinton).
Please prove this was a personal war, and don't start with the "He Lied!!!!!" crap again. That crap don't wash anymore.

Bush won, get over it.

Bruce said: "I support the troops."

Yvonne said: " support our troops as much as you do"

I don't know why don't we see what the troops have to say about ya'lls support:

Let there be no mistake. The phrase, "I support the Troops but do not support the war" are empty words. When I hear someone say that expression, which I hear frequently, I in no way feel supported by them. In fact, I take it as a statement that they are against what I am doing so how could they support me without supporting what I am doing. I believe support for me and my role here are inextricably linked." Duke, Physician and proudly serve in the US Armed forceshttp://www.brokenmasterpieces.com/archives/cat_thoughts_from_the_cradle.html

"Hey, I guess I didn't get the memo, but apparently we're losing. I heard it on CNN too, where Ted Kennedy and other "honored" members of Congress were grilling Rumsfeld and CJTF-7 commander General Casey about our "failed" war in Iraq. So, that's it - nice work on the part of Zarqawi and al-Sadr and the rest of the civilian-killing dirtbags who opposed liberty and democracy in this country. You win! Hearing things like this make me paralyzed with despair and disbelief. All of our sacrifices, all of our hard work, all of the money spent - all willing to be discarded for political reasons by alcoholic woman-killers in Washington. This is our war to lose, and war opponents (I'm hesitant to use the term "liberal" because it just doesn't seem to fit the bill) are doing their best to lose it in the only way possible: on the battlefield of the media and public opinion." http://bl0g.delobi.us/

"Some say they support the troops and they also want them to come home immediately. That's not true support. I'm willing to say (with no research, polling, etc.) that a vast majority of the troops want to finish the mission in Iraq no matter how long it takes. No timelines, no Iraq goal checklist, nothing. I know I want Iraq to be a powerful Democratic Republic able to defend itself and to maintain peace in a region of the world that is in such turmoil. I'm not asking you to support the troops and their mission; you can hate the fact we're in Iraq all you want. What I am asking every, single American to do is to support the troops and their wishes. We want to finish what was started in Iraq. We want Iraq to be a model to the rest of the Middle East and the world as to what great things can happen when your country listens to the majority of its people." http://www.conservativethinking.com/archives/2005/06/support-the-troops-and-their-wishes.php

Oh and Bruce since you don't think the soldiers support Bush you should read this from a wounded soldier at Walter Reed:

""You can talk about our President, his politics, and his family, but you can never talk about his character. I met him face-to-face today and I will protect him as well as I protect my own."
http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/

There are lots more where those came from. Just ask if you would like some more quotes from our troops and how they feel about your "support". Or better yet why don't you two go visit one of these blogs by our soldiers, comment and let them you know you think they are losing, you support them but not the mission, Commander-in-Chief or the war and let me know if they feel supported by you.

I would like to make a comment to those of you who are fond of pulling quotes up from the internet or blog sites as support for your arguments.

Never trust the internet.

It's one of the first things I taught students about argumentative research. I use the following as reasons to not use them:

1) Sites are slanted or biased in the views expressed on it. For example, a pro-life site is not going to give you information contrary to its stand.

2) Any person can start a website. Betty Crocker can start a site about home construction. She may know cakes, but what about electrical wiring?

3) Blogs can be done by most anybody. As has been seen here, there are lots of people contributing to the site. Are they actually who they say they are? What proof do you have?

These are but a few of several reasons why one should use authenticated literature instead of websites for information. I don't mean to preach or say that some of these sites aren't legitimate, but I don't put much stock in most of the information coming from the internet. The only sites I actually consider are those ending in "edu." Those, in general, tend to give fair treatment to both sides of an issue.

"The honorable course requires withdrawal"

That's what your mama said last night.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist after reading John Robinson's Editor's Log the other day)

Regarding the lack of applause from the soldiers during the President's speech, that is military protocal. Clearly the soldiers are united behind President Bush.

There is overwhelming evidence (some of which JDR sited) that Bush is right on the war. The liberal writer Christopher Hitchens validates Bush and Blair's war as a success. Virtually the entire world has conceded the war in Iraq as a victory for democracy.

More to the point, there is little evidence and gross exagertions lending support that the war has been mismanaged.

For those who insist that stony silence is military protocol:

Every other speech I have watched Mr. Bush give at any military installation is frequently interrupted by the Hoo-Haas and other applause. Every One. Without Exception. Until Now.

Military Protocol?

And, to truth: That's not even funny. Now you supposed superior elitist republicans are besmirching the character of my mother.

I see now why you hide behind meaningless names like "truth". Because apparently you're not mature enough to stand behnd your words in the public square.

of course, you are wrong about the protocol Bruce. Several Ft Bragg soldiers talked about it yesterday. Why does it bother you virtually all soldiers in the military support the war?

Are you the only one interested in truth. It seems those on the right in this dialogue have included verifiable facts in contrast to your arguments. I think you are still mad Al Gore did not steal the election!

Bruce,

I wasn't talking about YOUR mother. I assumed that the News & Record came up with that title for your letter. I was actually poking fun at a recent post by John Robinson, N&R Editor, where he jokingly referred to how the Letters to the Editor have digressed into Yo Mama jokes.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And I stand by my words. I say what I mean. And my email address is real. I don't list my name because sometimes telling the truth can get you into trouble. And by truth, I mean my truth.

And I'm not a Republican.

"Truth" Please tell me you're not a Democrat. Say it ain't so "Truth" say it ain't so!!!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Yes, truth is always on the side of the democrats. Lies are on the side of the republicans. That's why I back the winners and the lies they tell so eloquently. They remind me so much of myself. What more do expect of the spawns of ME??!!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Bruce, your mother is a bitch.
There, I said the same thing that Steve said to Trish, and the same thing that other liberals have said to bloggers here.
Is that appropriate for this forum? Apparently it is if you're a liberal and you're referring to a conservative (you know, the ones in power now).
So I'm testing the waters, Bruce, your mother is a bitch.
Now don't you dare try to infringe on my freedom of speech or threaten to put a bullet through my head, like Steve did on another thread to another blogger.
How does it feel?

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Jackie Keys you may be the ONE!!! Keep up the good work. Keep stooping lower and lower. You're bound to hit bottom and me real soon!!! You have competition Trish!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Bruce,

I have to jump in here on this crap about the audience not applauding. It shows your complete ignorance about everything.

The soldiers were standing at attention when Bush walked in. You do not applaud when standing at attention. They were permitted to applaud after only one line- and they did.

To think that out of 50 or so possible applaud lines that the military audience did not make one sound out of disappraoval shows your complete and utter stupidity. But to ask for the N&R to print that with your name attached to it takes balls- I'll give you that much.

That one comment proves to the rest of us that you haven't a clue what is going on. The reason for the "no applause" rule was for the big 3 networks. They did not want to give up prime time spots for a pep rally. It was strictly a major address in front of troops as opposed to the Oval Office. They were told before hand that they could applaud once during the speech and then once it was over. The staffer was merely there to make sure that the one time applause was done at the right time.

Jackie, You have no idea what I do know or don't know so how about sticking to issues rather than conjectures?

Bush volunteered for the NG but went MIA stateside during the Vietnam war. He may not have taken off to Canada but he was not available to be sent to VN. So, please tell me, how DID he serve his country?

Joe, You are wise to teach the use of blog sites as unreliable for factual information. Blogs are for people to express opinions as well as facts but sometimes it would take divine intervention to be able to tell the differences. People can sound very convincing, especially when they believe what they are offering an opinion about.

Bruce, Truth was not insulting your mother. He was referring to a major bruhaha going on over on The Editor's Log. I was in agreement with you about using real names and real email addresses and even posted that. But a person whom I think is fair and intelligent emailed me as to why it is not always such a good idea to be so open.

Truth is really a very person with a good heart. I don't always agree with him but he is respectful of our disagreements.

My sentence should read "Truth is really a very GOOD person with a good heart"

Yvonne, you lied again. Have you no shame, no moral conscience about telling falsehoods? I thought you were a Christian woman, but you're proving that you aren't.
President bush volunteered and served in the National Guard. No on in the Guard knows if they will be activated for active duty. President Bush didn't know if he would have to go to Vietnam, but he volunteered anyway and served honorably.
Or do you have some other fake documents you got from "Red" Dan Rather that shows otherwise?
And military member can only be MIA (Missing In Action) if they are engaged in combat against the enemy. Again, you show your ignorance of military matters.

Jackie,

"MIA" is a term of convenience for liberals. It makes them feel good and righteous about themselves irregardless of whether or not it is true.

If it is negative about the president or our military- it must be true and repeated, often. If you are going to try to get them to stick to the facts and be accurate, you may be wasting your time here.

Just trying to help with your frustration.

Jackie, Thanks for the laugh.

Jackie,

Allow me to translate Yvonne's response to you:

"Oh crap, I used the term MIA in an open forum where not everyone is liberal and loves bashing the president. I forgot that MIA actually means something and that accusation is completely false. It's just that it falls into my picture of what I want it to be and that the military is so inept that they were able to find W to arrest him. Doggonit, I'm busted....what should I write..uh, uh, how about thanks for the laugh. Yeah, that'll put her in her place!"

So, Yvonne, you think that our Missing In Action soldiers are funny? You make a joke of the sacrifice of our military people defending your freedom and losing their lives or their freedom doing it? Put your butt on the line with a rifle against an enemy that wants only to kill you and destroy your government and see how comical it is.
You disgust me.
You're like the Energizer Bunny...you just keep lying, and lying, and lying, and lying...
You're right, Michael, Yvonne vomits up every misleading lie the libs can fabricate, and expects those of us with intelligence far beyond hers to swallow it.
Guess what? The majority of Americans don't buy it, that's why the Democrats have no power. And they're not likely to regain it if they keep the course they're on now.

On the 4th of July (you know, that holiday that real Americans celebrate), I had the distinct pleasure of meeting a soldier on leave. He's been in Iraq for 5 months and got to come home for 2 weeks to see his new baby girl.

Obviously, I had to ask him about his experiences. When we finished, I promised him that I would post his sentiments on my local blog.

He's an attorney in Fayetteville who is in the NG (you know, that place you go so that you know you won't have to actually fight). He has one job description that caught my attention. He's in charge of incarcerating new detainees.

Since he's been home he's been catching up on the news and his own local blogs and whatnot. What destressed him the most was the criticism over prisoner abuses. He said that his toughest job is fighting off the Iraqi's who are trying to kill those who have just been captured. He said that the Iraqi's want him to release them so that they can hook their testicles to car batteries, get info from them and then shoot 'em in the back of the head. Hmmm, Americans protecting the terrorists....thought that was interesting.

Anyway, he said he was sickened by these people who constantly bad-mouth the troops, president and the war. He said he wondered how many bloggers realize that the troops themselves are actually reading their crap. He said that from his position that these people who say they support them but not the war are worthless and should try stepping in their boots and reading this crap all the time.

I couldn't agree more. By the way, Bruce, this guy also had the distinct pleasure of attending the presidents speech at Ft. Bragg. If you still believe in your own demented little mind that the soldiers CHOSE not to applaud, I'll see if I can get him to join our blog.

Thanks for that comment, Michael. Most of the libs here have only seen war movies, not the reality of combat like your friend and others.
Yes, US troops do protect detainees. The Abu Ghraib prison has been attacked several times, and US troops protected the prisoners, as is their job.
And they respect this President as no other in recent history.
The libs here don't care about the truth, they just want to get decent Americans to believe their lies so they can regain power. But that's not likely.

Michael,I too have friends in Iraq. A nephew and a good friend's son are there. You are right. They are behind President Bush 100%. My nephew's most prized possession is a picture of him with Bush took in Iraq when he was there for the thanksgiving dinner with the troops.(I have a copy right here). There are some people in these blogs who will never admit that the military is behind Bush and will close their minds to the truth. This is really a shame. It almost seems like that these people want the US defeated so they can day "See I told you we were losing".

Joe said: "Never trust the internet."

I agree with you Joe, and yes my professor would take nothing less when we turned in a reserch paper. Although why anyone would pretend to be a soldier in Iraq, I’m not sure, but more to the point these websites or blogs most have a comment section, no different from this one. Nothing is stopping anyone for making a comment or asking a question for finding out for themselves and deciding. I have read to many blogs from soldiers, do 100% feel the same as these three, no but do the majority, from what I read yes. My point being that some like to say they support the troops but those troops, a large majority, say that don’t feel supported by them. I just think they have a right to have their voice heard. Instead of me saying well I talked with my friend in Iraq and he said he didn’t feel supported by people who didn’t support his mission or even that he hadn’t heard they were losing (which this conversation did happen) I thought I would post a couple of the soldiers blogs and let people decide for themselves. Take it for what you want but at least know that these blogs are there. I also feel that these guys have a right to voice their opinion just like anyone else, especially when it comes to whether they feel supported or not.

Trish,

I can agree with that. Decent can be constructive. But by no means is that a reflection of what goes on here. What takes place here is pure hatred, lies and deception. Our troops deserve better.

Yvonne,

I'm glad to see you rise above the personal attacks. Thank you for your words of support. I appreciate having open discussions with you and all who are interested in them. To attack someone's religion because of their political affiliation is wrong, no matter which way it goes.

Michael and Jackie Keys, you should try being human for a while.

I agree there are a lot of lies, hatred and ignorance expressed in this thread. Go back and read the posts to figure out who is spewing lies and hate and who is attacking whom. I'll give you a hint, it is not the majority of the libs!

My comment about the internet was not aimed at a particular person. I have seen both conservative and liberal use websites and blogs to support their argument. I am one who doesn't put much credence in those as support for an argument.

I believe the anonymity of the internet is why I don't put much into the reliability of these particular sources. We may go online and find a soldier's blog and begin a relationship with this soldier believing that he or she is in Iraq. What proof do we have that he or she isn't in Germany, Guam, or Georgetown?

As a combat veteran, I can tell you that I find it highly suspect that soldiers seeing combat are allowed internet use. Why? When I was in we were not allowed to carry a camera or a diary when we were on patrol or maneuvers. Even letters were censored for sensitive information. The reason being that if we were captured the enemy could use information in those items to gain knowledge about troop strengths and mobility. I seriously doubt that combat troops are allowed cell phone use or internet access without proper authorization and scrutiny. Taking that into consideration, do you really think they are going to give a descending opinion to the military's objective? That would be tantamount to desertion or treason. My belief is the people most of you think are soldiers in Iraq are soldiers at Benning, Bragg, or Dix. That is my belief from my experience and you my believe what you want however erroneous and unsubstantiated I may find it.

I support our troops, but do not support our administration. I am not a liberal. I am not a RINO. I would have liked to have seen anyone but the present person in office. I truly beieve there was a better canidate out there. This person in office was chosen because of his maliability by the party. I never have liked him. Call it a conflicting personality thing if you must call it anything.

I supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq. I will always support soldiers in any way I can. I have been in the same position they are in right now. I know what emotions they are going through better than most of the people posting here. As a soldier you don't want to hear how you aren't appreciated by the public. God knows we weren't supported when I pulled my TOD. When I was in, if I had my choice between having the public behind me as a soldier or spitting on me, I would choose the former no matter how much the public condemned the administration. I would rather have the love and concern of the citizens of the entire nation than only one group of citizens. I find it abhorrent that one group of people can decalare they are the only ones who can support our armed forces. How selfish of those people.

In parting, please do not take things I have written out of context and turn them to your own means. Do not put your words in my mouth. Too many posts have started with, "John said.... In other words...." That is one of the most childish and immature things one can do when expresssing an idea or argument. That is the sign of weakness. If you want to counter an argument, counter it with ideas and thoughts rather than putting words in someone else's mouth.

Yvonne,

If you want to see the lies, go back to the original letter by Bruce and start with his first argument- that no troops applauded the presidents speech (out of choice). That is a complete and uttter falsehood. He's either lying because he knows the reality of the situation or he is simply stupid.

Joe, I don't know what the soldiers can or cannot do in the field with the internet. I agree that your assessment is likely. The soldier I was referring to was on a two week leave stateside. I have seen on t.v. these video feeds that some families use but I would also assume that these guys are on some sort of break.

But also, you will drive yourself mad (and many libs want you to) if you try to relate Iraq and Afghanistan to 9-11. And, NO, Bush did not say that Iraq was part of 9-11. Afghanistan is about the first 9-11, Iraq is all about preventing the next one. If we could all put that in context we might all see this whole thing a little more clearly.

Joe Schmoe, how long ago were you in the military? Had Al Gore even invented the internet when you were in?
I spent most of last year in Iraq, internet service is readily available, and laptops with WiFi cards are at every PX. Soldiers can sit back on their bunks and communicate all day long if they so desire. Blogs from there are common, as are long communications with friends, family, etc. I know several guys over there that have their own blogs, more of a diary thing about what they do on a day-to-day basis to keep their families updated. They generally self-censor themselves to keep from releasing sensitive information.

Mr. Biggs it was, or seems, like another time when I was enlisted. No, Al Gore had not "invented" the internet by then. I understand some soldiers have this technology available. I don't deny that they can and do use them. I just think there are some unscrupulous people out there who are saying they are soldiers in order obtain something. As far as soldiers censoring themselves I find that hard to believe the military would allow it to be at an infantryman's discretion as to what is sensitive and what is not. I am sure that Intel is watching your blogs and emails with the utmost scrutiny. On a side note, glad to have you back! Thanks for the sacrafice!!!

Michael my objection to Iraq is that it is spreading our forces out. I believe in finishing out the Afghan campaign and then moving on from there. I think the whole thing centers around OBL. I am a firm believer that if you take out the head, the body will follow. I would like to see our forces concentrate on him rather than spread ourselves to Iraq or, God forbid they go this far yet, North Korea.

Yvonne, it is a matter of fact that Bush volunteered to go to Viet Nam and his commanding officer decided not to release him. So go find some other misinformation to spread.

Joe,

I'd love to see the OBL thing rapped-up myself. I just don't see the war on terror as a one-headed monster like many do. Granted, he is the only one to do something so far, but militarily speaking, how much time and resources can you devote to one intity all the while letting other groups go unfettered? I don't believe you can.

For example, if one of my kids is stung by a wasp (which they were recently), I'm not spending all my time looking for that particular wasp- I'm looking for ALL the nests around the house and I'm taking them out.

For all we know, OBL is in Syria. We could spend forever looking in Afghanistan and never find him. In the interim, other groups are increasing their networks and capabilities and once they get to a certain stage- there's another 3,000 or more dead.

But I believe this is where the divide is. The left thinks that OBL is the only mastermind out there. The other side simply believes that he was only the first to strike us hard. There are others and 9-11 was the wakeup call that these groups are now capable and we better get them before they get us. I would call for the impeachment of any U.S. president that did not take the offensive after 9-11 on these groups.

Michael

I see where you're coming from on the terrorist hydra analogy. I would have to agree that that a war on terror would has to include the multi-headed beast.

However, I do think as long as OBL is running around and coordinating other attacks, then it encourages those who are less organized to continue. If we were to find him and make sure he pays for the crimes against the world he has committed, then others will think twice about what they plan to do in the future. At this point in time OBL is a figure head to those who want to see this nation, and others, topple. If you remove the iconic hero there is little for them to grasp as successful. It undermines their confidence in their cause.

As far as the left is concerned, I always thought the stand was completely withdraw from the middle east and divest all ties with them. To me, it seems like the extreme left believes that this will cause all terrorism to stop. But I don't want to speak for them. It's just an opinion.

Note to others who like to stoop to personal attacks, profanity and name calling: This is how adults conduct themselves when they have a discussion on issues in which there are opposing viewpoints.

No, Michael, you are supposed to make your kid go outside and apologize to all the wasps that their daddy made mad.

Joe,

There is a part of me that agrees with what might happen if we captured OBL. It might break the will of some. But that is what is logical to us and our western-way of thinking. From all that I have studied over the years about their way of thinking- that scenario would not be the end all. In fact, the opposite might happen.

The jihadists believe that it is biblical (Koran) that they kill non-Muslims and particularly Jews. In other words, even if we had zero connections to the middle-east, they would still be attacking our allies.

The prophet mohammed is the leader of their terrorist group- not OBL- he's just their modern-day hero. Their mission to kill has been around since the 7th century. It's just now, in the 21st century, that their capabilities are such that oceans are no longer a barrier and modern-day weaponary is easily accessable and capable of mass destruction.

Michael,

Perhaps I am stuck in the western way of thinking. I appreciate the enlightenment on jihadists and their motivation. I had a pretty good grasp on it though. I do feel like if OBL's capture and conviction would cause a pause or regrouping it gives us more time to track and find the others. I know it's not going away the very day we catch OBL. It's been going on for decades now and the leader does change. I think that when they, jihadists, see that we will not rest until they stop, then, it may stop. I'm not holding my breath on that. I'm glad we are on the offensive, but think we are leaving one job under-manned and unfinished.

Joe,

Thank you for providing us with "constructive descent". Americans can second-guess the particular strategies of the war without sounding (dare I say) un-American. And to this point, there are as I have pointed out various perspectives as to how we handle the hunt for OBL and balancing that with the rest of the beast.

W is not a micro-manager. He gets the best generals he can and weighs heavily on their strategies. The last thing you want is a president at whim determining which caves to check from a 1/2 a world away. Yet, it is Bush (not the military) that has failed to catch him, according to the left. That is offensive and destructive.

None of us know the conversations that take place between generals and presidents and what intelligence is shared. The "American System" is to elect someone to intake this info and make the best decisions based on what intelligence reports and advisors tell him and not what the NYT or polls tell him.

My trust is such that even when Clinton was in office, I never doubted his motives when it came to the use of military. This is the most serious thing any chief exec will ever do. My only complaint with that was that I never thought he went after it with both barrels. If you can avoid it- avoid it. If ya can't- do it up right is my motto.

Joe Schmoe, all soldiers and other personnel are drilled on operations and communication security. If there were people watching the email and blogs, it would take one watcher for each person over there, which would double the amount of people required just to watch everyone else!
Individual soldiers exhibit great operational security, not discussing movements, strengths, weaknesses, etc. That's one of the responsibilities of everyone in a sensitive/high threat area. The life you save may be your own!
This goes for email as well as contact with non-military folks.
Michael, any confidence most military folks and others in the know had in Clinton went down the drain when he sacrificed our men in Somalia. I suggest you read "Blackhawk Down" by Mark Bowden. Clinton was working behind the scenes to make a deal with Aidid but let our guys continue their missions knowing it was a sham. He sacrificed some of the best soldiers in our military to further his "appeasement" policy.

John,

I believe what you say about Clinton and that fiasco. I did a lot of research on this some time ago and admit that I have forgotten many of the details. It was certainly a failed mission and one where Clinton allowed his politics to trump the mission of his military.

The impression I was left with after all the reading I did about that was that Clinton went into that situation with well intent but then did an about-face after he committed the soldiers.

Which, if true, goes to my original argument that presidents should commit soldiers if they must but after that- leave it to the military to do what they do best. Had Clinton left our guys alone- there would have been a different outcome.

If you have some evidence that Clinton went into the situation with ill-intent, by all means let me know what you know.

Mac let's see proof that dubya volunteered for viet nam. That is a LIE. He was a self admitted alcoholic and I don't believe the air force let's drunks fly planes. He was also on coke - by his own admission - and could not take an ordered physical. The air force has destroyed most of his records so one wonders where you got this info. How could he volunteer for viet nam when he was AWOL. DUBYAVOLUNTEEREDFORVIETNAM that's the funniest post on this site ever.

Mac if yopu go to church you better get on your knees quickly for telling this whopper.

Michael,
Clinton inherited an aid-for-food program implemented by President Bush #41. Then Aidid's guy started killing UN peacekeepers, etc.
Clinton's guys were negotiating with Aidid's people behind the scenes, knowing they would have a diplomatic resolution soon. But Clinton and Les Aspin, the SecDefense, declined to inform the military of this, and allowed the military to continue it's military resolution to the problem. Clinton had no intention of following through with a military solution, he just willingly let the military continue, getting 18 killed in the Oct. 3 battle, knowing it was just a distraction from what was really happening behind the scenes. He sacrificed some of the best guys in the military to reach a diplomatic conclusion that left Aidid and his thugs in control. Less than a month after we lost 18 guys in the Blackhawk Down battle the US military was flying Aidid around in US military aircraft to attend meetings!
It was really a switch-a-roo, the military doing it's job while Clinton did something entirely different and knowingly left the military out to hang.

Yellowdog, that's very interesting. So how come you're the only person on earth that knows George Bush was on cocaine "by his own admission." Did George Bush say this to you personally? Can you provide any evidence that he refused a physical, much less that it was for the reason you say? Do you have even a shred of evidence of any of these lies you'd have us believe?
Can you prove that he was AWOL? Do you even know the criminal elements of being AWOL? Do you have any evidence of this?
Do you have any evidence that he was a "self admitted alcoholic" at that time? Did he admit this to you? How come nobody else on earth has the earth-shattering information you'd like us to believe?
You fuckin' lying little shit.

Parker,

W was AWOL and avoiding arrest by hiding under the desk at a campaign headquarters for a state senator in Texas doing coke with D.B. Cooper.

Didn't you know?

Now apologize to 'ol yeller. You've wounded his inner child and hurt his feelings. If his feelings are hurt than he can't know what he thinks about anything.

Or, then again, you can do what they did to him in the movie and just put 'em down.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Biggs is an idiot if he thinks the military can't watch what he's doing!!!! I see all!!! I know what you write to people!!! I am the Dark Lord!!! All it takes is a trojan or filter to flag any little sensitive detail you write!!! We only need one person for a thousand!!!! Parker Lewis you tell that yellow dog that I....uhm....Bush never did cocaine!!!! Bush was never a drunk!!! He didn't even get that ticket for drunk driving!!! It's all liberal lies!!!! Parker Lewis is worthy of republican minion staus for that post!!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Mr. Biggs, I am all too familiar with what soldiers are asked to do in the name of security. I have been in a hot zone before. The protocol never has really changed except now you guys have cells and laptops for a speedier connection with your families and friends. Do you really believe that MI can't filter out your emails or blogs for sensitive information? If a small company can install spyware so that management can see what people are emailing, I'm sure that the military can do the same. Especially if you are using their equipment to do so. It would not take one person per soldier. It's not like soldiers are writing novels everyday. I'm willing to bet that only one company with the right software could process all outgoing communications for the entire campaign. I also would wager that the enemy spends some time monitoring.

This leads to the original comment that if a soldier were to speak out against the war it could be considered treasonous. If a soldier were to put in print his or her opinion that the war was useless or that he or she disagreed with it, then there is a written record that could be used against those people. This was in response to people who are using the soldiers' blogs and emails to bolster their argument that all soldiers are disappointed that people support them and not the president. Some soldiers may feel that way and others may not. Since there is a personal and, more than likely, military censorship using military blogs and emails becomes suspect evidence. Adding to that the people posing as military personel just taints the person's argument even more. In most cases, the internet is not a reliable source for argumentative research.

yellowdog,

Interview on national TV, 20Sep04:

Texas ANG colonel (Col Earl Livey) confirms that Bush volunteered for a program that would have taken him to Viet Nam!

Joe Schmoe, I was involved in the intelligence aspect of the war over there, individual emails are not being censored or read by MI or anybody else.
It would be impossible to commit the number of personnel to do that.
Take a typical law enforcment wiretap operation here in the U.S. To monitor one phone lines takes at least 2 people on it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's a very large committment for any police unit. Typically you have to commit to 7-8 people a day to do this and norhing else, allowing for sick days, vacation, etc. That's to monitor ONE phone line. And that means these police are not doing their regular jobs, so even more police have to be used to fill in the gaps.
The guys and girls over there understand the importance of keeping sensitive information off of the airwaves.
I'm not busting your chops on this, Joe, just trying to update you on what's happening these days.

I'm always disappointed when these threads get so far off topic that we can't even tell where we began. So, after all this, allow me to summarize...

Bruce Burch is an idiot and a coward moron who hasn't the slighest clue what he is talking about. He's stupid enough to believe that the military audience before President Bush's address chose not to applaud during the speech out of contempt. The rest of his beliefs and understandings of the war are equally inept.

He says he's just as patriotic as the next guy but deserves no less than to be deported to a muslim nation. His words and theories are not only baseless but treasonous and demoralizing to our troops.

With his attitude we would all be speaking with a different accent. This nation was not built- nor can be sustained with such a cowardess attitude. I'm equally disappointed in the N&R for giving this imbecile any ink in the first place.