While Jim is wrestling the alligator, I'd like to tell you about Mutual of Omaha's "Family of Four Plan", uh, gulp, I meant "Family of Three Plan".

Welcome,friends to the latest edition of of the Bush Bash.

Is there still time for me to get front row tickets? I do love a good bash.

If anyone has the right to be heard, it's a parent of a son or daughter serving in Iraq.

Bash away!

Last night I had the opportunity to listen to Dick Clarke (Yes, I think he changed his name from Richard) lay the blame for London at Bush's feet. Absolutely disgusting and uncouth to play the blame game while people are still in recovery from such a horrible incident.

It is the very nature of war that you are prepared to fight the last one, not the next one.

I went into the USMC in 1962. We trained and were equipped to fight in wide open clear areas. We were training to fight the Korean War. Our leadership were veterans of that war. It is what we knew, setting up company emplacements, laying out fields of fire for machine guns in anticipation of massed infantry attack across miles of open areas.

What did we get next. A war in a jungle with your enemy no more than 15 feet from you before you could see him.

The vehicles were armored, they were not armored for very large explosive devices set up beside the road and designed for blowing up vehicles. Until that tactic was used it could not be defended against.

We have a military to defend us. It is their job. If you join for the benefits you are a fool. A person joining the military is joining to defend our country, to take what the enemy offers and deal with it. You as an individual are not given a choice as to where, when or how you will be used in that defense. You simply must go and do it. That is the nature of the military and it is why it works and why we, our military is the finest fighting force on the face of the earth. An all better be happy that we are.

Until yesterday we were the only ones that had been attacked.

Your insult to our military leadership is unforgivable. Son in service or not.

"The coalition he talks about consists mainly of us."

You forgot about Poland!

Please thank your son for his service to our country in a time of war.
We did not send troops to war with NO armor, or NO armored vehicles, or incompetent leaders.
It would have been nice to have a couple of years to prepare and make sure we had enough of each item to issue to each and every soldier, but that's not reality. Each soldier there is issued body armor. They are many types in the inventory, some are older, some are newer. It's impossible to develop a new product and immediate have 150,000 or more of that item to issue tomorrow.
It was not possible to anticipate what environment the Humvees or trucks would be used in, or what their missions would be, or the threat they would face until the situation developed. Necessity is the mother of invention, and virtually GI every vehicle rolling over there has armor, even if it's homegrown by the GI's themselves. It's simply impossible to armor hundreds of thousands of vehicles overnight. It's also impossible to know in advance which vehicles will need to be armored in the next war.
"Competence" in leaders is largely a matter of perception. I might think the Colonel is a great leader, your son might think he's not. Which of us is correct? More than likely, we both are. Men are men, not all are perfect. In an organization that numbers in the millions, not each and every leader will be a Gen. McArthur.
The GI's on the ground at the sharp end of the stick are doing their best to do their jobs.
Please understand the difficulties of having a perfect military, it just doesn't happen that way in the real world.

"As of March 15, 2004, there were 25 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Ukraine."

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

And this doesn't count the thousands of brave Iraqi soldiers and policeman who work and die every day insuring the security of their own country with our assitance.

This is hardly a one man show.

Good point, Ken. More than 2,000 Iraqi forces have died fighting for their freedom alongside us.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/20050707_1999.html

Yep, hardly a coalition that consists mainly of us.

Ken, while all of those countries are a part of the coalition, they did not send a large number of troops. So it is mainly us, the iraqis and a mish mash of other troops from the coalition that hardly offer a large soldier prescence. Rallying off all those countries looks good on paper, but why dont you check and see how many soldiers Macedonia or Poland lost in the war? It is not bush bashing to acknowledge that this war is a quagmire and that the powers that be misled us into it, its fact, and until we acknowledge our difficulties we will continue to lose men and women every day.

k,

So what? The job needed doing and there is only one country in the world that can and is doing it.

It is very misleading to state that we are alone, we are not. It is a fact. Playing with the words doesn't change that.

I see you have broke out the old quagmire gambit today.

Go to the post called, "The honorable course requires withdrawal". Go down about 11 posts and read the one placed there by Jackie Keys. Then come back here and see if you can describe the quagmire that you have back up information for.

And yes we will be loosing more good American troops. Can you picture what we will be loosing when the ragheads put together something in one of our major cities similar to what they pulled off in London yesterday? We are far far better off fighting the fight were we are.

Mac,

"The job needed doing"

Which job would that be? WMD? There weren't any, so that didn't need doing. Freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator? There are plenty of places where people are in need of being freed from dictators -- what made Iraq so special? Nope, that job didn't need doing. Bringing Democracy to the Middle East? Why should that be our job, especially when we had unfinished business in Afghanistan and plenty of other more pressing concerns?

" We are far far better off fighting the fight were we are."

The fact that they bombed London shows that we will NOT just be fighting the fight "where we are" ... we will be fighting it there, and we will still need to fight it at home. The war in Iraq has not made us one bit safer, and has probably done just the opposite. I'm not saying we should leave at this point, but I do think it was a mistake to go there in the first place.

You can remove Poland and Ukraine from that list as they will be moving out soon. How many of these countries are there in name only,ie only saying we support you Bush, and how many are there are only to get that big fat financial favors from Washington? With the exception of Britain, we are doing most of the fighting and dying,outside the Iraqis. I dont here alot about we,ie the coalition dying only US/us.

Truth
Actually I intended to write this blog at you. I did not hear what Clark said but if he said what you wrote then he was out of place. First as you said that the people are in the hospital but more important to put this on Bushes shoulders is wrong. As anyomne here know; I feel Bush took his eye off the ball, ie bin laden, by going after sadaam. But even I will admit there is no gaurrentee he would have found him or even if he did that london wouldnt still had taken place. Bin laden followers have so morphed by now capturing him want change much outside bringing to justice the man responsible for 3000 deaths.

So anyone trying to put this on Bush is out of place.

Living in Germany I thought hard about what took place. First Bin laden has threatened to hit any country aiding the US in afghanistan and Iraq. Second he hit spain and britain around big events,elections and G-8, third he has hit financial centers,NY,london and madrid.
Germany has troops in Afghanistan and regardless ot some popular opinion they did help out a little in Iraq, and next year Germany is hosting the 2006 World Cup. That means millions of people will be flying into the busiest airport of continental europe and into banking center not only of gemany but of europe.

Any bets on where and when the next attack is coming?

Anthony said: "Which job would that be?"

How about the job of enforcing the UN Resoultions or perhaps the ceasefire agreement. Are those important?

Hayes said: "First Bin laden has threatened to hit any country aiding the US in afghanistan and Iraq"

He might have said that, but I think more to the point it doesn't matter one way or the other. If Iraq or Afghanistan was the problem then Bali, Morocco and France wouldn't have been targets and they were. Here is a quote from a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden, talking about the French tanker that was bombed, said, "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

So what is it that the terrorist want? A free Palestine state perhaps, or maybe the west to leave Arab land? Well Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

So you see it doesn't matter what country has or has not supported the US, we are all infidels.

Anthony, You are wrong. Saddam had WMD's. He used them on his own people. I am sure you have seen the photos of the families, the children,(See I get to use "the children" also.).

I have no doubt that you have read the famous Downing Street Memos where the discussion took place about how quickly Saddam would deploy them?

The fact that London got hit has more to do with how well our military and other government agency's, including President Bush, is protecting our country. I cannot believe that you or anyone else would think that those bombs would have not been set off in the USA if it was possible.

Mac,
Why do you use the term "ragheads"? Don't you understand that term is an ignorant one?

Just wait folks, there WILL be another attack on American soil, just give it time. Then what will you cons use as an argument? Sure wont be able to use the "no more attacks on our soil since we struck first."

You're correct in saying Saddam had MWMD's. But let's put the facts right. Intelligence concluded that they were all destroyed around 1991 or so.

You don't believe me? Then tell me where they are now and don't say Seria because our satellites would have picked up that activity. (as former military w/secret security clearance I know)

Using this heartfelt letter by a father of a serviceman as an occasion to spout right-wing talking points is just plain tacky. Mr. Kennedy, thank you for your son's service, and for giving those of us on the sidelines a taste of what it's like. I wish your son the best of luck in getting home unscathed.

Trish.....I couldn't have said it any better.

Brian said: "You don't believe me? Then tell me where they are now and don't say Seria because our satellites would have picked up that activity."

It doesn't matter Brian, what the left fails to remember is that Saddam broke the ceasefire agreement that ended the First Gulf War, we had every right to go into Iraq. But more to the point we are in Iraq the President said we are staying so better luck next election.

Trish
When was France hit by terrorists,ie bin laden or connected?
Morroco? I am not sure what you are refering to but if you are talking about their homegrown terrorist problems that history is older than 911 and has nothing to do with us,911,madrid or london.
Bali I have to go back on that but what I remember that was also and age old homegrown terrorists attack. Yes I think they had connections and maybe even training but their objectives is more in their country.

Also it seems you would enjoy it if we did some a** kicking throughout the middle east.

Hey Trish I thought you would give me some credit if not even a break for defending Bush this time.

Trish, You are always spouting off about UN resolutions that Saddam broke, but did you know that the UN did not approve the cease fire agreement the US presented? Did you know that the no-fly zones were entirely a USA thing? That's right, the UN had no part of the no-fly zones, that was all USA!

And the sanctions we imposed on Iraq helped to kill untold numbers of innocent Iraqis. Yes, we knew the oil for food program money was lining Saddams pockets, yet we as a nation did nothing about it.

Oh yea, and what about all the UN security resolutions that Israel is in violation of? Should we invade Israel too?

So Bug says:
"Using this heartfelt letter by a father of a serviceman as an occasion to spout right-wing talking points is just plain tacky. "

Bug, How about a father of a service man using a letter to the editor to tear down the command structure of the military his son is serving in?

How about you understanding that the chain of command in a military unit is all that makes it function?

How about you understanding that when the son looses faith in his superior officers and non-commission officers that he endangers himself, his fellow soldiers and the entire effort of our military?

If this proud father is planting the same ideas in his son's head that he is trying to plant in the readership, he is putting is own son in more danger.

How about that?

And I can add. How about a father of a serviceman in a war zone using this occasion and using his son as leverage to spout left-wing talking points? Ain't that just a little bit tacky?

Mr.Robbins, as a veteran,no one has more respect and admiration for our military than I. Each and every one of them deserves our respect and support. But to label the leadership as incompetent is a out of bounds. The leadership in the military are, for the most part carreer soldiers who JOIN the military out of a sense of pride and love for country. They are not there for the money or benefits. Thanks to your son for his service.

Briankeith, the term "ragheads" is a compliment to these terrorists compared to what the guys in the military call there murdering cowards who pay the parents of children to become a "homicide bomber" and slaughter innocent women and children along with anyone else who happens to be nearby."Raghead" is printable here as what I call them is not. You PC guys irk me sometime. I await your insults.

Anthony, do you even know what a WMD is? Apparently not from your ignorant post.
briankeithharper, Saddam and his government killed those people during the sanctions. All he had to do was comply and they would not have died. The blood is on his hands, not the hands of the free democracies in this world. And WMD's were found in Iraq when we liberated it. Or don't you know what a WMD is, either?
The no-fly zones were the only thing that kept tens of thousands of Kurds from being slaughtered as they were before the no-fly zones. Another instance of the US protecting Iraqis from Saddam long before liberation.

If you guys don't have a clue what you're talking about, how about butting out of this conversation?

Brian said: "You are always spouting off about UN resolutions that Saddam broke, but did you know that the UN did not approve the cease fire agreement the US presented?"

Oh well you see the UN approved A cease-fire agreement: "By its resolution 687 of 3 April 1991, the United Nations Security Council established the terms and conditions for the formal cease-fire between Iraq and the coalition of Member States co-operating with Kuwait" So go read what the UN has to say about it. http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/General/basicfacts.html#ESTABLISH
So it really doesn't matter whether or not the UN approved ours, Iraq's or even Mars because you see the UN did in fact approve a cease-fire agreement and Iraqi leaders formally accept cease fire terms.

"Did you know that the no-fly zones were entirely a USA thing? That's right, the UN had no part of the no-fly zones, that was all USA!"

Wrong again Brian. It was not an entire USA thing: "The United States, United Kingdom and France proclaimed the no-fly zones (NFZs) in Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War to protect Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south. The United States and Britain argued that the patrols were authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, adopted April 5, 1991. The text "condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq" This was easy to verify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones However I can believe the UN had no part in the no-fly zones, because as the UN has shown they do not care if millions of people are slaughtered.

"what about all the UN security resolutions that Israel is in violation of? Should we invade Israel too?"

I'm sorry did I miss it when we went to war with Israel and they signed a cease-fire agreement agreeing to the Resolutions? Did I miss it that Israel agreed to have the UN monitor their nuclear program and then kick out inspectors?

You really should quit going to the DU for help, as you have seen they are not the brightest people around.

Brian said: "And the sanctions we imposed on Iraq helped to kill untold numbers of innocent Iraqis."

·The United States introduced UN Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712 in August and September of 1991.
·These resolutions eased sanctions on the sale of oil, imposed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, by allowing Iraq to sell a certain amount of oil and use proceeds to meet the humanitarian needs of its people. Iraq refused to cooperate and made no sales under 706 and 712, and refused to discuss alternate arrangements.
·Instead, Iraq in effect held its own people hostage. It demanded that the UN Security Council lift all sanctions unconditionally. It simultaneously refused to cooperate with efforts to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, a key precondition set by the UN for ending sanctions. The Iraqi strategy was a duplicitous effort to blame the international community for the suffering of its people, and thereby force the UN to end sanctions without ensuring that Iraq relinquish its weapons of mass destruction programs.
·UN Security Council Resolution 986, which passed in April 1995, established the current Oil-for-Food Program, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/16176.htm

Also you seem to forget that when Saddam invaded Kuwait the wonderful UN tried sanctions to get him to leave.The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But as we now Saddam didn't care for his people.

"Yes, we knew the oil for food program money was lining Saddams pockets, yet we as a nation did nothing about it."

Do you have proof to back up that claim?

Mac,

I agree with your post. Although as Joe Schmoe pointed out in another blog, how do we know Mr. Kennedy has a son in Iraq. No offense Mr. Kennedy, but I use to trust what people said, but Joe Schmoe thinks that some people pretend to be in Iraq when the are not. Got me to thinking when I saw this letter. How do we know?

Tater, Why don't you get real assertive and ask Trish out? (If she's not Michael in drag, hope you get in a word edgewise)

Steve, why don't YOU ask Trish out? Or are you afraid she wouldn't want to date a pimply-faced high schooler??

Hayes:

Morocco (notice that the Belgian consulate was also targeted and as far as I know Belgium has never supported us):
"The attacks on Friday night were aimed at foreign targets - a Jewish community centre, a busy Spanish restaurant and social club, a five-star international hotel and the Belgian consulate." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3037157.stm
"The operation was part of an investigation into near-simultaneous suicide attacks in Casablanca, Morocco, that killed 33 bystanders and 12 bombers on May 16, 2003, authorities said. Paris prosecutors opened an investigation three days after the attacks because three of the victims were French.Those detained for questioning are suspected of belonging to the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Bot said. The organization, which has alleged links to al Qaeda, has been blamed by the Spanish government in the March 11 rail attacks in Madrid that killed 191 people." www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/03/world/main603720.shtml

France tanker hit off the coast of Yemen:
"SANAA, Feb 5 (Reuters) - A Yemeni appeals court on Saturday sentenced to death the leader of a group of 15 men found guilty last year of bombing a French supertanker and toughened other verdicts passed against the al Qaeda supporters. Fawaz al-Rabe'ie told the court in December the men had given a "pledge" to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to kill Americans"
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05371650.htm

"Also it seems you would enjoy it if we did some a** kicking throughout the middle east."

Yes I would. Iran, Syria then on to Saudi Arabia. I read something that I can agree with:
"Islamic civilization reached its peak about 500 years ago, and has been on the decline ever since. The long slide was temporarily slowed by the discovery of oil, but even the resulting influx of petrodollars has brought more contact with the West, and has worked to break down the walls of isolation. The Islamists are desperately working to rebuild those walls but they're fighting a rear-guard action. It's already too late."

"Hey Trish I thought you would give me some credit if not even a break for defending Bush this time."

Sorry about that Hayes! I am working on shorting my novels here on the blogs! However thank you for not being one of those looney leftist that blame Bush for everything, like the hurricanes, Mt. St. Helens eruption, shortage of flu vaccine awe but the list is to long!

Sorry Trish,

Bush and his crime family are murderous thugs and to agree with them would be treasonous.

Jim said: "Sorry Trish"

No need to apologize Jim. I needed an example of the loony left and you provided it. Thanks.