Our Thursday editorial, written by Rhonda, was excerpted in USA Today. It was among several editorials on the war-funding bill and whether Congress and the White House should compromise. The edited excerpt might have suggested more support of President Bush and the surge strategy than our full editorial reflected.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
23 Comments
Well, congratulations Rhonda! No fainting couch here, and no surprise. I dont always agree, but you do write a mean editorial.
Oh, and Phillip?
“The edited excerpt might have suggested more support of President Bush and the surge strategy than our full editorial reflected.”
Surely that isnt the media crying because the media misinterpreted what was said?
heheheheheheheeh!
I have no problem providing all the funding for the troops that they need to win this war. But with this funding, will our soldiers be provided with the appropriate body armor that WAS NOT provided in the first place?
I am still waiting for someone to take the responsibility for that oversight. I hear George W. Bush praising his generals on the ground but even with the ones that have since left their posts under questions – how many of them were disciplined for not doing their jobs? Didn’t all the generals retire to a nice big fat pension at taxpayers’ expense?
The Iraq War has gone on for too long and with no oversight. Now it is time for the Democrats to put George W. Bush’s feet to the fire and make him accountable for his actions. If GWB cannot take the presssure, then maybe he needs to rethink his strategy. Oh yeah, that’s right, he never makes mistakes. If you believe that, then you deserve what you get.
Sun,
To understand the body armor issue you would need to look at how our military has been equiped to fight wars long before this one.
Body armor, even when I joined the Marines in 1997, was nothing more than a post Vietnam era flack jacket.
It was not rated at protecting you from anything more than shrapnel.
Troops were not issued actual Body armor at huge levels.
When we started fighting this war we went there with a military which has trained for fighting another military force for the past 40 years.
Only in the past decade has the military really started teaching Urban Warfare Doctrine at large levels.
Either way, when you fight a war, you fight it with the military you have, not the one you wish you did.
That being said, it is no fault of someone or some individual for our troops not having body armor.
Once the need was realized they started mass producing the stuff and getting it to the troops.
Even now, the armor I was wearing out there was a hodge podge of updates and remodifications.
Even now the Marine Corps is introducing an even better piece of Body armor.
It is called perspective.
What is there to compromise about? Provide the funding, period. No more pork, no more surrender dates. Just funding.
All the pork was used by the GOP when they had control of Congress. Now pork is an issue, where were you when we were building a bridge to nowhere? And I love the term “surrender date”. Like this is WWII and we are surrendering to a military force. That’s all the right can come up with word tracks. Here is one for you, instead of calling them timetables lets call them Patriot Redeployment Schedules. That would fluster the right, how can you be against Patriots? The Dem’s should beat them at their own game. Come up with a better word track
And here is another one. If you hate “pork” then you are with the terroists. They don’t like “pork” either.
Nathan – your logic for lack of body armor sounds like the double-talk we get from GWB about any subject he chooses to mutter.
Why is the military so blind as to not see or anticipate what needs our soldiers will have when fighting the war. I noticed during this time that Halliburton’s overpriced billings were being paid and no one questioned a bit of those payments going to a non-military company.
Why are our soldiers the last ones to get their needs filled? We are fighting insurgents who are basically fighting like street rats. I don’t see the insurgents as some big army with uniforms that all march in lockstep. Maybe we need to change our strategy and start using our brains instead of our braun and gunpower. Just because we have the bigger guns, does not mean we will win the war.
Sun,
What double talk?
to understand this you need to look at the history of warfare, the equipment needs we had before, and what we were currently training for and with.
It is not double speak. It is called understanding.
I suggest you get some.
Either way, when you fight a war, you fight it with the military you have, not the one you wish you did.Posted by: Nathan | May 04, 2007 at 02:35 PM
Is that Donald Rumsfeld? You are doing a heck of a job with the war Rummie.
There is no “war,” just genocide for Israel’s sake. They don’t want to pay the price for being so rotten.
nathan – why do you always sidestep the issue? Bush has had 4 years to build up his military and God knows, he has borrowed enough money from China to finance his war.
How incompetent does one have to be when it is reported on national news about our soldiers looking through garbage to find pieces of metal for makeshift body armor. I just do not see how you can still defend this type of incompetent management of a war because of some sone insane argument that our military did not have what we need so we go to war with what we have? It has been 4 years of this war. How long does it take the military to decide what they need to fight a war and win it? If it takes more than 4 years to get the appropriate equipment, then someone needs to clean house in the military and find people that can move faster than 4 years and we still do not have the appropriate equipment for our soldiers. But, you failed to address why in the last 4 years, Halliburton has never been NOT paid for their overpriced billings. If there is money for Halliburton – there is money for equipment for our soldiers!
Or are you one of those that think Halliburton comes first?
Sun,
I think you are messed up on the timeline.
I was talking about why we didn’t have the equipment when we went to war.
We have body armor now. I don’t know of anyone having to search through the garbage to look for Body Armor while I was in Iraq nor have I seen any stories on such.
You are jumping around so much I don’t think you have a clue as to what you are talking about.
The Victory.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
Expired link above.
Speaking of Rumsfield, he said he wanted to remake the military but his idea is to make it leaner.Less troops, do away with tanks and heavy armor in favor of lighter, faster moving armor with out the larger cannons. Join all branches into one force, doing away with the Army, Marines, Navy and Air force in favor of a United States Military force. Solely controlled by a civilian, with no control given to Generals or any other military officers other then below the civilian controller.
To be honest though I see both side of Nathan and Sun’s discussion, yes our military has been suffering from too many years of peace. And the thinking that bring about, but also seeing the real need it was within the power of Rumsfield to quick step and fill the need. considering the fact that we were already in Afghanistan and the planning to invade Iraq went on well before the actual invasion. Not to mention the fact we have been involved in a few shooting war before even Afghanistan. Granted that other then Somalia our troops have not had to face urban warfare lately.
It keep being said of G.W. Bush as the worst President ever, but the more I have learned of Don Rumsfield.There can be no doubt he was the worst secretary of Defense ever! Good ridden to bad rubbish!
There are several prominent Republicans who also agree that Bush administration mismanaged the Iraq war from the beginning and they are still mismanaging the war to this day.
Nathan – you go on and keep drinking the koolaid that Rush passes out to his dittoheads and you keep on believing that Bush is a good moral Christian leader. As for me and the rest of the majority of Americans, our eyes have been opened and we are looking elsewhere for answers to the real problems our country faces. And half of those problems have been brought on by your noble leader George W. Bush.
“What is there to compromise about? Provide the funding, period. No more pork, no more surrender dates. Just funding” – fleetwood
Yeah! More blank checks for Bush since he’s done such a *bang-up* job!
Sheesh.
Hans Blix, the chief of the UN weapons inspection force told a conference of the American Bar Association today that the putative letter showing Saddam was trying to obtain Nigerian yellowcake was found to be an obvious forgery before we went into Iraq.
He made the point that his teams were given several dozen alleged WMD sites to inspect, based on CIA intelligence reports. They inspected THREE DOZEN sites, and were well on their way to inspecting the rest. In EVERY SITE THEY INSPECTED, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY WMDs, although they did find conventional arms caches in some cases.
He says today that the inspectors began to realize that the WMD sites, provided by Iraqi expatriates, was simply not-credible information. Like Ahmed Chalabi, who was trying to foment an invasion, prodding the CIA, angling for an opportunity to be made Iraq’s PM, with US help. It’s now known that he was spoofing the CIA. After “Mission Accomplished” resulted in elections, he only got 2% of the PM vote. The Iraqis of all groups didn’t want him.
The important thing here is that the UN inspections were on track, albeit disproving the WMD rumor. Why didn’t the administration exercise patience and let the inspectors do their job?
Put stringent requirements on the puppet government in Baghdad to settle with its own people. Keeping the same failed course expecting magically different results is INSANITY.
Poor Phillip and Rhonda, they don’t like the way their little article was edited. It is ok when they take things out of context but heaven forbid that someone should take their words out of context.
Just a taste of the medicine you have served for years. Now sit quietly and take it.
“Yeah! More blank checks for Bush since he’s done such a *bang-up* job!
Sheesh.
Posted by: ddub | May 04, 2007 at 06:55 PM”
ddub–Why don’t the “you people” in Congress have the courage to cut the funding? All of it. I’ll tell you why. They have no courage. Political gamesmen and nothing more.
Why fund the war, I thought it ended 4 years ago?