Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/22/06 6:34 pm:
Hey Ronnie, I wonder what the polls would say if the media showed images like these from the GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION RALLY in San Francisco.

My favorite, Jail Bush for the murder of JFK.

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/22/06 7:11 pm:
ETW,


"First of all, most of the multiple tour soldiers have volunteered to go back. As for the few who didn't volunteer to go back (a very small minority), please keep in mind that military life isn't "fair". The military isn't a Democracy. Those in the military take orders and go where they are told to go. The military decides who they need where based on need, not fairness."



Wrong. Full timers depending on their units MOS are called back into action. Those wishing to volunteer outside of those needs are always welcome. Reserve Units are a seperate issue they are called up and activated as needed. Of course nothing in life is fair, especially military life and we know those recruiting ads are not going to mention that truth to youths.

The moral is down and GW's war campaign is wearing thin on family nerves. I have a brother and cousins in the fray. My brother is one of the elder members of his units with rank and one of his duties is keeping the moral up. He has to work hard at it because there is more and more disenchanted. As for the rest of your utopia propaganda keep dreaming for the interests of your political party.



I love myself,
George

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/23/06 12:38 am:
Itsdb

"And that's different now than when? If any yong man enlists in the army and doesn't realize he'll have to take orders and might have to go to combat, that young man is an idiot."


I don't think I would refer to them as idiots. They are young people whom after graduating high school want direction. Many of them sign up for benefits and education. Our government knows this. I prefer to call those that sign up in the military thinking they wouldn't be called into into the Iraqi campaign "naive." That's the nature of recruiting. Then of course there are some knuckleheads like myself, some 25 years ago I joined the Marine Reserves along with four other close testerone charged buddies, as a prelude to my college years. Everybody in my family has served in the military at one time or another. Some didn't make it back from Nam others did. I pray they all make it back from Iraq.



George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/23/06 1:49 pm:
George,

And now for some facts:

From a poll of military servicemen dated 1/3/06 by the Military Times.

Published:
January 3, 2006

Morale
1) How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your job?

Completely satisfied 36%
Somewhat satisfied 49%
Somewhat dissatisfied 12%
Completely dissatisfied 3%
No opinion/no answer 0%

2) How satisfied are you with your family life?

Very satisfied 55%
Somewhat satisfied 32%
Somewhat dissatisfied 7%
Very dissatisfied 4%
No opinion/no answer 2%

3) To what extent, if any, do you experience conflict between your work life and your personal life?

A great deal 7%
Quite a lot 32%
Not very much 51%
None at all 9%
Don't know/no answer 1%

4) How satisfied are you with the amount of time you spend with your family?

Very satisfied 19%
Somewhat satisfied 42%
Somewhat dissatisfied 25%
Very dissatisfied 12%
Don't know/no answer 2%

5) At this time, would you say you are worried about your family's finances, or not?

Very worried 5%
Somewhat worried 29%
Not too worried 38%
Not at all worried 26%
No opinion/no answer 1%

6) Would you recommend a military career to others?

Yes 82%
No 13%
No opinion/no answer 4%

7) If you had a son or daughter who was planning to enter the military, would you support that step or would you suggest a different occupation?

Support that step 73%
Suggest different occupation 23%
No opinion/no answer 4%

8) If you had to decide today, would you re-enlist or -- if an officer -- extend your commitment?

Yes 70%
No 19%
Don't know/no answer 11%

9) If you answered YES to No. 8, check the THREE most important reasons why.

Educational opportunities 22%
Patriotism 57%
Pay 26%
Pension 46%
Job security 43%
Tavel, adventure 17%
Health care for my family and me 40%
Career satisfaction 36%
Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan 9%
None of the above 1%

10) If you answered NO to No. 8, check the THREE most important reasons why.

Educational opportunities 11%
Patriotism 11%
Pay 30%
Pension 40%
Job security 48%
Tavel, adventure 40%
Health care for my family and me 9%
Career satisfaction 29%
Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan 47%
None of the above 6%

11) I would rate my military housing as:

Excellent 14%
Satisfactory 45%
Poor 15%
Very Poor 10%
No opinion/no answer 16%

12) I would rate military pay and allowances as:

Excellent 13%
Satisfactory 66%
Poor 17%
Very Poor 4%
No opinion/no answer 0%

13) I would rate military health care as:

Excellent 18%
Satisfactory 60%
Poor 15%
Very Poor 6%
No opinion/no answer 1%

14) Overall, officers in the military are:

All Military
respondents respondents
Excellent 23% 9%
Satisfactory 62% 66%
Poor 10% 16%
Very Poor 3% 5%
No opinion/no answer 2% 3%

15) Overall, enlisted leaders in the military are:

All Officer
respondents respondents
Excellent 31% 41%
Satisfactory 60% 54%
Poor 6% 3%
Very Poor 2% 1%
No opinion/no answer 1% 1%

16) Overall, my military quality of life is:

Excellent 22%
Satisfactory 68%
Poor 8%
Very Poor 1%
No opinion/no answer 14%

17) I am well trained for my military job.

Strongly agree 37%
Agree 54%
Disagree 7%
Strongly disagree 1%
No opinion/no answer 1%

18) People in the military today are supplied with the best possible weapons and equipment.

Strongly agree 11%
Agree 47%
Disagree 30%
Strongly disagree 9%
No opinion/no answer 3%

19) The civilian leadership of the Department of Defense has my best interests at heart.

Strongly agree 5%
Agree 35%
Disagree 33%
Strongly disagree 17%
No opinion/no answer 10%
20) President George W. Bush has my best interests at heart.

Strongly agree 19%
Agree 39%
Disagree 18%
Strongly disagree 11%
No opinion/no answer 12%

21) The senior military leadership has my best interests at heart.

Strongly agree 16%
Agree 48%
Disagree 20%
Strongly disagree 8%
No opinion/no answer 7%

22) Congress has my best interests at heart.

Strongly agree 2%
Agree 29%
Disagree 40%
Strongly disagree 17%
No opinion/no answer 11%

23) Today's service members are better than they've ever been.

Strongly agree 21%
Agree 46%
Disagree 22%
Strongly disagree 3%
No opinion/no answer 9%

24) Today's military is stretched too thin to be effective.

Strongly agree 26%
Agree 38%
Disagree 27%
Strongly disagree 3%
No opinion/no answer 7%


So... what do we have here? 57% of those who join the military do so out of PATRIOTISM, not because of the educational or training benefits. 85% are satisfied with their jobs. 90% are satisfied with military life. 91% consider themselves well-trained for their jobs. 58% feel that they are supplied with the best equipment available. 58% feel that the President has their best interests at heart. 64% feel that the military leadership has their best interests at heart. (Only 31% feel that CONGRESS has their best interests at heart... which doesn't say very many good things about Congress' support for the military.) 64% say that they are not worried about their families finances, in other words they are satisfied with their pay and benefits. 82% would recommend a military career to others, and 73% would support their children if they decided to join the military.

These are not the numbers of a military who's morale is low.

And now for the opinions of military servicement on Iraq and Afghanistan.

1) Are you on active duty?

NOTE: Only active-duty responses were counted in remaining results.

Yes 85%
No 15%

2) Service branch:

Army 48%
Navy 20%
Air Force 21%
Marine Corps. 10%
Coast Guard 1%
No response 1%

3) How many times have you deployed to Iraq?

Once 31%
Twice 11%
Three times 2%
More than three times 0%
Never/no response 53%

4) How many times have you deployed to Afghanistan?

Once 11%
Twice 3%
Three times 0%
More than three times 1%
Never/no response 85%

5) In total, I have deployed in support of the war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq for:

Less than 2 months 3%
3-6 months 19%
7-12 months 22%
13-18 months 10%
19 or more months 7%
Haven't deployed/no response 39%

6) Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?

Yes 56%
No 26%
No opinion/no answer 7%
Decline to answer/no answer 11%

7) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?

Very likely to succeed 31%
Somewhat likely to succeed 42%
Not very likely to succeed 17%
Not at all likely to succeed 3%
No opinion/no answer 6%

8) How soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops?

Less than a year 2%
1-2 years 27%
3-5 years 40%
5-10 years 17%
More than 10 years 7%
No opinion/no answer 6%

9) How long do you think the U.S. will need to stay in Iraq to reach its goals?

Less than a year 2%
1-2 years 11%
3-5 years 35%
5-10 years 30%
More than 10 years 15%
No opinion/no answer 6%

10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?

Approve 54%
Disapprove 25%
No opinion 9%
Decline to answer 12%

To one of your points: only 2% of respondants have been stations in Iraq or Afghanistan more than twice. This is hardly a widespread phenomenon. Next, 54% approve of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. 73% believe that we will be successful in Iraq. 75% are of the opinion that it will take at least 3 more years before we are ready to leave Iraq, and 64% believe that it will take at least 3 years for the Iraqi military to be able to take over from US troops... and they are prepared for that eventuality.

Again, these numbers do not reflect a military who's morale is in the dumps.

Here are a few other points from the poll that I thought might be of interest.

Some people think that by criticizing the military, news organizations weaken the country's defenses. Others think that such criticism helps keep our country militarily prepared. Which position is closest to your opinion?

Weakens defense 62%
Keeps nation prepared 22%
Don't know/no answer 16%

In general, do you think news organizations get the facts straight, or do you thnk their stories and reports are often inaccurate?

Get facts straight 11%
Stories often inaccurate 81%
Don't know/no answer 7%

How do you think each of these groups views the military?

Civilians Media Politicians
Very favorable 24% 5% 10%
Somewhat favorable 58% 33% 53%
Somewhat unfavorable 14% 38% 29%
Very unfavorable 2% 24% 6%
No answer 1% 1% 2%

Boy, they really hate the mainstream media!!!

Another interesting point: virtually all military personnel are between the ages of 21 and 58. Very few, if any, are younger than 21. So your argument that the military servicement are just kids who are being folled into the military is also untrue.

The information above can be found at http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main2.php

Perhaps if your brother is having trouble keeping morale up, perhaps its because he's not as good at his job as he ought to be. Or perhaps he shares your views and is bringing down their morale himself. But the statistical evidence above denies the credence of your anecdotal evidence.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/23/06 2:34 pm:
>>I knew that would throw a man who follows a man who has no moral absolutes.<<

Ronnie, words don't fail me after reading that obnoxious, ludicrous, vitriolic insult, the second this week - I just can't use them all here. Put your imagination to work while searching for your conscience and maybe you'll come close to figuring out what I'm thinking.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 03/23/06 3:44 pm:

The notion of supporting/not supporting the troops is a fatuous nonsense.

The criticism that I have seen and heard are not made of the nation's soldiery, but of its president.

Nice deflection, though. Kudos for that.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/23/06 4:42 pm:
That's not how the soldiers see it, Ronnie. The poll numbers make that pretty clear too.

When you say that the war is unwinable, you malign the soldiers who believe they CAN and WILL win. When you criticize or ignore the progress that has been made by the soldiers in Iraq, you attack their morale. When you say that they are fighting for a lie, when they see for themselves the good they are doing for the Iraqi people, you attack their honor. When you attack soldiers for war crimes they didn't commit, you undermine their ability to do the job.

So please, stop insulting the intelligence and accomplishements of the troops, get off of "the war is wrong" BS, and get behind the troops for real. Because the harm you are doing them with your anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric is not "fatuous nonsense". It is a very real form of harm that effects the way they do their jobs and their safety.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 03/23/06 8:07 pm:

In the Iraq situation you have to redfine what you mean by 'win,' because if you mean an end to terrorist and insurgent action it l;ooks increasingly likely that the war will never be 'won.'

The war in Iraq is politically driven and has been sonce the beginning. The grounds given for the war have changed so often that it even confuses the C in C, so what the foot-soldiers make of it it open to question.

Identifying the lack of progress in Iraq is politically realistic. The soldiery is not doing the rebuilding unless the Fifth Halliburton Regikment has taken to the firing line.

Progress/not progress is not a matter for morale, but matters of facts. The fact speak louder than spin.

I have not said they are fighting FOR a lie, but they are fighting BECAUSE of lies, and the chief liar is Bush. That he has now been forced to become honest and realistic as more and more facts become known, and as even those who once were among his staunchest supporters have taken hold of the truth of the situation has probably had a worse effect on military nmorale at all levels than their not being mentioned in an event where the narcissistic gather to slap themselves on the back.

Your accusation that their honour is attacked is a lie direct. It might sound good from the pulpit but there is not a shred of truth in it.

Honour comprises the reputation, self-perception or moral identity of an individual or group. It has nothing to do with whether the president lied or not, and nothing to do with factual events being reported in a free press.

The worst harm to honour from the battlefield can be laid at the feet of the torturers, the abusers, the murderers of unarmed and disabled prisoners, and the reckless and wanton slaughter of innocents too young to be any harm to anyone. Those who commit suchj atrocities, and those who sanction them, arrange them, and then lie about them, attack the honour of the honourable.

When soldiers are attacked for war crimes they have committed it shines the light on wrong-doing, picks out the criminal element among your troops, and sets the course for justice to prevail.

Who has accused the innocent of such crimes? I have not. But I do accuse the guilty, and so should everyone else who has a backbone and a sense of morality that will not bend or break under the weight of political or partisan expediency.

I have not insulted the intelligence of the troops. I question Bush's 'intelligence,' and the 'intellingence' he now admits was wrong and which was the foundation of his taking America and many other nations into war in Iraq. Try to take note of the fact that America is not the only nation wiht soldiers in the battlefields of Iraq, and that other nationms are al;so paying the supreme sacrifice for his failure to test the intelligence because of a prior agenda.

The troops are required to accomplish little in a battle, except to take ground and then hold the ground. They are not sent to rebuild the county's infrastructure. Billions of dollare sar ebving paid to contractors to undetake that work, so do try and see what is happening there and who is doing what, where, when, and why.

Troops are not harmed by rhetoric. I am a military veteran and have served in two active theatres of war, and neiother my own morale nor the morale of my fellow soldiers was affected one whit by anything we read in the papers or heard on the radio.

For you to suggest that soldiers break down and go to pieces because someone writes that "Bush was wrong to begin this war," is to show that your opinion of soldiers is that they are highly neurotic individuals who lose it when any kind of criticism that could be pushed their way by the cynical Republican Spinmeisters is pushed their way.

If you think that you are being protected by asuch a bunch of namby-pamby weaklings who have not of themselves moral fibre or moral courage, and whose sense of duty and bailities to act and thnk like soldiers depends on what other think about them, then you should go and loive ina ocuntry in whose military you have more faith,. You obviously have no faith at all in your own military.

They are not weak-minded egoless finks who only see themselves through the eyes of others. They would laugh at your psychobabble and description of them as being harmed, hurt, offended, rendered unable to act as soldiers, and all the rest of the ugly paraphernalia you have assembled to try to score a point.

Yes, there will be some unfitted constitutionally for military service. Perhaps these are the ones you mean, but if you represent them as being representative of the whole of the US armed forces then you do them a grave disservice.

So olease stop insulting my intelligence, and stop making false and presumptuous arguments that have no factual foundation, are incapable of being demonstrated, and are as far from truth as Bush is when his mouth is moving!

If your idea of "getting behind the troops" is saying what pretty boys they are and how well they are doing, then I would not want you behind me when I was in the field.

You could lend your weight to persuading the idiots Dick and George that Colin was right, and you copuld tell them that the generals they sidelined for criticism were right when they insisted that George and Dick sent your fellowmen and women to war, often to their deaths, more often to a lifetime of disability, unprepared, unprotected, and ill-equipped.

When I see you "get beghind the troops" in that real 'do-something' fashion and not simply as an armchair general, armchair cheerleader, and weekend politician, then you will be better placed to tell others to get behind them.

As for the polls, when I was a soldier the officer of the day would tour the dining tents at dinner times and ask at each table how the food was. The food was always, "Very good, sir!" Even when it was rotten. So much for your poll.

When will YOU come out from behind Bush and get behind the TROOPS?

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/23/06 9:37 pm:
>>>In the Iraq situation you have to redfine what you mean by 'win,' because if you mean an end to terrorist and insurgent action it l;ooks increasingly likely that the war will never be 'won.'<<<

I agree. "Winning" in this case means the development in Iraq of a self-sufficient, self-governing country, capable of defending itself from all enemies, foreign and domestic. THAT is a very winable war, and it is one we are clearly on our way toward winning. One cannot eliminate all the terrorism in the world any more than one can eliminate all the crime in the world.

>>>The war in Iraq is politically driven and has been sonce the beginning. <<<

Not by Bush. The war has been politically driven by certain members of Congress (read: liberals). From Bush's point of view, the war is and always has been about the safety and security of American citizens. The existance of WMDs, the connections between Saddam and al Qaeda, etc, have all been confirmed and each of these was a potential or actual threat to US security. The only political considerations have been from the LEFT, in trying to use the war against Bush.

>>>Identifying the lack of progress in Iraq is politically realistic.<<<

Identifying areas that need improvement is indeed realistic. But so is identifying the areas where improvement has taken place. If we were to go solely by the comments of the mainstream media and certain members of Congress, we would believe that there were no areas of improvement.

>>>The soldiery is not doing the rebuilding unless the Fifth Halliburton Regikment has taken to the firing line. <<<

You haven't been paying attention for the past 3 years if you can say that. Every unit that has been in Iraq has adopted a "cause" for which they have raised money, obtained supplies and contributed the manpower for. Parks, schools, hospitals, orphanages, roads, etc. have been rebuilt by the hands and with the money of our troops. It is part of the military's effort to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi citizens. And that doesn't even take into consideration the Army Corp. of Engineers (the Sappers) who are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in the rebuilding of Iraq. You are selling the troops short.

>>>Progress/not progress is not a matter for morale, but matters of facts. <<<

But ignoring progress where it occurs for partisan reasons IS a matter of morale, not facts.

>>>I have not said they are fighting FOR a lie, but they are fighting BECAUSE of lies,<<<

A semantic difference that is meaningless.

>>>and the chief liar is Bush.<<<

He hasn't been proven in a single lie yet... probably because he hasn't told any. The existance of WMDs is confirmed by the tapes and papers captured from SH's archives. The connection between SH and OBL has also been documented. The training sites of al Qaeda in Northern Iraq have been photographed. Bush didn't lie, and the proof of that is overwhelming at this point.

>>>That he has now been forced to become honest and realistic as more and more facts become known, and as even those who once were among his staunchest supporters have taken hold of the truth of the situation has probably had a worse effect on military nmorale at all levels than their not being mentioned in an event where the narcissistic gather to slap themselves on the back.<<<

Intersting. You seem to be contradicting yourself here. In your original post above, you said that Bush hasn't changed his tune, that he is sticking to the same old story. Now you are saying that he changed his story and it has caused a problem with military morale. I think you need to get your facts straight on this one.

Fact #1: Bush hasn't changed his tune in any way, shape or form. WHat he is saying now is no different from what he was saying in February 2003. He's been incredibly consistant in that regard.

Fact #2: The moral of the troops has not weakened... as seen from the statistical data I posted above.

>>>Your accusation that their honour is attacked is a lie direct. It might sound good from the pulpit but there is not a shred of truth in it.<<<

Really? If I said that what you were doing was based on a lie, that what you were doing was ineffective and hopeless, and that the people you are supposedly helping hate your guts, don't you think you would see it as a slight on your honor? I know I sure would, and every single soldier I have ever spoken to feels the same way. But if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

>>>The worst harm to honour from the battlefield can be laid at the feet of the torturers, the abusers, the murderers of unarmed and disabled prisoners, and the reckless and wanton slaughter of innocents too young to be any harm to anyone. Those who commit suchj atrocities, and those who sanction them, arrange them, and then lie about them, attack the honour of the honourable. <<<

First of all, when did any of those things happen? Second of all, what do you consider "too young" to be of harm to the troops. Kids as young as 8 have been used as terrorist bombers in Vietnam and Israel. In some cases in Vietnam, mothers used their infant BABIES as booby traps, leaving their booby trapped bodies for soldiers to find. Third, the MSM and Congress have addressed such accusations to the military as a whole, not just those who maight or might not be guilty of it. So please, save your justifications. They just don't wash.

>>>Troops are not harmed by rhetoric. <<<

Remember Vietnam? Rhetoric caused us to loose the entire war, and caused irreparable damage to soldiers who returned home only to be spat on and rejected by the people they were supposed to have been protecting with their service. Rhetoric is the reason that we didn't fight the war to win, but rather for containment. Rhetoric is, therefore, the reason that the war went on for as long as it did, despite the fact that we won every single battle. Rhetoric is the reason that there were so many casualties. So yes, rhetoric does do direct harm to military personnel.

>>>For you to suggest that soldiers break down and go to pieces because someone writes that "Bush was wrong to begin this war," is to show that your opinion of soldiers is that they are highly neurotic individuals who lose it when any kind of criticism that could be pushed their way by the cynical Republican Spinmeisters is pushed their way.<<<

Oh, bull$h!t. Rhetoric does two things... it forms improper public opinion, which in turn forms improper policy decisions by our government. And second, it does effect morale directly. No, our soldiers aren't about to break down in tears at the writting of an article. But they will wonder if they are being appreciated for their sacrifice. That in turn effects the eagerness with which they do their jobs, and the care they take in doing those jobs. In other words, poor morale doesn't mean that soldiers have neurotic breakdowns, but it does mean that they can become sloppy at their jobs which is extremely dangerous. And as a former soldier, you should know that. Certainly every Vietnam vet knows it.

>>>So olease stop insulting my intelligence, and stop making false and presumptuous arguments that have no factual foundation, are incapable of being demonstrated, and are as far from truth as Bush is when his mouth is moving!<<<

Not only can my comments be demonstrated, they HAVE been demonstrated in every psychology text that deals with PTSD in military servicement. So please stop trying to insult MY intelligence by ignoring the connection between what the civilians, media and politicians say about the soldiers and the effect it has on how they do their jobs.

>>>If your idea of "getting behind the troops" is saying what pretty boys they are and how well they are doing, then I would not want you behind me when I was in the field.<<<

And if your idea of getting behind the troops is to highlight everything that goes wrong in their sphere of influence, and ignore everything that goes right, then I wouldn't want you pulling tail-end Charlie for my unit either.

>>>When I see you "get beghind the troops" in that real 'do-something' fashion and not simply as an armchair general, armchair cheerleader, and weekend politician, then you will be better placed to tell others to get behind them.<<<

How many care packages have you sent to soldiers in Iraq, bigshot? As for me being an armchair general, what I am doing is my meager best to counter the effect of the MSM and the naysayers among us. And if just one soldier reads this and learns that someone appreciates the job he is doing in the riteous war that he is fighting to protect us, the I have accomplished more positive work than all the negative, anti-war, anti-Bush crap being spouted by the MSM and the politicians. THAT is why I do what I do here.

>>>As for the polls, when I was a soldier the officer of the day would tour the dining tents at dinner times and ask at each table how the food was. The food was always, "Very good, sir!" Even when it was rotten. So much for your poll.<<<

The food is ALWAYS rotten in the field. That's not the point. The point is to create a feeling of espirit de corp among the troops. The OD knows the food sucks, he usually eats the same crap. But by getting everyone to say Very Good Sir, he is creating a closeness between the soldiers, who as soon as he is out of earshot are going to grumble to each other about how crappy the food is. They commiserate with each other about the crappy food, the stupidity of the officers, etc, and it builds team-thinking. What, you thought that the officers corp was stupid enough to think the food was good? There's a reason behind that little tradition. But I guess you never looked at it from that point of view.

But the difference between that type of incident and these polls, however, is that the OTD knows the names of the troops under his command, and anyone disagreeing with him gets disciplined. The polls, however, were blind. They gave everyone the chance to say what they really believed, without consequence. So they were more honest that a forced "yes sir" would be.

>>>When will YOU come out from behind Bush and get behind the TROOPS? <<<

I already am. When will you stop hurting the troops just to attack Bush one more time? Face it, the guy is going to be in office for the next 3 years. Deal with it. But deal with it in a way that doesn't hurt the troops or make the job they are doing harder.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 03/23/06 11:07 pm:

Elliot,

You have a nice line in verbal tennis, but I stand by what I have written. I cannot say that I am shocked and surprised that the truth did not convert you to my position.

Rhetoric has little to fdo with the truth. It is the art of persuasion. Ask Bush! He lacks fact and substance in his outpopurings.

He constantly refers to "Some" who don't like this or that, but he doesn't ever say who the "Some" are! Don't you get it?

As to material support and comfort for troops in Ieaq and elsewhere, I say only:

[W]hen thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.


I am saddened that you do not acknowledge the force of my arguments.

Have a good day.

Ronnie