House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a leading critic of the adminstration's approach in Iraq, said that on a recent visit to Iraq her delegation saw no sign of that U.S. efforts were advancing with urgency.

- Associated Press


In other words, what's she's really saying is that the troops are not getting the job done over there.


Talk about undermining the efforts of our troops and giving more fodder to the enemy.

This is exactly why when I hear people like her say that she's against the war but supports the troops, it's pure bullshit! Making a statement like this one proves that deep down she does not support our soldiers.

She should be ashamed of herself. She should resign.


Don Cardi

It seems Rep. Pelosi is using her position as House Speaker to press for special transportation privileges. Not only for herself (as 2nd in line to the Presidency), but family members as well...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070201-122225-1157r.htm

HIGHLIGHTS:

Speaker Pursues Military Flights
By Rowan Scarborough - THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 1, 2007

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The sources...said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said...

Mrs. Pelosi's request is not new for a speaker, who is second-in-line in presidential succession. A defense source said the speaker's regular access to a military plane began after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, who was speaker at the time, started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district for security reasons...

Sources said Mrs. Pelosi's request goes beyond what Mr. Hastert received. The speaker's legal counsel is spearheading the talks.

An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who asked not to be named, confirmed yesterday that discussions are ongoing ...

...Mrs. Pelosi just completed a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Upon her return, she repeated her demand that President Bush not send more troops to Iraq.

This is coming from the HOUSE SPEAKER who's party ridiculed the President a few years back for wasting fuel by flying around to assess the damages caused by hurricane Katrina?

You know, I was only in Vietnam for about a year when I got wounded. But durin ghtta year or so the only peolle i gave a damn about hearing from were my my family. They wrote quite a bit and sent me the Pittsburgh Press and it use to arrive sometimes weeks late. I didn't care about any so called support except from them. So, I don't get you or others talking about supporting troops. What in the world does that mean anyway? I volunteered. i knew why and I was satisfied with that. I didn't care about what anyone had to say. Noone had to support me.

How i nthe world do you expect a democracy to function if people don't express their opinions. Foreign policy is not a function of troops; it's the other way around. Yeah, they're not geeting the job done over there. The enemy is still undefeated. So, if the enemy is still undefeated and able to oeprate seeminglyy at will, then the troops there have not defeated the enemy whichis why they sent there in the first place.

We engaged in missions and expeditions almost ecey day. Sometimes we found the enemy, sometimes we didn't. Soemtimes we killed them and sometimes they killed us. We went ove there to defeat the Communisits. We didn't do that. We could have stayed there a hundred years and I doubt if we would have won. We killed plenty of them. They would drag off their dead, but still they left a whole bunch of them behind. But that still didn't stop them. They kept comiong because it was their country. Then the NVA joined in ( infacvt, my first fight was with NVA) and they were good.

Again, I didn't need any support except from my family. I did what I did because I wanted to. Had part of bicep not been blown away I would have stayed there and maybe got killed there but that is what I chose to do. Most of the guys around me were drafted. i don't remember hearing them gripe much except about stuff like the food, or rain, or bugs and stuff. They didn't have a choice, I did.

Olivant -

I cannot begin to imagine what you feel and what you experienced first hand. And I am being sincere when I say that I have the utmost repsect for what you did for your country, by your own choice no less, and what you had to endure.

And while I understand and admire that you had the strength of your own convictions and did not care what others thought or said about you as a soldier fighting in the war, I am also a bit confused. As a soldier fighting in battle, I am sure that the last thing on your mind was to worry about what was being said about you and your comrades by those back home. However, wouldn't it also be a comfort to you to know that there were some people back home who were doing everything in their power, behind the scenes, to help you win that war for your country? Wouldn't it have been a comfort to you to know that your efforts to try and stop communism from spreading like a cancer were supported by the people that you were fighting on behalf of?

I would think that it would be a bit disheartening or disappointing for you, as soldier fighting in a war, or any soldier for that matter, to be told that your efforts are meaningless and that you and your fellow soldiers were not doing a good job with your efforts. I think that to be told that time and time again, while you are getting shot at everyday and seeing your fellow soldiers getting killed before your eyes, would eventually destroy your will to do what you initially set out to do.

Perhaps I don't understand the mentality of a soldier in battle because I have never served in the military and fought in a war. But I can only liken it to a situation where I put all that I have into doing something on behalf of another, only to be continually told by that same person that I was a failure at what I was tryin to do on their behalf.

I have to believe that when a soldier goes to war fully knowing that he has 100% support behind him, he goes into that war in a good frame of mind. He or she goes into battle with the attitude that what is being done is not being done in vain, but for a good reason. And by the same token if that soldier is being undermined by someone who has no idea what he or she is going through in battle, it has to make them feel that what they are doing is almost worthless because the people that they are fighting for and protecting do NOT believe that they can get the job done.

Again, I don't doubt that you feel the way that you do for your own reasons, and I am not saying that what you feel is wrong. But I am just confused because I would think that you, being a soldier who fought in a war, would be the first one to defend these current soldiers and agree that these politicians here are should stop running around implying that our soldiers are failures.

And I do not believe for one moment, that when you came home from that war, that it didn't matter to you one bit whether you were called a failure or a hero.

You want to say that the origianl plan needs to be adjusted, want to change some strategies because we've come up against some unexpected situations that were not forseen in the planning, that's fine. But it should be done in a manner that advocates our doing what is best to help our soldiers win that war, and not in a manner that just implies that our soldiers are failures who cannot get the job done.

You Vietnam vets deserved the country's support and the support of our political leaders and not their critisizms. And so do our troops right now.




Don Cardi

It's called strength of character. It's called maturity. You either have it or you don't. No, it didn't matter to me to have 100% or 50% or any % of anyone behind me except my family. And I needed to hear from them only periodically. But my decision was not predicated on them. My father joined the army in WWII and fought in the Pacific for the same reasons. I and he figured out what we were fighting about. I've made many choices in my life. So far, all of trhe major ones at least have been good ones. I made them for my own reasons and not for anyone else. If I was thinking of anyone else I probably would not have joined the army because I knew my dad might lose his frst born.

When I reflect on it, I was probably an excetional 18 year old when I joined. I made buck sargeant and I hadn't even turned 19. If I had been affected by people's negative opinions, I probably would have gotten my unit slaughterred. What in the world was I fighting for? So that everyone would agree with me? How does nayone get along in life doing anything if they need everone's backing? Well we learn to do things on our own. When I was over there it didn't take me long to figure ought that things were not going to go well for a long time if at all. Like I said in my postbefore, they kept coming and coming no matter how many we killed. So it wasn't hard to figure out. I'm not sure what your standard is. 100% or 50% support. If there are soldiers in Iraq who need to know that they are supported that much, they probably shouldn't have joined i the first place. When I joined there were already deonstrations about the war and college sit ins, etc. So, if I needed that much syupport, I shouldn't have joined.

If, as you say, you go into battle with 100% support then you feel pretty good. But once you are there reality sinks in. Battle is different. You are surviving. believe me you are.

Now, let' sbe straight. I don't believe that our politicians are saying that American soldiers are failures. As I alluded to in my post about ROE, there are a ton of variables that are part of any mission. They affect how things turn out. On more than one occasion we retreated. It was no big deal. We made mistakes and I got reamed out real good a few times by my superiors. I didn't fall apart because of it. I also want to say that there are guys I fought with that I wouldn't give the time of day to if I ran into them. I served with some real low-lifes. So, they all weren't over there doing something out o fhte goodness ogf their heart.

Yes, it does make a diffeence if you have not been in combat. Alot of what you say represenst situations where life is not on the line. Believe me, when you have people shooting at you you had better have more substance to you than being bothered by what people say. I can tell you that.

Like most people, I haven't wnated to talk about my service. But I hear alot of stuff that makes no sense. This war is pretty much an urban war. It has alot of differences from mine. You said something about it being a bit disheartening or disappointing. That's a good word - bit. I agree with that. It should only be a bit. If it's more than that, then a soldiers in the wrong business. If it's more than that then you are a danger to those around you. I served with some who were pretty much useless for whatever reason. I could tell that and we either moved them out or worked around them. This is my last post on the war. Like I said, most of us don't like to think about it. I've said enough for this board.

I understand Olivant.






Don Cardi

One must also remember that 40+ years ago during Vietnam, we did not have the massive means of communication that exists today.

There were only 3 major networks, no cable tv, no cellphones, no computers as we know them now...and little means for those fighting to hear of the division of their nation on the scale and the speed with which they get it today in Iraq.

Also, with due respect...what one Vietnam Vet says on the Gangster BB does little to obliterate what I hear Iraq troops saying several times a month: that they ARE making progress over there, that they DO want to stay until the job is 'finished', that they DO get word of what is said over here and that it DOES matter to them.

Best,
AppleOnYa

You were fighting to prevent the spread of Communism in Asia.

When Congress finally cut funding and President Ford had little choice but to have the U.S. pull out...was when that mission officially failed and the slaughter began.

Remember watching the helicopters on rooftops? Remember the Vietnamese parents frantic to get their children onto those helicopters? Many of those kids were adopted and raised by Americans. They grew up free, without ever knowing what became of their biological families.

I guess those who call for pullout and 're-deployment' today are very similar to those who protested and felt so good about finally getting us out of Vietnam. Because they really must not be too concerned about what happens afterward, as long as we are out of there.

Apple

That's not the way a soldier should think now, is it? A soldier must follow orders, and what he/she thinks doesn't play much of a role in decisions as big as if they should continue this war or not. If today they are ordered to stay and get the job done, there's no other choice for them, as well as when they are ordered to retreat.

And to say that what's being said is criticizing the troops per se is wrong as well, because they follow orders. When the orders are not based on deliberated tactics, it wouldn't be their fault if they don't prevail. The buck stops with those few generals who are in charge of planning. And they should rightly be criticized, because their decisions put lives of many on the line.

Good point Apple.

How many times have we seen Al Quaeda use modern communications to capitalize on the political dissent and the anti-war sentiment in the United States to undermine support for America's war on terrorism?


And let me point out that during the Vietnam War, the enemy relied on the anti war sentiment to weaken American resolve. I believe that it had the effect of turning an American military victory into a political defeat.

Former North Vietnamese General Staff officer Bui Tin even said that the anti war movement was "essential to our strategy."

Bui Tin even said that "Through dissent and protest, the United States "lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

When South Vietnam finally agreed to an unconditional surrender, Boi Tin stated that the antiwar movement in the United States was "essential to our strategy."


I believe that we can win the war in Iraq. But what I think it comes down to is whether we will lose the war here at home as we did during Vietnam.

Our enemy is strategically playing to American fears that Iraq is only going to turn out to be another Vietnam, and they know that our media, the anti war protestors and people like Nancy Pelosi are buying right into that type of rhetoric.

Our enemy is counting on division within our own country. They are counting on those here to undermine the troops and say things like Pelosi has said because they know that the media will come through for them.

With todays technology and advanced communication, our enemy is fighting a propaganda war through the use of advanced communications technology, as well as fighting a physical war. And it is my opinion that if you can win the media communications war, it makes you that much stronger in fighting the physical war.


And meanwhile the leaders in Iran are sitting by, licking their chops, hoping that we are unsuccesful in Iraq and that we pull out. I promise you that they will be in Iraq the moment that the last one of our soldiers is out of there if we cut and run without getting the job done.


Don Cardi

I hear that too, then I also hear the guys who say it sucks and I wanna go home.

The troops we hear on TV represent about .000001 % of the number in Iraq.

I'm sure we all know ppl who are in Iraq right now. The guys that I know(who are college-educated, 'head on their shoulders' kind of guys) are looking to collect their ransom and not get their a** shot off.

[quote=Ice]


And the politicians like Nancy Pelosi that we hear on TV represent the sentiment of about .000000001% of the number of troops in Iraq.



Don Cardi

Her statement that she 'saw no sign that U.S. efforts were advancing with urgency' seems like a knock on the war plan, not on the soldiers who implement the plan. This isn't 16th century warfare, the troops can NOT be to blame, obviously. The blame goes on those who plan and fund the war. The plan is not working(Rummy got fired b/c of this,) and in order for the effort to advance with urgency they need more money and more guns.

I don't think the troops would disagree that U.S efforts are not advancing with urgency b/c if they were advancing with urgency then the proper funding and proper troop levels would be secured. As is, we don't have this and the effort is advancing at a slow pace.

Bush would agree w/ Pelosi that the effort needs to move with more urgency, that's why he asked for more troops.

And who is it that funds the war?

Thank you for making my case about Pelosi for me!

If Ms. Pelosi meant that the proper funding is needed and proper troop levels are needed, then why is she against funding this war and adding more troops? If she meant what she said to mean that the war is not advancing because of improper troop size and not enough money, then she would support the idea of raising the troop levels and providing more money for the troops and the war.

So being that she is not supportive of raising troop levels and providing more money, then her remark can only translate into a knock on our military.

Oh, I know what it is. Maybe she doesn't support more funding because she's afraid that there won't be any money left to fund her use of military jets to fly her and her family around the nation. That must be it.


Don Cardi

ONLY translate into a knock on our military?

I'm thinking it's a knock on those who planned the war since EVERY criticism we hear ANYWHERE is a knock on the planners and NOT the troops.

Ice -

What's so hard for you to understand here? This woman says that she supports the troops but in the same breath is against funding them and providing more troops to back them up. Does that make any sense to you? Because it doesn't to me.

If I claim to support someone, then that means that I will do what is neccessary to see to it that that someone gets whatever help he or she needs to achieve what they have set out to do.

When you say that you support someone, then it means that you will do what is needed to strengthen them, to keep them from weaking or failing. It means that you will provide them with the monies and the neccesities that are needed by them.

So for her to claim that she supports the troops and then say that she is against providing them with more troop support, more monies to give them the neccesities that they need to help them in battle, she is contracticting herself by claiming to support them. She is being a hypocryite.

It's not that hard to see Ice, not if you understand the true meaning of the word support.



Don Cardi

Amen Don Cardi, Amen!

You say supporting our troops is giving them more money, guns and troops, but when does it end? When does Pelosi have the right to say enough is enough? After we have lost 50,000 troops and spent 3 trillion dollars? What about after we have lost 100,000 troops and spent 6 trillion dollars? Would she have the right to say 'bring them home' then???
She wants the war to end, Cardi. What don't YOU understand about THAT? She wants to bring the troops home. We DO support the troops, we DO NOT support the war!!!

Hitler and Saddam lied to their publics about the realities of their wars and were quite supportive of their troops as they sacrificed the entire economy for them. Is that support? Is that the kind of support you are talking about? Should we stream line the economy to back this war? Would Hitler type 'support' of the troops be enough? Or even then would you still tell the Pelosi's of the world that they are scum?

If you feel as if this war should be fought at ALL costs then fine, but plz, accept the fact that you are in the minority on that one. Nancy Pelosi, or whoever it is, is in support of the troops. She supports bringing them home to their families so their children don't have to grow up w/ out fathers. The Bush Adm got the money and troop levels they wanted, and it didn't work. So....sorry, we're done w/ this phony war that we are all duped into fighting. Fighting in Iraq will NOT keep planes from crashing into buildings, it will NOT prevent the old Soviet states from selling their nukes, what's so hard for you to understand about that? You/we were lied to!!!

F.Y.I-Some of us are against all wars, what don't you understand about that? Did you sleep through the 60's, maaan ?

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home. Bush's surge is ridiculous. Bush is insane, dangerous, and a threat to world peace and our national security. It is time to remove him and Cheney from office. They have ruined this country.