Active Duty Soldiers Protesting the Iraq War

[BigRedChief]

You guys see this?
http://www.appealforredress.org/ (http://www.appealforredress.org/)
Active duty soldiers protesting the war on TV. Writing letters to congress etc.
Over 1400 soldiers have signed it so far.

The wording of the Appeal for Redress is short and simple. It is patriotic and respectful in tone.
As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.

[NewPhin]

1400 Jane Fondas. Shame on them.

[BigRedChief]

1400 Jane Fondas. Shame on them.
They have a constitutional right to appeal to congress. To exercise their right to free speech as long as they don't critize their commander in chief.

Thats a long way from Jane Fonda

[NewPhin]

They have a constitutional right to appeal to congress. To exercise their right to free speech as long as they don't critize their commander in chief.

Thats a long way from Jane Fonda


Sorry, I was being facetious.

[oldandslow]

It's time.

This was bad policy from the beginning. Our staying there is only making it worse.

[trndobrd]

I just signed up as Army Colonel Donald D. Duck stationed at "Home" with duckland@hatmail.com as an email. The site still counted Colonel Duck as a signatory.

1405 (1406 including Col Duck) 'signatories' seems a bit suspect since there doesn't seem to be any control on who is signing this thing or indication that the 'signatories' are bona-fide service members. Oddly enough, the site is sponsored by the left wing veterans for peace (impeachment link below) who are fully funded by the Inavale Foundation Inc. out of Massachucetts, but have no other available information. The Redress site appears to also be linked to Cindy Sheehan's Military Families Speak Out

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Impeachment_campaign.vp.html

[Metrolike]

They need to start supporting the troops, dammit!

[BigRedChief]

This story from the London times says that if Bush attacks Iran a lot of Generals will resign.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

[patteeu]

This story from the London times says that if Bush attacks Iran a lot of Generals will resign.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

Repost.

So I'll repost that I heard a former general say in a radio interview that the same result would occur if the democrats cut funding for Iraq.

BTW, here is John Hindraker's (of Powerline Blog) take on that story:

So we have at least three layers of anonymity between us and the story's headline. Unknown American officers allegedly have told unknown counterparts in British military or intelligence circles that they will resign, and these unidentified persons allegedly passed the word to an anonymous "source with close ties to British intelligence." There is a word for this sort of fourth-hand information. It's called a "rumor."

[Nightwish]

I just signed up as Army Colonel Donald D. Duck stationed at "Home" with duckland@hatmail.com as an email. The site still counted Colonel Duck as a signatory.

1405 (1406 including Col Duck) 'signatories' seems a bit suspect since there doesn't seem to be any control on who is signing this thing or indication that the 'signatories' are bona-fide service members. Oddly enough, the site is sponsored by the left wing veterans for peace (impeachment link below) who are fully funded by the Inavale Foundation Inc. out of Massachucetts, but have no other available information. The Redress site appears to also be linked to Cindy Sheehan's Military Families Speak Out

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Impeachment_campaign.vp.html
What? Are you suggesting that the left has their own version of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

[Nightwish]

Repost.

So I'll repost that I heard a former general say in a radio interview that the same result would occur if the democrats cut funding for Iraq.

BTW, here is John Hindraker's (of Powerline Blog) take on that story:
I'm not sure why people keep passing around this old canard about the Dems planning to cut funding for the war in Iraq. I've never heard nor read a quote from any Democrats stating that it was even a consideration. They have indicated that they won't approve further increases in the military budget, but that's totally different from cutting funding. As far as I can tell, this whole canard started with posters and bloggers and talking heads, and it went something like this:

Person 1: "It doesn't matter if the Democrats have control of Congress, they still can't order the troops home. The President is the CiC, and he has the final word."

Person 2: "They can't order the troops home, but they can cut off the funding."

And somehow all that evolved into "the Dems are going to try to cut off the funding for the Iraq war."

[patteeu]

I'm not sure why people keep passing around this old canard about the Dems planning to cut funding for the war in Iraq. I've never heard nor read a quote from any Democrats stating that it was even a consideration. They have indicated that they won't approve further increases in the military budget, but that's totally different from cutting funding. As far as I can tell, this whole canard started with posters and bloggers and talking heads, and it went something like this:

Person 1: "It doesn't matter if the Democrats have control of Congress, they still can't order the troops home. The President is the CiC, and he has the final word."

Person 2: "They can't order the troops home, but they can cut off the funding."

And somehow all that evolved into "the Dems are going to try to cut off the funding for the Iraq war."

FWIW, the general I heard talking about this was talking about a scenario in which the democrats deny funding for the surge, not one for cutting funding for the entire venture, which according to you is something the dems are willing to do.

[Nightwish]

FWIW, the general I heard talking about this was talking about a scenario in which the democrats deny funding for the surge, not one for cutting funding for the entire venture, which according to you is something the dems are willing to do.
According to me? How does "I've never heard nor read a quote from any Democrats stating that it was even a consideration" become "something the dems are willing to do?" How does the fact that Dem leaders have publically stated over and over and over that they are not willing to cut off funding for the war suggest to you that cutting off funding for the war is "something the dems are willing to do."

[StcChief]

1400 John Murtha's Jane Fondas. Shame on them. FYP

[htismaqe]

According to me? How does "I've never heard nor read a quote from any Democrats stating that it was even a consideration" become "something the dems are willing to do?" How does the fact that Dem leaders have publically stated over and over and over that they are not willing to cut off funding for the war suggest to you that cutting off funding for the war is "something the dems are willing to do."

He worded his post awkwardly, I believe.

I think he intended to say:

FWIW, the general I heard talking about this was talking about a scenario in which the democrats deny funding for the surge (which according to you is something the dems are willing to do), not one for cutting funding for the entire venture.

[patteeu]

According to me? How does "I've never heard nor read a quote from any Democrats stating that it was even a consideration" become "something the dems are willing to do?" How does the fact that Dem leaders have publically stated over and over and over that they are not willing to cut off funding for the war suggest to you that cutting off funding for the war is "something the dems are willing to do."

What you said was:

They have indicated that they won't approve further increases in the military budget

htismaqe did a good job of rewording it for me.

[Laz]

Active Duty Soldiers Protesting the Iraq War

Terrorists .... they all want America to fail!!! :cuss:

[Nightwish]

What you said was:



htismaqe did a good job of rewording it for me.
That's still not "cutting funding." For funding to be "cut," it has to be there first to be cut. If Congress approved a budget that was specifically earmarked for the troop surge, then came back and halted that cash flow after the fact, that would be "cutting the funding for the troop surge." If, however, the President comes out and says, "I want to send in more troops, and I want x amount of money to do it," and Congress says no, that's not cutting the funding, that's just refusing his request. As I said, except for a bunch of posters, bloggers and talking heads, I haven't heard anyone say anything about cutting out what's already there. Think of it like a workplace environment. John Smith makes $14 an hour. He goes up to his boss and asks for a raise. His boss says no. His boss didn't cut his pay, didn't take anything from Mr. Smith. He's not suddenly making less than $14 an hour. He's just not getting the "more" that he wanted.