Bill O'Reilly Blows It In Iraq
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 08:47PM Fox’s Bill O’Reilly of The Factor visited Iraq last week just to tell the troops “Thanks.” Perhaps this gesture should have been enough, but the sentiments by the troops are far more inspiring and real than the No-Spin Zone's O’Reilly. Ms. Underestimated has a video of the visit with the troops telling it like it is… too bad O’Reilly couldn’t rid his bias for the trip.
Case in point is this interview O’Reilly conducted with LT GEN Martin Dempsey, commander of Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. LT GEN Dempsey is responsible for assisting the Iraqi government in the development, organization, training, equipping, sustaining the Iraqi security forces.
In this interview, O’Reilly seems either incapable or unwilling to believe the general’s assessment of the state of Iraq, refusing to believe the situation isn’t completely hopeless despite what the commander says in the interview. Watch the Interview (or click on the picture below)
You can recall LT GEN Dempsey’s answers from the video interview, but here is part of the transcript are some of O’Reilly’s questions and comments that need addressing:
O'Reilly: The perception in the Untied States is that this is a loser, that things are not going well for the United States. Is that reality?
LT GEN Dempsey: No, I don’t think so at all. There’s a great deal of progress. I do understand the feeling that things aren’t going well here, but the reality is that there is a real pulse not only at the national level but also in the security forces.
O’Reilly: Can you understand that after four years most Americans are exhausted, they don’t want to hear about Iraq, they don’t care about the Sunni and Shia, they just don’t want American soldiers being killed?
O’Reilly: But we’re talking 4 years now, this adventure here in Iraq, and you’re telling me that you’re still working hard, you’re optimistic but am I looking at another 4 or 5 years? How much sacrifice, blood and treasure is America supposed to extend to this country?
O’Reilly: 3,000 American dead, 15,000 wounded or something, Americans are saying “not worth it”
LT GEN Dempsey: It is absolutely worth it. Left unchecked, we would have been doing this 2025 or so, but it would have been a far more horrific experience for all of us and far more casualties.
The good LT GEN was way too polite. Mr. O’Reilly, factor this:
It’s a shame the American public is tiring of Iraq. Oh, yes, it’s quite exhausting turning on the news every night for 20 minutes and being an armchair quarterback. It’s pretty exhausting watching the United States military do all the work for you and fighting an enemy who wants to kill you. If you’re that exhausted, turn off the TV and go for a ride in your air conditioned vehicle and go to the local mall for some Christmas shopping while the troops, who repeatedly re-enlist to actually fight this war, carry on. Note how they don’t complain of being too exhausted. No, they sign up, they re-enlist, they give their lives and they work for a year at a time, 24/7.
Mr. O’Reilly, While over 3,000 American soldiers have lost their lives over the past three years in Iraq, 408,306 lost their lives during World War II in the same amount of time. The north lost over 363,000 and the south over 199,000 in the American Civil War in four years. We lost over 81,000 in about six weeks at the Battle of the Bulge and over 6,500 in one day at Iwo Jima. Most significantly, Mr. O’Reilly, we lost almost 3,000 in one day on 9/11.
Mr. O’Reilly, exactly how much “ sacrifice, blood and treasure is America supposed to extend to” Iraq? How much have we spent on a failing War on Poverty over the last 42 years, and how many casualties have there been? Have Americans noticed a debit in their paycheck designated “war in Iraq”? How much sacrifice are Americans really required to make? None. It is soldiers and their families who commit to sacrifice and blood and they volunteer over and over again. God bless them for it.
Mr. O’Reilly, your "thank you" to the troops should have been this: “THANK YOU! Thank you for volunteering to fight this on my behalf so I don’t have to worry about this threat here at my doorstep. THANK YOU for doing the work, taking the heat and taking the bullets so I can live in safety in my plush home while you live in the barracks on foreign soil.”
Is America is exhausted from this war? WAKE UP, AMERICA. If you’re too exhausted to WATCH THIS WAR from the continental U.S., fine, we’ll pull the troops out of Iraq and you can prepare to send your sons or grandsons to war against a bigger and meaner enemy in 15-20 years.
And that’s no spin.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/826847
Iraq 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (40)
I agree, Amy. I saw that interview as it was being done on television. I was pretty disappointed that he wasn't more positive. That was a Lt.General speaking, and O'Reilly came across like he knew more about how things were going than the Lt. General! He asked "How much sacrifice, blood and treasure is America supposed to extend to this country?" It's not just Iraq at stake here, and you would think O'Reilly would know that! The answer is, of course: "As much as it takes to get the job done!" It is what it is, and war is hell, but to back out would be suicidal on our parts. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could see it?
That interview angers me greatly. O'Reilly claims to be behind the U.S. and our military, yet he keeps pushing this defeatist agenda. He claims that he does not, but one only needs to watch that interview to know otherwise. Kudos to the General for not losing his temper. Does O'Reilly know more about it than the commanders on the scene? He seems to think so. Disgusting.
Amy,
I've started reading your posts lately and you are spot on. I wish your post was published where the majority of these tired Americans can read it because you are so right. If we don't achieve victory now we will have a much harder fight within the next decade. Maybe even sooner. And we may be fighting here instead of over there.
GOOD for you and well said!!!!!!!
What cracks me up is all the left-wingers who lump O'Reilly in with real conservatives. The guy takes just as many liberal positions as he does conservative, maybe even more so, and yet they positively despise him. I guess we have more tolerance than they do.
Is America is exhausted from this war? WAKE UP, AMERICA. If you’re too exhausted to WATCH THIS WAR from the continental U.S., fine, we’ll pull the troops out of Iraq and you can prepare to send your sons or grandsons to war against a bigger and meaner enemy in 15-20 years.
Amy Proctor as crystal-ball weilding foreseer.
What in the world makes you believe that the very existence of troops in Iraq somehow does anything OTHER than embolden anti-American sentiment in the region? This is beyond the realm of my imaginative faculties.
Beacon:
You are correct, it is beyond the limits of your mind to see what LTG Dempsey was talking about. You are just as mypoic as O'Reilly. Amy was not crystal ball-gazing (your condescending tone is insulting) but paraphrasing LTG Dempsey's remarks (quoted above). You are cluless. National defense is not like American Idol where you vote for your favorite policy. It takes thousands of learned, battle - hardened officers and men who are standing on the shoulders of Washington, Grant, Murphy, Patton, Simmons, and many other great Soldiers to plan, fight and win our nation's wars. You are welcome to your right to free speech but your opinion is sadly misguided.
"What in the world makes you believe that the very existence of troops in Iraq somehow does anything OTHER than embolden anti-American sentiment in the region?"
You're saying that thousands of the best trained troops in the world with the best firepower in the world occupying the region actually emboldens?
What pray tell, would be the "emboldening" effect of our troops just calling it quits, packing up and leaving? "The Americans can be beaten if we wait long enough". That is the message you would have us send?
Tim, I can not understand how anyone with a brain would believe that if we "just leave them alone" this would all clear up by itself. You can't "make nice" or "negotiate" with terrorists. You must seize them by the throat and choke the life out of them.
Jarhead, I was livid when I saw this interview. I've been turned off by O'Reilly for some time. I don't care that he's not Conservative but that his view on Iraq is totally off. O'Reilly has fallen prey to the "believe the media over commanders in Iraq" syndrome and since he's relatively honest about most other subjects, I'd expect a bit more objectivity.
My husband worked with LT GEN Dempsey in 2003 in Baghdad. Dempsey was the commander of 1st AD (Armoured Div.) and the 82nd (my husband's unit) was attached to them. Dempsey is a good guy and knows what he's talking about. He's had 4 years of experience dealing with Iraq IN Iraq and O'Reilly knows more and better? Give me a break!
The most insulting comment was "Americans are exhausted". Oh, really? Well, you can read my commentary above. The nerve.
Veritas, thank you so much for your kind comments. ;)
Beacon, if you'd read the article or watched the video (which I know is asking too much of you to be informed) you'd know that LT GEN Dempsey said:
He isn't the first to say this, though. Commanders in Iraq and in the Defense Department, like Abizaid and Casey, have said the same thing, that if we didn't go into Iraq now, we'd be left with a more lethal enemy and surely the U.S. would be engaging them in 15-20 years. These West Point grads know a little about military history and how the world of war works. It has nothing to do with a crystal ball but past results.
Our presence in Iraq may temporarily embolden anti-Americanism, but that is largely due to 3 years of very public denunciation of the U.S. by Democrats. They have given the world an example of how to hate the U.S., how to criticize her, and what talking points to use. Keep in mind that for as many "emboldens" are you think exist as a result of our engagement in Iraq, there are more patriots being born in America and free countries who get the threat and are willing to sign on the dotted line to defeat it. THAT is all the crystal ball any of us needs to prove we're on the right track.
Lets just leave Iraq, let Iran move and take-over with their new nuclear powers, and begin an Empire to rule the world where no Israeli, no western states, can make a move lest they be nuked to oblivion as spoken by supreme cleric and his puppet Ahmadinejad. This world is turning into such a fun place.
When we didn’t have a War on Terror, the anti-Americans on the radical side were already embolden. They attacked us, so the Democrats wanted no war and to give apologies to the radicals. How is that going to keep us safe? The reason the Dems keep losing is they have no solution but to bow down to the radical terrorist. Now they have some power on Capital Hill and they still have no plan except to run and hide. Common Hillary what is the solution?
Amy,
Excellent review of O'Reilly's "bloviating" interview technique. He's a populist and a hypocrite. Not one single thing has been asked of me, an American civilian to sacrifice. My taxes were lowered, we have a booming economy, with house prices that rose.
Not one single government official asked me to do one thing officially for my country, other than to vote, and help with volunteer efforts in support of troops.
My point is, other than sending money and helping with support groups, strictly voluntary. The large majority of people have not been required to do one thing, except as you say, play armchair quarterback.
Our troops deserve better. And our nation needs to be rallyed around by true leaders, not pompous windbags that float either direction the wind blows.
Excellent work and thank you.
Amy writes:
>>>"Our presence in Iraq may temporarily embolden anti-Americanism, but that is largely due to 3 years of very public denunciation of the U.S. by Democrats. They have given the world an example of how to hate the U.S., how to criticize her, and what talking points to use. Keep in mind that for as many "emboldens" are you think exist as a result of our engagement in Iraq, there are more patriots being born in America and free countries who get the threat and are willing to sign on the dotted line to defeat it. THAT is all the crystal ball any of us needs to prove we're on the right track."
OK...now you're going to throw Bill O'Reilly under the bus...Right winged, Fox News, "bash a liberal at the drop of a hat" Bill O'Reilly? Why? Because he's finally stepping off the neo-con band wagon?
You people are absolutely PRECIOUS!
What's the state of our Army right now, Amy? Despite your pie-in-the-sky optimism, somebody a little above your husband's pay grade has a different opinion.
>>>"WASHINGTON - The Army's top general warned Thursday that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ``will break'' the active-duty Army unless the National Guard and reserves are used more often and thousands of active-duty soldiers are added to the ranks.
With the all-volunteer force now in its fifth year of combat and facing unprecedented strains, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker stated that active-duty combat brigades spend less than one year at home.
``At this pace, without recurrent access to the reserve components through remobilization, we will break the active component,'' Schoomaker told a panel appointed by Congress to recommend changes for the National Guard and reserves.
Further, because nearly all part-time Army units have been called up to serve at least once in the war on terrorism and in Iraq, current mobilization policies mean that the Army must rely on individual volunteers to fill out units that are being deployed again.
``This runs counter to the military necessity of deploying trained, ready and cohesive units,'' Schoomaker said in testimony to the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. ``In my view, we must deploy our force in cohesive units, not as volunteers.''
Schoomaker said the situation will require the Army to remobilize units and reserve component soldiers who already have served once in the war on terror and in Iraq.
Commission chair Arnold L. Punaro said there is broad agreement among military commanders who have testified in previous hearings that the Pentagon's policy for mobilizing reserve forces must change, but the frequency and duration of deployments remain in dispute.
``It's not sustainable,'' said Punaro, a retired Marine major general who is now an executive at defense contractor SAIC. ``Whether it's feasible or not'' to change the deployment policy ``remains to be seen.''
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16246258.htm
Hello? Amy? Now you're going to tell me that General Schoomaker works for the liberal media, or Move-On.org, or that he's just another Bush-hatin' cut and runner, right? You'd have to, because the current script requires you to attack anybody who has a problem or criticism with this war, no matter the source.
Want some more happy news about this war you seem to love so much?
>>>"About $2 billion worth of Army and Marine Corps equipment — from rifles to tanks — is wearing out or being destroyed every month in Iraq and Afghanistan, military leaders and outside experts say.
That's equal to about a quarter of the $8 billion per month in military war costs. The wear and tear may lead to future equipment shortages and cutbacks in more advanced weapons, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being developed with allies around the world and the Army's new, high-tech family of weapons and equipment, says William Cohen, secretary of Defense from 1997 to 2001.....
....The Pentagon needs $50 billion to $60 billion to re-equip and restore units returning from Iraq, says Leon Panetta, the former Clinton White House chief of staff and member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
On Monday, the Pentagon said it had issued more than $1.7 billion in equipment repair and replacement contracts during November alone. This summer, the leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said their services rack up a combined $23 billion a year in repair costs.
Army Gen. Peter Schoomaker and Marine Gen. James Conway told Congress that repair money comes only in special requests for war funding, not in annual budgets. That, they said, makes it hard to plan for future needs.
"They've been falling badly behind," says Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional budget analyst now at the independent Center for Defense Information.
The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests for war funding next year...
...The Army and Marines have reported using about 40% of their ground combat equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Units departing Iraq leave much of their heavy equipment behind, which further delays major maintenance and leaves holes in training for future missions, the report says.
A separate GAO report this month urged the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress to investigate the Pentagon's planning for repair, maintenance and replacement of war equipment.
If the United States entered another war, "it would be difficult for us to accomplish anything," says retired lieutenant general Donald Kerrick, who served on the National Security Council under presidents Clinton and Bush."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-28-military-gear_x.htm
We're pouring money down a rat-hole in Iraq, breaking our active duty military, and have equipment shortages so great, we're totally unprepared for another conflict if needed. That's NOT Cobra saying this.....
THAT'S OUR MILITARY LEADERS! OUR GENERALS!
That's why I can't WAIT to hear you folks call our generals names.
Unbelievable.
--Cobra
Cobra, I don't have time to respond right now but let me say this: I haven't liked O'Reilly in years. It's to Fox's credit that they have a moderate on, wouldn't you say? I'm not throwing him under the bus.... we've been riding in different directions for some time.
Where are your quotes from Abizaid, Casey and Pace? Or Dempsey? That's what I thought.
Unfortunately for you, you did absolutely nothing to discredit any of what I said in my post. I live and breathe the Army life, you read about it in out of context soundbytes from USA Today!
"OK...now you're going to throw Bill O'Reilly under the bus...Right winged, Fox News, "bash a liberal at the drop of a hat" Bill O'Reilly? Why? Because he's finally stepping off the neo-con band wagon?"
That statement just illustrated what a partisan hack you really are. O'Reilly has never been anything close to a conservative, and has taken sides with libs like you on multiple occasions.
"What's the state of our Army right now, Amy? Despite your pie-in-the-sky optimism, somebody a little above your husband's pay grade has a different opinion."
"A top general?" Funny how these "sources" never have a name.
"``It's not sustainable,'' said Punaro, a retired Marine major general who is now an executive at defense contractor SAIC. ``Whether it's feasible or not'' to change the deployment policy ``remains to be seen.''"
Nice way to spin that comment, but it was actually in regard to current deployment policy, not some defeatist opinion of the war in Iraq.
Thanks for all the quote mining.
Empire bankrupted Catholic popes, Napoleon, the British, and the USSR.
Yet you people think the US can pull it off if we just add a few more Trillion to our 9 Trillion dollar national debt.
Good Lord you people are small-minded! You can't see 10 years ahead, nor 10 year back. It's pathetic.
I still like Bill O'Reilly, not everyone is perfect. I think he made good points. I can see both sides.
I am beginning to believe that it might be time for us to pull out of Iraq. It seems hopeless and so many of troops are dying.
Leticia, my dislike of O'Reilly is political, not personal... although I do recall he was caught up in a sexual harrassment scandal last year but I have no idea if he was truly involved or what. He said/she said. He says he's CAtholic but he's not a very good one. Poltically speaking, he has bought into the despair Iraq mentality that is going around. I cannot listen to him on the radio...the few times I've heard him he's a total downer and he's basing his opinion on ignorance. There's no way for me to relay the depth of knowledge I understand about this issue because my husband's job includes knowing the inside information and because of our personal relationships and experience in the Army, but O'Reilly simply does NOT know what he's talking about when he goes into his doom and gloom rants.
Iraq is not hopeless! These people are far from perfect and they have a religious influence that deeply complicates things, but even Muslims are able to taste freedom and live out their religion with others around who don't hold the same views IF they realize the benefits. Iraq is a very unique country with a very unique people.
As for so many of our troops dying, Leticia this has been militarily speaking a highly successful mission thus far. It doesn't mean it's without complications.. what war is? When have enemies laid down their weapons and picked up flowers to throw at us instead of grenades and IEDs? It doesn't work that way. But as I said in the original entry, CONTEXT:
Don't succumb to the endless drum beat of defeatism, Leticia. We're about 75% of the way into this thing and there's light at the end of the tunnel. To pull out now, even DEMOCRATS admit, would be catestrophic. If you base your opinion on what you see on the news alone and don't do any independent research, you will fall into the false understanding that this war is lost. IT IS NOT. Go to the CENTCOM, Defense and OIF Multi-National Task Force websites for reports about reconstructing of infrastructure and how the Iraqi miltiary is above it's recruiting goal! There are all sorts of positive things going on that the media doesn't report. Why? Because they are pacifists and liberals who want this effort to fail and they have from the beginning.
Excellent video. I haven't read the comments on this post but I think Bill did a great job and I wholeheartedly admire the work that the U.S. military is doing.
Leticia, the Sec Defense met with 15 Soldiers for a breakfast this week where they told him, "we should just continue to do what we are doing..." ie, STAY THE COURSE. When you ask the Soldiers themselves, they are very optomistic, confident, intrepid and believe strongly in the cause. Please don't be fooled by the number of KIAs - and every one is painful and precious - but this is a war these man and women have volunteered to fight. This is a war we know we did not start and that we are determined to finish. This war has also forged a strong tie with Iraqi Soldiers in the same way we did in Germany, Japan and Korea.
If the Soldiers themselves are reenlisting in record percentages and would even tell the Secretary of Defense himself to "keep doing what we're doing", there is a strong message there. Its partisan politicains who are trying to inject their ideas into the war (send more troops) and not the ground commanders and Soldiers who are saying 'change your strategy'. The Generals have gotten more troops each time they requested them.
Hang in there, and listen to a Soldier. ;-)
Let me elaborate on my comment...
I think Bill did a great job in that even though he probably doesn't agree with what the General said, he gave the Gen a chance to face the tough questions that people are asking. In that way I think Bill did a good interview.
Bill O'Reilly is a very honest guy. If he doesn't believe in something he doesn't fake it. That's what's going on in this interview. I particularly like Sean Hannity because he not only gives the soldiers an opportunity to address the meat of the issues in Iraq, but also gives them the benefit of the doubt. O'Reilly didn't do that.
Johnny worked with LT GEN Dempsey in Baghdad when Dempsey was commanding 1st AD (Armour Div). He's on the ball and it's too bad O'Reilly didn't hear what Dempsey was saying, even though he listened.
"Yet you people think the US can pull it off if we just add a few more Trillion to our 9 Trillion dollar national debt.
Good Lord you people are small-minded! You can't see 10 years ahead, nor 10 year back. It's pathetic."
That's the same garbage you libs used against Vietnam, the 10,000 day war. We survived.
Tim, I'd say Tommy Jefferson is an historian. You can tell by his substantive comment.
;)
I guess you are right. Someday we will win in Iraq.
Let's send more blood and treasure there.
China will keep supporting the US dollar by purchasing US Treasury Notes forever. They will never move to the Euro as Iran did the other day.
We can keep adding Trillions to our national credit card forever. Financial credit is unlimited. No one will every really have to pay it back.
We can totally support our good friend the Sunni's, no wait, the Shiites, uh, Kurds? Well, whichever one of those people have the culture that loves freedom and democracy.
We would totally have Won in Vietnam if we'd just sent enough American blood and dollars to our good friend President Thieu. Darn "liberals", cutting off the money.
The Romans, British, and USSR were bankrupted fighting in the Middle East because they didn't have our *can-do* attitude. Their credit ran out, but ours never will. We are different.
Tommy,
You may be new to this blog, but let me tell you something...You will never find a more handsome group of Bush-bots than the regulars who post here. They'll believe any propaganda Rove and the White House spews out.
I have tried and tried again to bring them DIRECT quotes, irrefutable statistics, and sourced factual material on any host of subjects, especially Iraq, and you know what? They either deny reality, or they just don't care.
They don't seem to grasp that Iraq is basically a proxy war between Iran (Shiia) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni). They don't understand that Turkey will most likely invade Kurdish Iraq the moment they declare independence. They seem to think that killing more Arabs and piling up more dead and wounded Americans is going to solve the problem.
Insanity.
Johnny writes:
>>>"If the Soldiers themselves are reenlisting in record percentages and would even tell the Secretary of Defense himself to "keep doing what we're doing", there is a strong message there."
Huh? Do you read what even what our Imperious Leader says about the number of troops we have?
>>>"President Bush acknowledged for the first time Tuesday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.
As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning; we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post.
The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning." In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point. "We need to reset our military," said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer."
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/53982.html
It gets better....
>>>"Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration. As recently as June, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring "is enabling our military to get more war-fighting capability from current end strength."
But Bush on Tuesday had changed his mind. "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," he said. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/53982.html
Oh really? And what other INTERESTING occurences popped up in the news this week, just oh..by some coincidene?
>>>"The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998.
The agency is not gearing up for a draft, an agency official said Thursday. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.
Meanwhile, the secretary for Veterans Affairs said that "society would benefit" if the U.S. were to bring back the draft and that it shouldn't have any loopholes for anyone who is called to serve. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson later issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft."
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/482427p-406027c.html
Yeah, OK Jimmy. "Society would benefit", but he doesn't support it.
They also don't seem to grasp that a LT. General is a subordinate to the Army Chief of Staff.
They also seem to have this cult-like worship of death:
Amy writes:
>>>"Mr. O’Reilly, While over 3,000 American soldiers have lost their lives over the past three years in Iraq, 408,306 lost their lives during World War II in the same amount of time. The north lost over 363,000 and the south over 199,000 in the American Civil War in four years. We lost over 81,000 in about six weeks at the Battle of the Bulge and over 6,500 in one day at Iwo Jima. Most significantly, Mr. O’Reilly, we lost almost 3,000 in one day on 9/11."
Amy seems to forget that Japan ATTACKED us on December 7, 1941 and that Germany and Italy declared War on us on December 10, 1941. The Civil War was a battle against an insurgent seccession (sound familiar?) and that 15 Saudi hijackers attacked us on 9/11...not ONE Iraqi. Amy also neglect to mention that all of the wars she mentioned occurred when there was a DRAFT....which brings us right back to the above comments from our Veterans Administrator.
Is Amy's conclusion that casualities in Iraq aren't high enough, and we need a draft and further escalations of hostilities to raise those figures up to past conflicts?
See how they are, Tommy?
--Cobra
One thing Cobra will always lack in this discussion is the credibility of a combat vet. The remarks of mine that he quoted above sailed right over his head.
"I have tried and tried again to bring them DIRECT quotes, irrefutable statistics, and sourced factual material on any host of subjects, especially Iraq,"
What you mean to say is that you've quote mined statements from various places to fit some defeatist perspective that you cling to, while steadfastly ignoring the overwhelming plethera of evidence that has been posted on this site. You pick and choose which quotes fit your warped perspective of middle east happenings, while ignoring the actual commander of the forces in the middle east who says we're not losing.
"We would totally have Won in Vietnam if we'd just sent enough American blood and dollars to our good friend President Thieu."
Or if anti-American loons would have went and got jobs and worked for a living instead of spending all their time burning flags, throwing garbage out our troops, and making special trips to Vietnam to tell the N. Vietnamese how noble they are.
"Darn "liberals", cutting off the money."
Yeah, the right thing is expensive, so its best not to do it. War in Iraq might actually put my tax dollars to work instead of paying for some border hopper's healthcare while he stabs me in an alley for my shoes. Liberals really have their priorities straight.
"One thing Cobra will always lack in this discussion is
thecredibilityof a combat vet."Fixed that for you Johnny.
Cobra,
Regarding Schoomaker's remarks... and?
So?
The Army is strained. Well, there's proof that Iraq is a quagmire. The military is always strained in war time. Thanks to your good buddy Clinton, the military was drawn down from 14 divisions to 10. Bush wants to add more divisions and increase the size. So... you're point is.....???
I know you keep thinking you've got the "gotcha" moment, but they're just not happening. And for you to pretend that you know more about the military than a combat expert because you pulled a quote from USA Today reinforces why no one should listen to you. Schoomaker is above my husband's pay grade, but my husband is wayyyyyyy above yours. And?
Well there's a newsflash. You don't say. IF the US entered into another war with the Clinton drawdown it would be hard to accomplish anything.
Hey, I'm not disagreeing with the generals. I'm asking you, is this news to you, Cobra? You really should stop acting like an expert.
As for your comments to Tommy, I like Bush. And??? Yes? So?? Maybe Bush agrees with ME, have you considered that?
Cobra tells the Proctors that we don't seem to grasp that this is a proxy war between Iran...... funny! Ready to listen to the Generals now? Or only when it suits your out of context purposes? If you'd actually listen to any of the video and audio I post, you'd hear Abizaid deny that this is a proxy war. And Casey. You know, the big wigs above our pay grade. Selective facts, Cobra. Consider listening to Abizaid for yourself.
Cobra, I like Bush. Guess I'm drinking the kool-aide. You do realize that YOU drink the liberal kool-aide and everyone knows it, yes?
So now in the spirit of bipartisanship Bush should listen to Kerry about increasing troop size in Iraq? Cobra, listen carefully: when Pres. Bush talks about increasing the size of the Marines and Army, he's talking about undoing the reduction in division that Clinton did in the 90's, not sending more troops to Iraq. What part of "I"m listening to the commanders on the ground" do you not get?
I didn't bother addressing "Tommy" because his remarks are so sophomoric I didn't think they were serious.
15-20 years, Amy? I think we're lucky if we have more than 3-5. But I do agree that our kids will be fighting it for the foreseeable future. Great post!
Cobra is a pinhead. That's right pinhead, I called you a name. Don't assume for a second that because I call you a name that I'm part of the "Bush is God" bunch. Your simpleton ways, and pathetic labeling of "regulars," combined with your lack of supporting your own idiotic claims is quite telling. Enjoy your bliss.
Sorry Amy, some people just have a knack for annoying me.
Jarhead, Cobra is a victim of his own arrogance and pre-conceived ideas. He is a perfect example of the quintessential arm-chair quarterback I'm always talking about. The MSM dummies down the topic or misleads the facts altogether making people who want to attack the war effort able to do so in cute little bite sized opportunities. For example, a few days ago the AP posted a headline that stated "Bush Says 'We're Not Winning in Iraq'" . Of course, what actually happened was that the President reiterated a statement that the new Sec. of Defense made of a supposed comment by GEN Pace that "We're not winning, but we're losing, either." I have been unable to locate that initial comment so I have to take Gates' name for it.
So Cobra finds whatever he thinks is a negative comment by a general having no idea of military context and proudly quotes it as if he scored. Of course, what would you expect by someone who wants the war to fail, believes people like Nancy Pelosi and has no military service or basis for context?
> "Tommy, You may be new to this blog, but let me tell you something.."
I see what you mean. I thought perhaps this was a conservative blog where the ideals of our constitution and founding fathers were respected.
I see now it is merely another socialist empire cheerleading forum hellbent on running the United States into financial bankruptcy and moral corruption.
Oh well. Enjoy spending your grandchildren's money on the warshow sportsfans. Rah Rah, Go Team and all that.
Via con Dios from Texas.
Jefferson, you can use a fake name and fake credibility by hijacking a President's name but sir, you are no Thomas Jefferson. Your comments are asinine. In fact, I dare you to name one ideal of our founding fathers and constitution. After you've done that, I dare you to tell me how it is not respected on this blog.
If all you can add to the conversation about Iraq is ramblings about bankruptcy and corruption... well, I have nothing kind to say after this point so I'll stop. In the spirit of Christmas.
Assuming you didn't actually read the article or watch the video I posted, let me add this about spending. You were unable to articulate it yourself, but your connotation is that we're spending too much in Iraq. Do you support the failing War on Poverty, which has lasted over the 42 years and for which there is no victory in sight? Tell me how much comes out of your paycheck every month and goes into Iraq. Above and beyond what you normally pay for taxes. And if I have to pay for poor women to get abortions via Medicaid through our tax money, why can't you chip in for the war on terror? Don't give me the "I don't believe in the war on terror" or "it's an immoral war" because those arguments are better made for why I shouldn't be funding abortion against my will.
Speaking of grandchildren, I wish you could live in your own little eutopia, you and your grandchildren. Of course you'd all be dying of sexually transmitted diseases or terrorism, take your pick. We're trying to establish stability in the Middle East.. you know, a little thing called "world peace" that liberals always talk about but never quite know what to do about it. Nor do they care. Wearing cute little red ribbons to combat AIDS doesn't actually do anything but clash with your wardrobe. Rather like talking about world peace and giving Constitutional rights to non-American terrorists.
You libs are screwy!
Amy writes:
>>>"Speaking of grandchildren, I wish you could live in your own little eutopia, you and your grandchildren. Of course you'd all be dying of sexually transmitted diseases or terrorism, take your pick. We're trying to establish stability in the Middle East.. you know, a little thing called "world peace" that liberals always talk about but never quite know what to do about it. Nor do they care. Wearing cute little red ribbons to combat AIDS doesn't actually do anything but clash with your wardrobe. Rather like talking about world peace and giving Constitutional rights to non-American terrorists.
You libs are screwy!"
Where did all this "sexually transmitted disease" and 'AIDS ribbons" stuff come from? You're a mother of four and you're anti-sex? That seems rather silly, doesn't it? But we're not talking about that.
We're talking about the quagmire that is Iraq and what it's costing this country in blood and treasure.
>>>"A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.
"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."
The higher $2 trillion amount takes a 'moderate' approach. Both figures are based on the projection that US troops will remain in Iraq until 2010, with steadily decreasing numbers each year. The economists also used government data from past wars, and included such costs as the rise in the price of oil, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war, the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured, and the increased costs of recruiting to replenish a military drained by repeated tours of duty in Iraq. These are items which are almost never included by the US government when determining the cost of the war."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html
Over TWO TRILLION DOLLARS???!!??!!??
And where is that bill going Amy? It just piles up into more DEBT on our children and grandchildren.
Amy writes:
>>>"Do you support the failing War on Poverty, which has lasted over the 42 years and for which there is no victory in sight?"
Excuse me...New Deal policies like SOCIAL SECURITY keep people OUT OF POVERTY.
>>>"Social Security benefits have a powerful poverty-preventing effect among the elderly. An analysis of Census data shows that nationwide, Social Security benefits lift nearly 13 million seniors age 65 and older above the poverty line. These figures reflect a three-year average for the period from 2000 through 2002. The data indicate:
Leaving aside Social Security income, nearly one of every two elderly people — 46.8 percent — has income below the poverty line.[1]
Once Social Security benefits are taken into account, just one in twelve — 8.7 percent — is poor."
http://www.cbpp.org/2-24-05socsec.htm
Now, angry millionaires on talk radio and Fox News aren't going to tell you those facts, Amy. Medicare, helps extend the LIVES of millions of people by making preventative care AFFORDABLE. Food Stamps? Head Start? AFDC? Read this before you start attacking programs like that:
>>>"Military families on food stamps? It's not an urban myth. About 25,000 families of servicemen and women are eligible, and this may be an underestimate, since the most recent Defense Department report on the financial condition of the armed forces -- from 1999 -- found that 40 percent of lower-ranking soldiers face "substantial financial difficulties." Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, reports hearing from constituents that the Army now includes applications for food stamps in its orientation packet for new recruits.
The poverty of the mightiest military machine on Earth is no secret to the many charities that have sprung up to help families on U.S. military bases, like the church-based Feed the Children, which delivers free food and personal items to families at twelve bases. Before 9/11, trucks bearing free food from a variety of food pantries used to be able to drive right on to the bases. Now they have to stop outside the gates, making the spectacle of military poverty visible to any passerby."
http://www.alternet.org/story/18313
http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues13.html
So when you attack social programs and those who need them, Amy, you're ALSO attacking thousands of our military families. Does that sit well with you?
Amy writes:
>>>"We're trying to establish stability in the Middle East.."
LOL! The Middle East, due to George W. Bush and his neo-cons is more DESTABILIZED than ever, teetoring on the brink of a regional war between Islamic factions.
Maybe Rush didn't mention that on his last show, but...that's the facts, ma'am. But don't take my word for it. Listen to John "death squads" Negroponte explain it.
>>>"A civil war in Iraq could lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East, pitting the region's rival Islamic sects against each other, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said in an unusually frank assessment Tuesday.
"If chaos were to descend upon Iraq or the forces of democracy were to be defeated in that country … this would have implications for the rest of the Middle East region and, indeed, the world," Negroponte said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on global threats.
Negroponte served as U.S. ambassador to Baghdad before taking over as the nation's top intelligence official last April."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/IraqCoverage/wireStory?id=1673360
Whoops.
Jarhead John writes:
>>>"Cobra is a pinhead. That's right pinhead, I called you a name."
Sticks and Stones, Jarhead. You can disagree with anything I post. That's your right as an American. If you disagree with REALITY, then you have far bigger issues to deal with than critiquing my posts.
Amy writes:
>>>"Don't give me the "I don't believe in the war on terror" or "it's an immoral war" because those arguments are better made for why I shouldn't be funding abortion against my will."
You claim the "war on poverty" has been unsuccessful, yet you're willing to pour TRILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives down a rathole in Iraq for a "war on terror" which is even LESS SUCCESSFUL. Number 2, how can you be against funding abortions and against Aid for Financially Dependent Children simultaneously?
Seems kinda hypocritical to me.
Anyway, I wish all of you a Merry Christmas! And in the spirit of Christmas, let me leave you with a Christmas Carol that I'm sure you all will enjoy!
>>>"Let There Be Peace on Earth and let it begin with me.
Let There Be Peace on Earth, the peace that was meant to be!
With God as our Father, brothers all are we.
Let me walk with my brother in perfect harmony.
Let peace begin with me. Let this be the moment now.
With ev'ry breath I take, let this be my solemn vow;
To take each moment and live each moment in peace eternally!
Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me! "
Written by Sy Miller and Bill Jackson
Let the choir say....AMEN
--Cobra
Cobra, the war on poverty was a good idea in theory but after 40 years it just hasn't worked. People who've become enslaved to a welfare system that rewards children out of wedlock and increased poverty is no victory. It has created a lifestyle for millions that is counterproductive. If you cannot differentiate between that and the war in Iraq, which is to help facilitate world peace at best, peace for America at the least, there's really no point in talking about it.
You are not sincere or open minded about this war effort. The war in Iraq is not the entire war on terror but a portion, although it's nice to hear you admit "...in Iraq for a "war on terror".." I think human lives are valuable whether it be the unborn or suffering in Iraq, the Dulfar, Somalia or wherever. Of course you know because we've discussed it at length that the war in Iraq has many causes and there is not a single cause.
Regarding destabilization, its easy to point to a war zone and say "Gee, that looks unstable." Duh. I guess you could say that Europe between 1939 and 1945 was "unstable". But who were the warmongers? It was the bad guys: Hitler, Japan.... surely England fighting back caused more destabilization. If they would have only succumbed to those trying to subdued them everything would have been fine. I guess in retrospect, though, we've learned some lessons from Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. Haven't we? Which side then are YOU on? I'm with Churchill.
When Johnny joined the military, we were eligible for food stamps. I'm not sure why, when we joined in 1993 under BILL CLINTON, that is now the fault of either George W. Bush or Iraq. Johnny made $1000 a month, we had 2 kids and $100 of that $1000 went to the GI Bill. We lived off of $900 a month. That said, what your citation didn't mention is that a soldier is only E-1 for a matter of a few months. By the time he graduates AIT (training school that immediately follows Basic Training), soldiers should promote to E-2. Johnny promoted to E-3 after a year. So we weren't in that category long and frankly an E-1 doesn't deserve the same pay as someone whose dedicated 5, 10, 15 or 20 years to their country. Its' an entry level position. I'd really caution you about gravitating toward liberal sites to get your information, Cobra. When I was a protestant and wanted to learn what Catholicism was all about, I didn't really find out until I stopped accessing protestant sources and went directly to the Catholic Catechism. You might think about doing the same.
But hey, I didn't know you were for increasing defense spending! I think that's great.
Cobra said:
I thought libs have been saying since 2003 the US cannot "undo thousands of years of tribal and ethnic violence", but now in 2006 that's George Bush's fault?
I suppose it was our destabilization of Iraq and the Middle East that also prompted 9/11? Wait, that happened after the Middle East was already screwed up.
Amy writes:
>>>"Cobra, the war on poverty was a good idea in theory but after 40 years it just hasn't worked. People who've become enslaved to a welfare system that rewards children out of wedlock and increased poverty is no victory. It has created a lifestyle for millions that is counterproductive."
Ummm....what's your ALTERNATIVE, Amy? The corporations conservatives seem to love so much have outsourced manufacturing and labor overseas, or insourced illegal immigrants to work them. Where do the poor and unskilled go to work that will allow them to get OFF of the social programs you hate so much?
Speaking of which...
Amy writes:
>>>"When Johnny joined the military, we were eligible for food stamps. I'm not sure why, when we joined in 1993 under BILL CLINTON, that is now the fault of either George W. Bush or Iraq. Johnny made $1000 a month, we had 2 kids and $100 of that $1000 went to the GI Bill. We lived off of $900 a month."
Now, I want you to read this clearly. Take you time, and drink this in.
I seldom agree with you. But here, in this instance, I ADMIRE You for what you are doing,and where you came from. YOU, according to your OWN WORDS were below the POVERTY LEVEL. And look at you now...hosting a popular blog, and appearing on national television.
My question to you is...why do you seem to attack people who are in the same situation as you were? If you had a choice between taking food stamps and your children going hungry, I'm pretty sure I know what choice you'd make. If you had a choice between public housing and children being homeless, I'm pretty sure I know what choice you'd make. If you had a choice between medicare and your children going without healthcare, I'm pretty sure I know what choice you'd make. When all the rhetoric calms down, we're all still human beings, Amy.
Amy writes:
>>>"But hey, I didn't know you were for increasing defense spending! I think that's great."
Sure I am. As long as it's spent on OUR TROOPS and not Halliburton, Bechtel, General Electric, Lockheed, and any other military contractors.
Amy writes:
>>>"I thought libs have been saying since 2003 the US cannot "undo thousands of years of tribal and ethnic violence", but now in 2006 that's George Bush's fault?
I suppose it was our destabilization of Iraq and the Middle East that also prompted 9/11? Wait, that happened after the Middle East was already screwed up."
There was a balance in the Middle East with Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq, the natural Sunni stopgap to Shiite Iran. Now a Shiite dominated theocracy has been created in Iraq because of George W. Bush.
It's very simple, actually.
--Cobra
You mistake troop re-enlistment for support for this war. It's a well known that soldiers' primary allegiance in a top military unit is to their comrades. They may truly believe in the mission, but they stand and fight for the guy next to them.
I said at the outset of this war, that if we went in, it shoudl be with the full understanding that any victory would involve slaughter on the scale inflicted on the Japanese, because nothing short of the extirpation of the Islamic faith itself would be sufficient to bring about the sort of fundamental change being sought by Bush. That meant hundreds of thousands of US troops, and a US public steeled to massive civilian casualties.
All this is academic now. The troop levels necessary for victory now far exceed the levels of three or four years ago. The US doesn't have the troops, nor will the Chinese financiers who bankroll the war extend credit sufficient to enlist such a force.
I rarely ever agree with Pat Buchanan, but at the outset of this war he referred to is as the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history. Now, we hear Bush has a plan to set things right. But who will trust the creators of this debacle to get us out of it? Few, it seems. If Bush and Cheney loved their country, they would resign from office and allow someone -- anyone -- else to pick up the pieces of the America they have broken.