Excerpts from letters ABOUT Iraq... and democrats playing politics with American blood.

.
July 30, 2007

I’ve been giving our chat in the car concerning the war and the freedom to oppose our actions in Iraq with the seeming dichotomy of my statements concerning opposition and commitment to the troops… my observation that once Congress voted to allow the invasion, their entire job became one of supporting our efforts there; your astonished reply that they should have the right to protest; your football coach analogy; my “once the play has started” response… my position that those speaking out in opposition to our Iraq involvement should run their remarks through what I would call the “filter of benefit.”

Like millions of others in this country, I haven’t been particularly happy with the “peace” of our post-Iraq invasion. We’ve badly mishandled that time frame, and I cannot defend the Administration’s actions either leading up to, or since, the invasion of Iraq occurred. But here’s where I again point out that the “how” we arrived here lacks any particular significance of the fact that we ARE here.

The discussion of those issues, taken in the perfection of 20/20 hindsight, will go on for decades. It will, I believe, extend much longer and much farther than the post World War Two examination of President Roosevelt’s actions up to and during that war… the “what did he know, and when did he know it” examination.

We’re in a day and age where political segments in our society are not motivated by the best interests of this country, unless those interests happen to coincide with their thirst for political power. The end result?

Blinded by the objective, politically motivated people who should know better will say anything; do anything; to achieve their goal of power.

People who should know better shove common sense aside in the interests of gaining power. They say and do things deliberately designed to assault the American people with a Chinese water-torture approach of changing our perception in an effort to achieve their aim.

Not because such a change is right for this country. Not because such a change is right for any given situation. But instead, entirely for the purpose of achieving political power. And, as a veteran of 14 years of service to the country, I submit to you that abusing a freedom to gain stark political power fuelled by the blood of those who believe what they’re doing DOES matter… goes far beyond the purpose, definition and need for “Freedom of Speech.”

For example, 3 months ago, when Senator Reid said the surge was a failure even before it was remotely completed, and the war is “lost;” his position was not based on a desire to do what is right; or to do what is in either the best interests of the Iraqi’s or of our military, who are spilling their blood by the thousands to achieve a worthy goal.

It is, instead, a stark and vicious position entirely motivated by the desire to gain political power, no matter how many deaths that goal costs, no matter how much positions such as those fracture our country, no matter how much statements such as those strengthen our enemies.

And BBBBB, statements such as these DO strengthen our enemies. And that goes to the heart of the matter.

When our leaders speak, what they say matters. When they speak irresponsibly, people die. And the blood of those deaths; the pain and agony those words garner… when do their authors take responsibility for what they’ve done?

Every freedom this country has is filtered thru limits. The classic limit on Freedom of Speech is to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Why do such restrictions exist?

Oliver Wendell Homes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Holmes went on:

"[w]hen a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

For Senator Reid to utter such remarks, knowingly false, is to increase among ourselves AND our Allies a clear and present danger from our democrat-emboldened enemies who really, really would like to destroy us; not unlike the Schenck scenario anticipates.

In this day and age, words and the meaning of words have impacts far beyond those I believe were anticipated back in the 1900’s. I want to reiterate: I have absolutely no problem with opposition to the war.

But expressions of opposition should be based on what is best for our country and our military, thousands of whom have paid the ultimate price because this Nation asked them to. And opposition to the war should have been expressed BEFORE we went; not after. You cannot put the men and women who’ve been blown to pieces and/or killed back together again when you insist on telling them they’ve bled for nothing.

And with each utterance comparing our troops to Nazis, that’s what they do. With each utterance, telling us that we’ve already lost, that’s what they do.

Those expressions should not, CAN NOT, be made in such a way that it hurts our forces or strengthens our enemies. And those in government who lead the opposition, both political and to the war in Iraq, frequently and thoughtlessly express their opposition in ways that achieve that very outcome.

Every time our political leaders cast doubt on the mission, it negatively impacts the troops. It plants the seed of doubt. It impacts morale, and as a result, it impacts capabilities and effectiveness.

So, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re a platoon leader (Which puts you at the rank of 2nd or 1st Lieutenant.) and PFC Snuffy Smith comes up to you one day and says,

“You know, Sir, I’m from Las Vegas, and Sen. Reid is my senator. When he says the war is lost, and the surge is failing, I have to ask myself: Why should I go out on patrol and risk my life for nothing? And how does Sen. Durbin get away with comparing me to a Nazi?”

How do you respond? How do you reply? How do you get Smith to believe what he does IS important? That what he does IS worth putting his ass on the line?

And if you can’t convince him of those facts, what does that do to his effectiveness and capabilities? And more importantly, what does it do to YOUR effectiveness and capabilities, and those of your unit; because you’ve got to know that he’s not the only one?

You’ve got to have SOMETHING, you’ve got to be able to give this 19 year-old SOMETHING to hang onto.

And frankly, AAAAA, I can’t, realistically, answer that question. I only put 10 years in as an NCO/officer, and that wasn’t enough to imbue me with the magic formula to undo the damage Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kucinich and those like him have done to our soldiers. I’m just not smart enough, or experienced enough.

The basis for this opposition is entirely a result of a strategic political reality: that strong support for the war and our mission by the democrats would eliminate any possibility of gaining them the majority in Congress or gaining democrat control of the White House. As a result, our people are bleeding. Unnecessarily.

Democrats oppose this war because they know they’d be relegated to political footnote status if they didn’t. They claim they express the will of the American people, but they make that claim without acknowledging that they are the ones primarily responsible for designing and developing that will… all, of course, in the name of seeking and achieving raw political power.

I posted this little snippet below on a Camaro board I’ve been on for 6 years or so… the language is a little rough, but it’s how I felt at the time, when confronted by one of the “support the troops, but not their mission” types:

“So, when you see any troop that's served over there... say, a JayDDD (one of the board members in the 101 Airborne serving in Baghdad right now) ... make sure you tell him: ‘I support you. I just don't happen to think that what you were doing over there was worth a f@$%.’

Head on over to the nearest military or VA facility set up to help the troops when they come home... to treat their wounds... to do the best we can to heal them. Make sure that they all know how you feel about the blood they spilled. And start going to a few military funerals. Make sure that everyone there knows your position on the war.

I mean, f@^& CCCC... you know more about it than anyone... your superior position on the matter would be hard to deny... and letting these people know that their sacrifice, and that of their loved one(s) is ‘bogus’ would be just the thing to improve their morale, and REALLY show your ‘support’ of the troops.”

The clearest illustration of that reality is that it really doesn’t matter what the Petraeus report says; it will not matter what results of the surge may be; in the name of political power and political power alone, it will not matter.

The democrats have backed themselves into a corner. If they adopt and support our continued efforts in Iraq, then they lose the fringe left and they lose any credibility with the American public.

POLITICALLY, they have no choice. They have no desire to take any action that will cast doubt on their judgment, and were they to do anything except hammer Bush, no matter what the report says, their house of cards would collapse and it would be 1994 all over again.

And they would rather cut off their cranks with dignity then admit they made a mistake in judgment or that their positions were, and are, motivated by anything other then what’s best for the country OR that anything they’ve said or done resulted in one hair on one troop’s head being slightly damaged.

Freedom of speech? You bet. But when you’ve been elected and you’ve got a title in front of your name, you had better damned sure be willing to stand up and make the phrase “With freedom, comes responsibility,” mean something.

And right now, the Reids, Pelosis, Murthas and the like aren’t losing any sleep over anything they’ve said or done. Because, after all, it’s all in a good cause, and none of those kids dying for us belong to them…

Do they?