Subscribe: Blogging for the Truth
Added By: taweste Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
bush  iraq war  iraq  military  obama  people  point  president  support  terrorism  terrorists  troops  war iraq  war  woman 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Blogging for the Truth

Blogging for the Truth

A blog with a liberal bias. Readers should use the posts as a starting point to come to their own informed conclusions. For those who respond, I will attempt to prove to you that I am always right (yet still very left).

Updated: 2008-05-11T13:42:31.253-04:00


We are Having Technical Difficulties


My computer mysteriously broke after falling off my table.

Please accept my apologies for my lack of material. We should be up and running in less than a week.

Can Obama Give Money Back?


Senator Barack Obama would like to raise general election money now, and give it back later, under one circumstance; each candidate must agree to use only funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The Federal Election Committee will decide whether or not Senator Obama's plan is feasible.

This story illustrates one of the major problems facing the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Fundraising begins years before the candidates will be chosen, and this leads to the predicament facing Senator Obama: a decision cannot be made as to public financing until both parties have agreed to the terms. Both parties cannot agree if we do not know who the candidates are.

On the surface, Senator Obama's plan seems to be a possible resolution to the Federal Election Campaign Fund conundrum. Raise money now, give it back later. It is not only a solution but an act that could secure the use of fair campaign contributions.

Say Obama raises ten million dollars now, with the promise to repay if the Republican candidate agrees to use FECF funds. It would be an awful decision for the Republican candidate should he or she decide not to accept FECF funds. That candidate would be solely responsible for thousands of people not getting their money back. The original contributors obviously supported the Democratic candidate, but this act could effect the mysterious "swing voters."

This would not provide Senator Obama with an unfair advantage, but it would be a major step forward in campaign finance reform.

Enough with the Nonbinding Resolution


I have to agree with Liberal Oasis on this one. This whole nonbinding resolution thing is getting out of control. It is time to express the Dems opinion on the "surge" plan to the American public, and move on. Whether or not Congress achieves bipartisan support upon the matter is moot.

Politicians, we get the point, lets get back to work.

It was Only a Matter of Time


I decided to see what O'Reilly was "spinning" today, and I followed a link to an article written by William M. Arkin of the Washington Post. Apparently he is quite discomforted by some comments from members of the US military. These comments reflected a misguided view, that those who do not support the war have an inherent dislike for the troops.

Arkin is unwise in believing that members of the military work for the American people. Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines work for the government. The government tells them what to do and where to do it. Presently, the decisions made by our government are not mimicking the sentiments of the majority of US citizens. I cannot say it enough; the troops are not to be lamed for the problems in Iraq.

Each side of this story is mistaken; Arkin for expecting the troops to support the citizens of the US, and the soldiers for thinking the citizens must support the war in order to support them.

Arkin went over the line by referring to the troops as mercenaries, for inferring that problems in Iraq are related to embarrassing situations involving the members of the military, by envisioning a false sense of prosperity for those serving, and ultimately by belittling the horrors facing the men and women serving in Iraq.

Arkin later implied that his article was successful in igniting the passion of others, albeit at the expense of pain in him and his readers. He does not apologize for his remarks, nor does he offer an explanation.

Iraq has been the topic of intense debate for many moons. It was only a mater of time before it turned ugly. I hope we can learn from our past, and strive for progress in our future.

Through all this, we must never forget that we are all entitled to opinions. It is this very freedom that makes our nation great. I hold no ill will for anyone who submits an honest opinion, no matter how imprudent.

I Say Again, Anti-War Does not Equal Anti-Troops


"One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."

-Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun

Do sentiments like these stem from sheer ignorance, or are they products of psychological disorders? I may be over reacting a bit here, but it seems blatantly obvious. Political opinions, i.e. feelings against the war, are in no way connected with your amount of support for the troops.

Members of the military act according to orders passed on by superiors. These orders may or may not equate with popular social views. This lack of agreement is a byproduct of a functioning democratic society.

I do not support the war because I possess a certain set of political beliefs which lead me to believe that a war in Iraq is wrong. These beliefs sprung from decisions made by prominent US decision makers, not troops. My beliefs happen to echo that of many US citizens. Now, had the actions of soldiers been the basis of my beliefs (like the a-hole author of this article) I could be properly labeled as anti-troop, but at this point not necessarily anti-war. My point? Anti-war and Anti-troop are two separate entities.

But Mommy I Don't Want to Go


As a member of the military I am disgusted by the actions of an Army officer who refuses to carry-out his orders to fight in Iraq. There are many members of the military who do not want to go to Iraq, but must, due to orders or an inherent desire to fulfill an obligation. This man is a disgrace to the US military.

Before my last deployment, many of my friends were given the option of going to Iraq. Many chose not to go. I do not fault these men for their choices. They earned their option by participating in past deployments. The military has since done away with the "option" clause. Could more refusals be in our future?

I believe the majority of those serving, no matter their political views, would never deny their orders. Your service and obligations in the military, as difficult as it may be, must be removed from your political views.

This man claimed he would not fight in an �??illegal" war. Whether the war is, or is not legal, is a matter of political opinion. Unfortunately, political opinion in this case, has turned into a man's shameful excuse.

Open Your Eyes!


I cannot believe some people actually think we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. I was reading this post and I could not believe that some people still - honestly - believe that we are fighting terrorist in Iraq. DO YOU THINK WE ARE FIGHTING TERROROIST IN IRAQ?

There are a million, maybe a billion, terrorists out there. They do not want to fight our military. Terrorist want to destroy our way of life. They want to disrupt our daily affairs. They are mad at us. The war in Iraq was screwed up from day one, and we did not need terrorist to help us.

The Iraq war is not a war against terror; it is a war which breeds terrorists. There is no such thing as the nation of terrorists. There may be nations which support and/or harbor terrorists, but we cannot attack the entire nation because of this. We must remove the terror cells on a small scale level, without endangering the general population.

Fighting alone will not deter terrorism. Terrorists are united under an ideology; the belief that the US threatens their way of life. If we can destroy terrorism from its roots, resentment towards the west, then we can truly defeat terrorism. This must come through diplomatic means. Of course this is much more difficult then our go fight em' strategy we have adopted. Let's face it; there is no easy way out of this one.

Boston Lite-Brite Scare


(object) (embed)

I watched the news, and noticed a story implying that bombs were scattered throughout the Boston area. They were placed in strategic locations, under bridges, and in heavily populated areas. But they were not bombs; they were signs with cartoon characters on them. These signs may have been mistaken for explosive devices, if you were legally blind.

After seeing the "bombs" that everybody was so excited about, I determined that the terrorists have won. The day has come when we fear small electronic signs. What is next?

I do commend the Boston authorities for a proper response albeit to an utterly embarrassing "threat." I guess it was good practice.

The most disappointing aspect of this story is the potential consequences facing the two men who posted the signs. It was not their idea, and they were working for an employer. They arguably played a minor role in the "crime" that was committed - I use the term crime very very loosely.

It will be an outrage if these men are convicted of anything.

You Have Crossed the Line


(object) (embed)

I am disappointed in AlterNet for posting this video. I am a "troop," I am against the escalation plan, but using vets as political puppets is disgusting. Also, you cannot generalize the opinion of the entire military population.

Whether or not you are for or against President Bush's plan does not play any role in determining your level of support for the US military.

Who Cares


Senator Clinton may have made a derogatory reference to her husband, in a comedical context. Is this really an issue? I cannot believe people are actually debating this.

Since everyone else is intrigued by her wisecrack, I may as well hop on the bandwagon. If anything, this comment has given Clinton a new face. It is a human side which I have never seen before. I have personally viewed Senator Clinton as a bit cold, but her newly exposed sense of humor helped to warm her up a bit.

Many aspects of political success revolve around how people view politicians' personalities. Clinton's remark will benefit her campaign in that a strong sense of humor equates with a positive personality.

You may now Kill Iranians


The Bush Administration has announced that coalition forces in Iraq may pursue Iranian forces who pose a threat. This threat must be backed by intelligence. Call me crazy, but ANYONE who poses a threat to coalition forces in Iraq may be engaged. Whether they are Iranian or Antarctician (natives of Antarctica, they are all over Iraq) is moot as long as they pose a threat.

There must be more to this story. It just does not make sense. Why would you announce something so obvious? Maybe Bush is trying to make a point to Iran; if you support the insurgency we will engage you. Umm...... once again ANYONE who supports the insurgency will be engaged. If Switzerland sent troops to support the insurgency, we would engage them.

Let me know if I am missing something here.

Ford is Going Down


It was announced that Ford Motor Company was 12.7 billion in the red this year. They do not plan on making a profit until 2009. I believe this is a perfect opportunity for Ford to make a serious effort to produce a marketable alternative fuel line of vehicles.

American automobile manufactures must create something innovating for their survival to take place. The alternative fuel market is up and coming and just as Apple invigorated itself in the electronic music market, Ford (or GM for all I care) could do the same in the alternative fuel market.

Although, vehicles are only half the equation, an entire infrastructure must be created to ensure the profitability of these vehicles. This is where the government should enter the picture and provide incentives for fuel suppliers.

Why do I care if Ford survives? Ford provides many jobs for numerous Americans, and the failure of Ford equates to a drastic loss of jobs. Second, gasoline guzzling cars support terrorism. Our dependence on foreign oil provides the fuel, (no pun intended) that terrorists native to the Middle East need to thrive.

Who knows why Ford hasn't hired me yet!

Dichloroacetate, A Story of Capitalism at its Best


Reading this story I was very impressed. It seems some scientists discovered a cheap and safe drug that kills many forms of cancer (they didn't actually find the drug, just some added benefits of an existing drug.) The problem is, the drug does not have a patent, and this makes it unprofitable. Drug companies will not fund any further research.

Clinical trials must be conducted in order to exploit this drug to its fullest potential. It looks as if all funding will have to come from charities and/or donations. I found plenty on the web about the drug and its lack of funding, but no links to donate.

Wouldn't it be nice if these huge pharmaceutical companies pulled there heads out of their asses and helped out a bit? I must be crazy; why save millions of lives if you can't make millions of dollars. Stupid me.

If the story alone doesn't drive you crazy, check this out.

You gotta love the free market!

Are Americans Ready


Jay Severin posed an interesting question yesterday, is America ready for a woman or a black President? At first, I thought there was a simple answer, yes. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to listen to Severin's opinion. Although he hinted that in his opinion, woman yes, black no. Of course my opinion is gospel, and I am not sure if I can clearly answer yes or no.I will begin with the women portion. We have a multitude of women serving in prominent positions in our government. Why not President?With so much activity in the Middle East these days, would a woman US President receive as much respect as a man in the same position? It would all depend on the group you were working with. Some nations in the Middle East, and anywhere in the world for that matter, would give less respect to a woman leader. Although this would not disqualify a woman from having a great run as President, it could cause some to think twice about voting for a woman. Some people still view woman as weak and/or poor leaders. These views are extremely misguided, but valid to some. I could state a million stereotypes of woman, all unreasonable, but still convincing to some.Is America ready? I have no idea. CBS ran a poll asking if people would vote for a qualified woman. Ninety-two percent of those who responded said yes. Of course, when you ask someone if they, personally, would vote for a woman, they would. Very few people, when questioned directly, will admit that they would never vote for a woman.Interestingly, CBS ran another poll asking whether America is "ready" for a woman President. Thirty-eight percent of those who responded said no, a much greater amount than the measly five percent who admittedly wouldn't vote for a woman. These polls suggest that I (meaning the responder) would vote for a woman, but I'm not sure about everyone else. If I went by the results of these polls alone, I would suggest that America is not ready for a woman; even though we won't admit it. But one CBS poll is not a proper gauge. I still cannot answer yes or no.Onto the black President. Of course, just as there are stereotypes related to woman, there are stereotypes related to blacks. These stereotypes are false, but some cannot look beyond them. I suspect that if you asked a US citizen if he or she would vote for a black president they would say yes, but when asked if America was "ready" for a black president, they would be more hesitant to respond yes.If had to answer yes or no, I would say no to both. I think Americans are weary of electing a black or woman President. Only on Election Day will the true answers be revealed.Tags: Jay+Severin Woman+President Black+President President [...]

Laura Ingraham, What a.......


Laura Ingraham never fails to drive me crazy. That incessant laugh, which screams out tones of her obvious ability to speak nothing but the truth. She is a classic right wing pundit. Although, I love to let her fire me up.

Today, I decided to browse her website to see what kind of retarded points she was trying to make. I caught a glimpse of a section titled "Lie of the Day." In the box there was a quote from Senator Barack Obama reading:

"I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago."

At first glance, I thought even if it was a "lie" it was not a big deal by any means. Then I clicked on a link titled "The Truth." Ingraham's proof of the lie was a memoir written by Obama 11 years ago, likely stating that he would like to run for president.

Alright Ingraham, eleven ears ago Obama thought of someday running for President. Does that mean he still had those aspirations last year? NO! And frankly who cares!

Executive Oversight


Recently, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy was asked whether President Bush should be worried about Leahy's new role as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy responded:

"No, he shouldn't be worried. He should be terrified."

It's about time the system of checks and balances is reinstated into our government. Checks and balances are paramount to a properly functioning government. Gone are the days of President Bush's totalitarian leadership style. Congress has the responsibility to oversee the Executive Branch, and with that responsibility comes risk.

What I do not want to see is a situation where Congress focuses on past issues of deceit. Yes, it is important to look into the past, to learn from the past, but we cannot get caught up in it. We can seek justice, but we must strive for future progress. This progress could be hindered by playing the blame game. There is a fine line between seeking justice and impeding progress.

Who's Blaming the Military?


"I don't want people blamin' our military" George W. Bush

Correct me if I am wrong, but who has been blaming the military for the quagmire in Iraq? It is impossible to to go a day without somebody placing the blame on Bush and his cronies for the difficulties in Iraq, but the military? How far out of touch with reality is President Bush?

Mr. Bush is not known for his mastery of the English language, so maybe he meant something else. Maybe he is foreshadowing a future where the US suddenly supports his ideas and places blame where it is deserved, on the military. After all, the military got us into this mess right?

Mr. Bush, with all do respect, you are a moron!

Withdrawal Equals Failure?


Sen. Joe Lieberman stated yesterday on NBC's Meet The Press that:

"Any alternatives that I've heard ultimately don't work. They're all about failing. They're all about withdrawing. "

I would like to point out the association between failure and withdrawal. At some point we will have to withdraw from Iraq, and hopefully sooner than later. The time has come to realize that withdrawal is no longer a threat but a viable option. Are we willing to risk Americans' lives in order to secure the fate of the Iraqis? Do we have the ability to secure the fate of the Iraqis?

As I stated earlier, Iraq will inevitably end up in a state of civil war. Withdrawal now will not prevent this outcome, troop surges will not prevent this outcome, and withdrawal in the future will not prevent this outcome. We need to face reality, give Iraq a chance to work out their problems on their own, and give our military a chance to rest and re-group.

Withdrawal is not failure, it's reality.

Oil Still a Possibility?


There is obviously some controversy surrounding our motivation to enter Iraq. We will most likely never know all the truth preceding the invasion. Alternet published an interesting article which shed light on the possibility of oil being the prime motivation for the war in Iraq (part1/part2). More recently, Seattle Democrat Jim McDermott mentioned this article to the Senate (video).

Oil was, of course, on the minds of many when the possibility of invading Iraq first became apparent. Today, many argue against the war for oil scenario due to the key fact that oil prices have done nothing but rise since the invasion. Joshua Holland's article raises some alluring points which could once again cause us to rethink the war for oil scheme.

This is an issue that cannot be discounted.

Any Questions?


If there is any body out there who has questions, feel free to ask. I can't go a day without somebody asking me something about my experiences, but I generally dislike talking about it. I am much more comfortable writing. The offer is out there.

Watch out World, Westy's Back


I have neglected this blog so long now. I think the time has come for me to jump back into the real world. I have been in vacation mode since I have been home. Here goes nothing.Writing and talking about Iraq is so much more difficult now than it was a year ago. The experience changed me forever, and although some may think I am a bit crazier, I think I made a change for the better. Everything has changed from my personal life to my social life, but one salient point remains the same: Iraq still sucks.With Bush�??s new plan for Iraq in the forefront of today�??s news, now is a great time for me to look to the past and offer some options for the future.Before I left I had no idea what to expect. I had been in a �??combat zone�?? before, but it was lame. Was Iraq going to be similar to my first experience? On the other end of the spectrum, was it going to be like the old scenes of WWII? The area I was in fell somewhere in between lame and full blown battle. It was a frustrating battle; one in which you fought a nearly invisible enemy. There was a constant struggle between fighting and winning over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. It was this struggle that makes this war, occupation, whatever you want to call it, so difficult.Your buddy gets killed, you kill someone out of fear and anger, he may have been a good guy or a bad guy, either way, his buddy�??s kill someone else, in the same passions of fear and anger. It is a cycle that will continue throughout an occupation unless each side agrees to a cease fire. It�??s simple; neither side is going to get along if we continue to kill each other. It�??s not rocket science. Since neither side is going to get along in the near future, how about stability.How do you bring stability to a nation? At this time, we seem to be attempting to rid the country of the bad guys. But it is so difficult to determine who the bad guys are. Are you a bad guy if you fight to remove an occupying force from your home? Or are you a bad guy if you fight to bring power to your people who have been left in the dark for so long? If we define the bad guys in the former sense, then stability is an easily achieved goal. We leave, they stop fighting us. It is the latter definition that causes problems.Imagine you live in a country where you and the group of people who share your beliefs have been ostracized for years, even though you are the majority group. Suddenly someone steps in removes the machinery that has held you back, and you suddenly have the power to take control of your home. It all sounds great, until you throw another variable into the equation: the people who ruled over you. Even though they are the minority, they are accustomed to possessing the majority of the power. This all leads to civil war.Civil war will ultimately be the outcome of the war in Iraq. It is inevitable at this time. We are attempting to create an Iraqi army. This army mirrors the population. Just because a Sunni wears an Army uniform doesn�??t mean he will get along with a Shia in the same uniform. When we leave, the army will divide itself just as the population has. All the force in the world cannot change the intrinsic beliefs of a society.We could send a million more troops to Iraq, but we will still see the same outcome when we leave. We can stay there for the next twenty years, but the bad guys will still be there with us. Guns do not kill ideologies.Tags: Iraq War Bush Combat Battle Enemy Occupation Stability Civil+War Sunni Shia Troops [...]

Its Been Awhile...


It has been awhile since I have written anything. I find it difficult to express hostile feelings towards the conflict in Iraq while some of my brothers are risking their lives, and others are making the ultimate sacrifice for their country. I have tried to hold back until I get home, but one of the headlines I read today brought me over the edge.

Google appeared on my computer, and the words "Hussein Rejected Bin Laden" stood before me. I generally veer away from news on Iraq, but something told me to read this one. I guess I wasn't surprised to read that a Senate report claimed Saddam's regime did not support Al Qaeda. After all, the left has been stating this for awhile.

After reading a few articles pertaining to the subject, the validity of the report became moot. Those headlines lead me into a surreal state which caused me to look back to my initial days in Iraq. In all my time here I searched for an answer to one question, "Why are we here?"

Today, I still ask myself that same question.

"It's not a War. It's an occupation"


"But it's not a war. It's an occupation. You don't "win" or "lose" an occupation."Avedon Carol (Liberal Oasis)Fortunately, I made some time today to browse through the blogosphere, and I was particularly taken by this comment on Liberal Oasis. Are we fighting a war, or are we experiencing an occupation? Good question. There is a fine line distinguishing the two. I would have to say, we are fighting a broad war on terrorism, but we are occupying Iraq.A war on terrorism is such a vast proposal. Terrorism takes on so many forms. If literally fighting terrorism is possible, it cannot be done in one location. And it is completely ludicrous to believe that terrorism can be eradicated through force alone. Terrorism must be fought on many fronts, and through many means. The ultimate end of any act of terrorism is physical destruction, but a return of force is not the only solution, never mind the most practical. Any problem must be solved from its roots, and the root of terrorism is ideological differences. If we try to kill all the terrorists, we will only create more terrorists in the process.Hence, we are having problems with our occupation of Iraq. Lets face it, the Middle East is somewhat of a bastion for terrorists. Iraq is in the heart of the Middle East, and our presence there only fuels the terrorists' hatred for us. The longer we remain in Iraq, the more the terrorists' resentment for us grows. The war in Iraq ended long ago, but our current occupation will provide terrorists recruits for years to come.Avedon Carol is right. We cannot win or lose in Iraq at this point. We won the initial war in Iraq, but are we ready for the consequences of an occupation?Tags: Iraq War Occupation Win Lose War+on+Terror Terrorism Force Terrorists Middle+East Avedon+Carol [...]

An Exchange Between Two Marines


This is an exchange between myself, and a friend of mine who is also a Marine, Lester Torrey.I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you to a degree. However,I think your post makes two assumptions. One is that anyone can ever defeat terrorism. I'll save that for later. The other is that we have any intention of leaving the area at all.Eventually we will pull some troops out. But we now have a strong influencing a region that is both problematic and full of oil. What reason do we have to get out? A few dead soldiers? Please! The general public has shown that it can be appropriately sad about dead soldiers and yet can forget about them easily enough. We will most certainly keep a lasting military presence there, just like we have in Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. While many people are getting tired of the war, most of them are not so disgusted with it that they would cry out for its end. Those that are crying out are loud, but still a minority. I don't expect us to ever fully pull out.On to my second point. Can we ever really beat terrorism? I don't believe so. Terrorism is a big concept, and one with a lot of gray areas. But if we focus on the situation at hand, I have to wonder if our presence there is not instigating these terrorist acts. Are we fanning the flames? Some have already claimed that the war has drawn terrorists to Iraq that would otherwise have been terrorizing on US soil. This is good in that it may have saved some American lives, but bad because it has turned Iraq into a quagmire, a field for us to fight a continuous stream of terrorists from all over the world. How many of these terrorists would have become so if we had never gone into the country?Too many people still think we are fighting a war against a traditional army, where all we need to do is kill all of their soldiers, then we win. But the very act of fighting this war gives validity to the enemy's rhetoric, which incites a hate for us. The more we kill, the more people enlist against us.And though you make the point that we only need to be there until the Iraqi army can defend Iraq, I have to ask, Who is the Iraqi army and who are they defending against? If there is really such a split along religious or idealogical lines that it would be a long hard trek to close (as you mentioning another post) then can we believe that these two groups can work together within an army? Or will the army be comprised totally of one faction,leading inevitably to a great imbalance of power, and then to corruption again?My response:In response to your first point, although there are numerous incentives for us to maintain a strong presence here, I am not sure if it would be possible. First of all, they do not want us here, especially in the Sunni areas. We get shot at everyday, and we are blown up everyday. Their (the insurgents) desire and/or resources could diminish with time, but that is only a possibility. Our resources are diminishing. Financially we cannot support ourselves if we "stay the course," for another 3 years. Politically this war is becoming a burden to all those associated with it.Now, if we do maintain a strong presence here, I disagree that it would comparable to the situations in Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. In those instances, we fought for a just cause, with the backing of the world powers. To be blunt, they screwed up, we toppled them, we said we were staying, and the world supported us. In the Iraq war, we entered unde[...]

There is Still Hope


I stumbled upon this letter today while I was surfing my units webpage. It is letters like this which lead me to believe that there is some very good things occuring here. I encourage anyone who dissents to this war to read it (that includes myself).

Letter from an Iraqi Mayor's office