Away with the November Criminals!

The article quotes Bush Admin. officials, not "troops."

This is a blog named "GOP Bloggers" echoing Bush Admin. officials who are repeating the Bush admin line that half of all Americans (60% now) are "traitors." Nothing more.

When the Republican Party so obviously works to divide the American people rather than bring them together - to the [point of calling 60% of Americans "traitors" - is it any wonder that the public starts to decide that the war is not serious? If it REALLY was a serious situation placin the country in danger you'd be unifying the public not dividing them.

The post by Jonathon R. partially regurgitated an article in the Washington Times. Unfortunately, he failed to quote the entire article, which ended with:
' Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, an author of books on military transformation, said he is hearing something different from returning troops.
"Soldiers see no viable mission, no plan and no strategy," Col. Macgregor said. "No one trusts any of the Arabs in the Iraqi army, only the Kurds. Soldiers want to survive to go home and are fighting to keep each other alive. There is no Iraq. There is Kurdistan, which the soldiers all love. Then, there is the Sunni Arab center and the Shi'ite south that most think is an autonomous province of Iran."

What is there about truth that you folks work so hard to avaid?

Your headline is refuted three times by the story you link to.

But Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Mr. Rumsfeld, said commanders are not telling the Pentagon that morale is sinking, although they have long-standing concerns about the press.

Still, officers in Iraq contend that troop morale is good to excellent. "I have not heard of any morale problems related to the political debates," said Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, a spokesman in Baghdad.

Lt. Col. David Lapan, a Marine spokesman in the violence-wracked Anbar province, said, "We haven't conducted any surveys so obviously we can't speak to the morale of every Marine, sailor and soldier out here. However, based on comments from commanders and leaders who interact daily with troops at all levels, I'd say morale remains pretty high."


According to the article, the only people being bothered by the war debate in the press are Rumsfeld and an unnamed senior Pentagon official. Maybe you should change your caption to "Liberal surrender talk having an effect in Washington". Apparently our troops are intelligent people who understand that while some people may be questioning the war, no one is questioning the warriors. God bless them and let's bring them home safely as soon as we can.

Also, the article is in the Washington Times. What credibility do you have when you quote a LaRouche publication? You risk appearing to be as nuts as he is by giving him the space.

Eh? I don't get it. Ohh sheit, I think I just got it. It is the democrats that are calling the soldiers who are asking themselves "why am I here?" unpatriotic. Now I am confused, was that Cheney? I think that was Cheney who mentioned that I had no backbone.

Ahh, I get it. What Rumsfeld is trying to say is that the soldiers are loosing their moral because their leaders have no arguments but baseless attack.

That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up. And yes, I agree, they should stop. that. Now it makes sense.Hmm, my moral would go up if my leader could explain to me what I am doing here.

The Washington Times is not a Larouche publication. It's owned by Sun Myung Moon, who happens to be great friends with Poppy Bush and Republicans in general. Let's see, Rumsfeld says morale is high. Freedom is on the march. Where's the story?

Oh, Jonathan, do your homework. Quoting from Fox News and the Washington Times doesn't exactly do much for your credibility.

Mr. Murtha did NOT call for a "immediate" or "precipitious" pull out. You know it, Mr. Rumsfeld knows it, Fox News knows it and so does the Times. However, the spin continues.

Also, what exactly does Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have to do with this exact issue? (No, not other Iraq issues, this one.)

Seems like I heard that dissent also "confused" the troops in Vietnam. High morale in Iraq? A one word answer. Bullshit!

I have to correct Dave Johnson, the Washington Times is the Sun Yung Moon paper, not the LaRouche paper. But the point is still the same, how much credibility do you give to any article from the paper owned by someone who has declared themself to be the messiah (in a ceremony held in government-owned offices and attended by Republican Congressmen - googled it, this really happened), or is anything that supports your wildest dreams quotable, no matter what the source? Funny how this story is not reported anywhere else (not even by Fox). Boy that MSM conspiracy is strong, only a Korean-born messiah/felon is immune.

What is there about truth that you folks work so hard to avaid?

Jimbo, you refer to a quote by a retired General who, just happens to only hear (read: report) one side of the story... please...

why is it you'll believe anything as long it aligns with what you want to believe?

Many Democrats did not support the invasion/liberation of Iraq before and during the war. Were you blaming the Democrats for weakening the troops then? Republicans have been discussing alternative plans for Iraq lately, are you blaming them too?
I would like to know why all of a sudden the Democrats have so much sway over the troops when Republicans have no problem painting the Dems as out of touch and weak on defense. Which is it?

My brother-in-law just returned from Iraq and he's damn glad there are people working to get us out of Iraq. He was against the war from the beginning. He thinks the war is obscene and Bush should be removed from office.

And I'm sure David he was against the war from the beginning, nothing was going to change his mind, and Halliburton made him join the military to defend Wal-Mart from an invasion of Enron.

in all seriousness, I don't doubt there are some fighting the war who dont' agree with it ... i dont' doubt that was the case in every war..

however, I've talked to people who have been in Iraq, or in the military who served elsewhere.. and they overwhelmingly support Bush and the mission in Iraq.

I'm sure there are many soldiers, maybe even most, in Iraq who support the mission. It may be from a need to feel there's a purpose to what they're doing, it may be a need to avenge fallen comrades, or it may be that they have a very clear understanding of the positives and negatives of our engagement there and agree with the White House. Unfortunately, very little of that matters. We can respect ansd support the troops, but to listen to the White House, once we insert troops into a country, the only way we can discuss pulling them out is if the military agrees. There's a reason we have civilian oversight of the military. It's so we don't end up with a military dictatorship. It's unfortunate that our policy discussions make some of the soldiers on the ground feel bad, but that doesn't mean we should abdicate our responsibility to advocate for what we think is right for the nation.

And to echo what other commenters have said, the article mostly says that administration officials are raising the spectre that they're worried opposition to the war "could" hurt morale. Their demagoguery is nothing new.

"ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive..."

What...are you implying that they are third graders or something?