State Senator - Herseth emboldens the enemy

On the eve of her wedding, State Senator Orv Smidt writes to the Argus Leader condemning Congresswoman Herseth for her actions on the Iraq funding bill - calling them "emboldening to the enemy:"

I ask you to consider how Herseth has gotten to be such an expert that she
can deny the commander-in-chief, the Defense Department, the Secretary of State
and our brave soldiers the resources they need to fight and win in Iraq? Why it
is OK to embolden our enemy by publishing a timetable for withdrawal?

I was once a soldier in Vietnam. The actions by our political leaders
of the time told me that my service to our country was not appreciated.


Our brave soldiers in Iraq don't want to hear that either.

Go read it all here. Considering (as a Brookings residnt) he's her State Senator in Pierre, this is particularly stinging.


Deputy Dawg said…

C'mon! This is so stupid.

If, indeed, your president and his administration were sincere, why did they lie to trap our troops into Iraq? They're still trying to cover up their lies and now they're in big, big trouble.

Where is W's plan to win the war?

Where is W's plan to exit Iraq? What are the conditions? We're still waiting years later. This isn't Vietnam all over again. It's a lot worse because W's stupidity and hubris locks us into a holy war with extremists who have hundreds of generations of experience of successfully driving empires to their knees for stirring up the hornet's nest.

If W doesn't like a 12-month deadline to extract our men and women out of a civil war that has waged for centuries, when is he comfortable to end the useless slaughter of our brave troops?

During the election, he called on Democrats to offer a plan. Now they've given him one. If he doesn't like it, tough. Veto it. But then give us a friggin plan -- or shut up and step aside.

Honoring our service men and women by trapping them in Iraq with lies, failing to protect them with proper armor, tossing them into the rat trap of the VA hospital system and cheating them of their rights as veterans is a disgusting legacy. If you want to defend that, be prepared to lose big -- REALLY BIG -- in November 2008.

W and his regime are the ultimate traitors. You don't want to be part of that.
Anonymous said…
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is also a Vietnam vet, a republican, and he also believes that it is time to get out. Is Sentator Hagel also "emboldening the enemy" or does that only happen when democrats press for withdrawal.

The majority of this country wants out this ill-begotten "war" ASAP. I applaud Rep. Herseth and Senator Hagel for their votes on this issue.
Anonymous said…
You see, this is the problem with "preemptive war" that Bush, Cheney et al gave to us. When the reason for the preeptive war turns out to be flat out wrong (no WMDs anywhere to be found), then what do you do?

I guess the answer is that you indifinitely occupy a country and get shot at from all sides. Why? Because Bush, Cheney et al are too arrogant, foolish and selfish to admit that they were wrong, very, very wrong, and that we should not be there because the reason we went there turned out to be very, very false.

The time to bring our troops home has long since past. As history has shown, they should have never been sent there in the first place. If even another ounce of U.S. blood is shed because Bush's ego is too big to admit that he made a tragic mistake it will obviously be another ounce too much.

Herseth, the democrats, and, yes, even some republicans did the right thing in setting a timetable to leave. While not a good or preferred option, it is far better than continuing to have thousands of Americans killed and wounded.
Anonymous said…
Stinging? hardly Pat. Wake up. State senator, mr. nobody, toes the status quo of a military solution when everybody knows there isn't one. Republicans like Orv need to finally realize no military solution in Iraq is achievavle. None in Vietnam. None in Iraq.

Herseth's vote here (while inconsistent and politically-motivated) will go down as a good vote.
Anonymous said…
get over it already, we have no plan, never did, and that's why the last election went the way it did. Why did Colin Powell jump ship? Why did Rummy get canned? The only positive out of the whole mess is Haliburton stock has gone up about 300% since 2003.Don't own any and damn glad. I hope Dick Chenney can sleep good at night, and I hope he likes it in Saudi land.
scimitar said…
It's not too much to ask for the Iraqi government to take some responsibility for security in their own country.

We have been training Iraqis for 4 years now, so how can we say they're not ready to handle their own security? Our own troops are sent over with far less than 4 years of training.

And what about our so-called allies all removing the bulk of their troops? Must we keep punishing American taxpayers, and American troops and their families because the Iraqi government will not take responsibility for its own country and because our allies will not bear a fair share of the burden?

Instead of continuing to shovel money at Iraq, Democrats are telling the Iraqi government to shape up and take responsibility.

Democrats have not denied the troops any support whatsoever - that's just second-rate Republican spin.

Rather Democrats have said that troops will have full support as long as they are there - but they will not remain there forever just because the Iraqi government is lazy or irresponsible.
Anonymous said…
Are you F***ing kidding me. All she is trying to do is stop the killing of our own troops. She sees that we can not win the war and that the President had no idea how to run the war. I feel she supports the troops more with this vote.

What is Orv talking about. He is a old senile washed up politician(which Politician is an overstatement)b/c he does not do anything while he is in Pierre.
Anonymous said…
Yup. Let's just cut funding to those troops of ours because Bush lied. So those kids get shot to hell and the terrorists follow them home. It'll still be Bush's fault, right?

All those dems and liberals who voted for the war believed all the same intelligence reports that Bush did, but now he is the only one who should suffer for that?

Nope. Let's make our soldiers suffer too. After all, they were all dumb enough to enlist to protect us from the same terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan so they don't attack us in the USA again. Doesn't anyone here remember 9/11?

You make me sick and so do politicians like Herseth and Hagel.
Anonymous said…
yeah I remember 9 11 and a guy cll bin ladden. What happen to that? I don't think he's in wmd's either.
Anonymous said…
Anon 10:19

As I read the law...Bush is going to VETO the funding for the troops. She voted to fund them, and bring them home. Bush is the one who is going to cut funding for the troops, NOT congress.
Anonymous said…
If President Bush's incompetent handling of the war hasn't already emboldened the enemy, nothing will.
Anonymous said…
an important part of the bill supported by Herseth and passed by Congress is that it provides funding for the ongoing operations as they are winding down to meet the withdrawl deadline. anyone saying the legislation will cut off funding for the ongoing operations and the safety of our men and women in uniform is not telling the truth.
Elais said…
Somehow, I can't see the terrorists chortling and rubbing their hands in evil glee that they will FINALLY be able to engage in their terrorists acts once the troops leave. It's not like their sitting on their hands now.

Do we really think so little of Iraq that they will simply roll over and play dead and let the terrorists take over their country once we leave? Did the US do that poor a job?

What happened to the Iraqi security forces? Bush has praised them over and over and over again. We've been training them for a long time now. Bush has been saying they are capable of standing up as we stand down. Did Bush lie and the Iraqi security forces are totally incapable now?
jack said…
Orv Smidt, whose claim to fame is that he ran Ron Schmidt's not-quite-successful run for US Senate has absolutely zero credibility on this issue. He's a political consultant, and a partisan operative.

And having a State Senator comment on foreign affairs is like having the South Dakota Secretary of State addressing the United Nations. If it were a war against North Dakota, maybe he'd have some credibility.

Herseth represents us in the United States Congress. She has traveled to Iraq on more than one occasion, she has a security clearance and has had top secret briefings by the generals and top military brass (not to mention members of the Iraq Study Group). I think she even met with Bush at the White House and the military leadership to talk about the war. And she's smart and has dealt with the war in a smart way.

So that's the experience she has. Orv served in Vietnam. And if you listen to the President (as Orv is likely to do), this war is nothing like Vietnam.

This is nothing more than pure partisan spin coming from a partisan political consultant.
Anonymous said…
This is a prime example of what's wrong with Republican's. Where can I get on the "misleading talking points" listserv so I can help perpetuate falsehoods?

The bill does't cut off funding. It provides huge sums of money. The problem for the Bush administration is that the bill includes accountability.

Oh, and Orv. Thanks for serving in Vietnam. So did my dad. But, he doesn't hold it out in front of him like a badge that requires thanks. He did it to serve his country, and he believes that's an honor in and of itself, and doesn't care whether anyone thanks him for it or recognizes him for it.

Quit whining, Orv.
Anonymous said…
I see Smidt's most recent page on the legislative site has his occupation listed as "US Army, Ret."

But last year's blue book has his occupation as "Political Management Consultant/Retired Army

Looks like someone wants to look like a military expert, instead of a political hack.
Anonymous said…
Check out his occupation on this document from the FEC:
Anonymous said…

Would you support bringing the troops home in five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Thirty years? Fifty years?

Would supporting a call to bring the troops home in all of those circumstances be "emboldening the enemy?"
Anonymous said…
I think the Republicans are really nervous about this vote. Nearly sixty percent of Americans want the troops home by August 2008. And if we're still bogged down playing referee in the Iraqi Civil War that close to the elections, the war will hang like a giant electoral albatross around their neck.
Anonymous said…
And don't think we won't remember how Herseth voted when election time rolls around again.
Anonymous said…
I will remember how Herseth voted and as a republican I will vote for her for the first time. She showed real courage with her vote. As far as I am concerned the "decider" is not only wrong but is displaying a total disregard for the American troops and people.
Anonymous said…
This was, without question, the right vote. Herseth rejected the "cut-off-funds-now" option, but sent the message that Iraq needs to step up. We've been hearing for four years that the Iraqi security forces are "almost ready."

Politically, it will have a net positive impact - the only people who will not vote for Herseth based upon this vote, are the people who will never vote for her under any circumstance. If our troops are out by November 2008, Herseth can take partial credit. If they're still stuck over there, she can point out that she voted to bring them home. If 60% of people are opposed to our involvement in Iraq today, it'll be near 80% in November of 2008.
brian said…
pp, you've really stirred up the Fonda/Herseth lefty defeatists. Now their organizing to defend their precious steffie on the blogs. Obviously their watching War Collage closely. They've brought out and exercised all the cos/Iranian propaganda talking points and spin in this one thread. Their working overtime, although it's probably all done by the same one or two people.
Anonymous said…
The Pew Research Poll showed that 59% of Americans wanted their representative to support legislation to withdraw the troops by August 2008. 77% percent of Democrats supported it, not surprisingly, but here's the surprising part. 61% of Independents supported it, and a surprising 34% of Republicans said they want their Representative to support such legislation.

Assuming those numbers are consistent with what South Dakotans feel, and using the 2006 voter registration numbers by the Secretary of State, it would be 54% in favor of the resolution, and 46% opposed. Even with our much higher GOP registration, it's still a clear majority in favor of the resolution.
Anonymous said…
You nailed it, Brian, it's the Iranian talking points.

That's a good one. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

Gold star for you smart guy!
Anonymous said…
Appeasement, retreat and surrender is the liberal legacy.
Anonymous said…
If ag money hadn't been in the bill, would Herseth have voted for it? I wonder. The real test of her principles (and Johnson's -- according to a statement put out by his staff) would be a vote on a bill that deals with Iraq and only Iraq. I am one of those Republicans who voted for Herseth. She has lost me now.
Anonymous said…
It ain't Orver until he says it's Orver.

Gee W just doesn't care much for the separation of powers. If only Alberto could fire the ones that serve at his displeasure.
Anonymous said…
I'm a Democrat who voted for Herseth because I thought she was a real "Blue Dog" Democrat like I am. She has not only lost my vote, it looks like I'm going to have to change my registration. The more I see of our new Democrat "leadership" the worse I feel about how I voted. My nephew is one of those proudly serving in Iraq and he is terribly upset by this. The guys serving with him feel betrayed by politicians from their own country.
Anonymous said…
Separtion of Powers: When PP gets split up on a family outing.
Deputy Dawg said…
The latest from Bush's success story in Iraq:

"Multiple suicide bombers struck in predominantly Shiite markets in Baghdad and in a town north of the capital, killing at least 104 people and wounding scores on Thursday _ the day that new U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker took office. Two of the suicide bombers struck a market in the Shaab neighborhood of northeastern Baghdad at 6 p.m., killing at least 61 people and wounding 40, police and security officials said."

Yep, the Bush plan is working ... NOT!

The only American who emboldens the Islamic extremist/warriors is the incompetent buffoon who resides in the White House. When will the impeachment proceedings begin so that this traitor stops emboldening the terrorists?
Mom said…
As I read through this thread it sounds very much like one (not so smart) person had time on his/her hands this morning and wanted to make it look like there was big support for Stephi's vote. They all sound the same. They all use the same bad words. They all have the same lies and misconceptions in them.
Additionally most of the time there isn't that much commentary by that many different people all within that close of a time frame on Friday morning soooo... I think that all that ranting is another Dem deception--which is a trade mark of the party.
Anonymous said…
3:26 How do you and your nephew feel about the conditions at Walter Reed Hospital and the terrible runaround that wounded veterans and their families have been getting?

Does that make you want to switch to Republican too?
Anonymous said…

Conducted 3/25-27 surveyed 800 RVs; margin of error +/- 3.5% (release, 3/29). Party ID breakdown: 42%D, 39%R, 19%I.

A full 56% Favor and only 38% Oppose Congress Fully Funding Military Operations In Iraq

30% Favor and 64% oppose Dems Attaching Spending For Special Non-Defense Projects To A Defense Bill?

54% Oppose and only 41% Favor Dems Imposing Troop Reduction Below Levels Military Commanders Requested?

If Bush Vetoes The Dem Spending Bill, Then ___ ?
He should be blamed for not funding the troops 40%

Cong. Dems should be blamed for not funding the troops because they attached conditions and
pork barrel spending 50%

Bottom line here is that Americans want their military to be fully funded

Americans are also 2-1 opposed to Herseth and the D's attaching pork to a military spending bill

Americans want our Commanders to have reinforcements

And, 50% of the American people blames D's for not funding our troops
Anonymous said…
POS is a republican flack polling outfit. Glen Bolger needs to have numbers like this to keep the r's hiring him. Nice try but no cigar buddy.
scimitar said…
Hey Mom! you say there are lies and deceptions in some of the posts, but you didn't say what's a lie and why you think it's a lie.

If you want to join the debate, let's start backing up your stance with some facts. I and the other posters you're disparaging are waiting for you to prove we're liars as you claim.

Start with my post if you want and explain what I said that's a lie.
Anonymous said…
There is a huge smear campaign in the press against Bush and everyone in his administration. And that is not a lie. You just have to look at the news to see that. So since most of the US people believe what they read and hear in the press, is it any wonder that they believe the worst of Bush?

The Dems convict people on faulty memory. But they let Sandy Berger go after he admitted stealing and destroying documents. Pelosi promises ethical reform and then tries to appoint people with obvious huge ethical problems. She has to bribe her own congress people to get her bill passed with pork. It's surprising the cost of hogs hasn't risen with all the pork she has spent.

Do I wish there were no war? Do I wish all the troops were home? Do I wish 9-11 never happened? Yes to all of them. But the fact is there are evil people in the world, real evil, not the trumped up charges against Bush that we hear all the time. And this evil wants to destroy us. And that's the simple fact. I for one hope that our gov't continues to have the resolve to try to prevent this from happening. Appeasement doesn't work, didn't work for Europe before and during WWII, and won't work for us either.
Anonymous said…
4:35, you pretty much said it all. Thanks.
VJ said…
And now we learn Saudi King Abdullah calls Occupation In Iraq “Illegitimate”!

After all we have done to help King Abdullah and he now decides to stab us in the back! That ungrateful so and so! Saudi King Abdullah has now joined the “Axis of Evil”!

This probably makes Herseth and her liberal surrender democrats jump for joy!
Anonymous said…
So, let me get this straight - the only way to defeat al qaeda is to get in the middle of a sectarian civil war between factions with no connection to al qaeda?

Seems to me we'd be better off going after bin Laden than playing police officer to a bunch of barbarians in the desert.

If I propose that we bring the troops home within ten years, am I emboldening the enemy?
Gene Abdallah said…
A day without Orv Smidt is like a day without marshmallows.
Doc said…
I get the sense that most of the people posting these comments don’t know the difference between a Sunni, a Shiite, or al-Qaeda. I doubt even that the letter writer knows the difference (at least from the polemic he wrote in the Argus).

The civil war in Iraq is not a war between pro-American forces and al-Qaeda. It’s a civil war between Sunni Muslims and Shiite or (shi’a) Muslims. It’s a division with roots traceable to the beginning of Islam. Sunnis believe that the heirs of the first four caliphs (or leaders of a Caliphate, the traditional Islamic government unit), are legitimate leaders of their religion. Shiites believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate leaders of Islam. Until 1924, Muslims were governed by Caliphate. Today, 90% of Muslims (including Osama bin Laden) are Sunni. In Iraq, however, the CIA estimates that 60% - 65% of the population is Shi’a.

The division between the Sunnis and Shiites led to a civil war from 656-681. Then there was peace. But only for two years. In 683, another civil war broke out. The Sunnis in Iraq and the Shiites in Iraq want to kill each other. The civil war, which Saddam prevented by being a truly brutal dictator, has been brewing for hundreds of year. It isn’t, as some on the left would have you believe, because we invaded Iraq. It’s been going on for 1,400 years. And it isn’t, as some on the right will have you believe, something that we’re going to solve by sending troops into the streets in a Humvees and tanks. The Sunni and Shiite intent on fighting each other have waited, in this case, for generations to fight their war. Saddam’s brutally repressive regime kept them at bay, but even if we’re in Iraq for 20 years, if nothing changes, once we leave, they’ll fight each other.

While the Sunni minority has been responsible for most of the attacks against the government, the Shiite government has actively worked to limit Sunni involvement in the government. The Shiite government could, if it choose, make concessions to the Sunnis and attempt to negotiate a peace agreement by establishing a government that truly includes the Sunnis and allows them to share power. But the Shiites hate the Sunnis – it’d be like Dick Cheney inviting Nancy Pelosi to join the Cabinet. And, importantly, so long as we’re there to fight the Sunnis rebelling against the government, they have no incentive to make any concessions. They know that our troops will engage in firefights with the Sunnis if they attack the government, and they have no reason to send their own troops in as long as that’s the case. The Shiite government is using our troops to fight its civil war. I’m exactly sure why it’s “supporting the troops” to put them in the middle of a 1,400 year old holy war.

There is some sense to telling Maliki and the Shiite government that they have twelve months to implement a plan for peace, or face a civil war. Knowing that they’re going to have to face the insurgents on their own, they might actually take the steps necessary to negotiate a peaceful solution to the civil war. They might not. They might have no intention of ever working with the Sunni. And keeping our troops on the ground won’t change that either. It will merely delay the full scale civil war and result in unnecessary American casualties.

But that’s their choice. So long as it’s our troops taking insurgent fire, they have no incentive to change the status quo. And as long as they make no changes, the longer we’re asking our troops to step into the middle of a deadly firefight that makes zero sense for us to be in the middle of. Smidt can say “support the troops,” but he doesn’t show much of an understanding in his article.
Anonymous said…
less people are dying now in Iraq than what were dying before we went in.

I would say that american presence alone has been more peaceful than not doing anything.

our presence is saving lives.

as for the deaths of soldiers: soldiers are in the killing and danger business. they know what they are getting into and reenlisting at record rates. Infantrymen: those most likely to take a bullet or bomb are re-upping at the highest rates.

Precisely because they beleive in the mission and know that we are saving lives in iraq.

So we can bullshit all day about a civil war that has been inspired by outside agitators or we can bs about centuries of religous fighting but we should also talk about lives of innoncent human beings being saved by our presence.
Anonymous said…
Herseth reminds me of a lettle brat running behind Pelosi yelling "me too - me too". Pelosi has Herseth on a shot leach with
liberal intrests leading any South Dakota interests. Sad but true!!
brian said…
Anon 1:27 PM, Thanks, but no, I didn't come up with it myself. I've been watching the translations of the Iranian ayatollahs weekly speeches to the Iranian public on the internet. It is chilling. Often you cannot tell the difference between a congressional Democrat's speech or the ayatollahs.
Anonymous said…
"Often you cannot tell the difference between a congressional Democrat's speech or the ayatollahs."

Gosh that really sounds interesting. How about some precise comparison examples?
brian said…
Nope, sorry, you'll have to do your own homework.
Anonymous said…
Here's the comparison you're looking for, brian:

The Christian Right and Radical Islam increasingly mirror each other. They share the same obsessions. They do not tolerate other forms of belief or disbelief. They are at war with artistic and cultural expression. They seek to silence the media. They call for the subjugation of women. They promote severe sexual repression, and they seek to express themselves through violence.
Anonymous said…
"less people are dying now in Iraq than what were dying before we went in."

Please provide statistics for this. Every study I've seen points to precisely the opposite - that the invasion of Iraq has resulted in hundreds of thousands additional Iraqi civilian deaths.

According to the Johns Hopkins School for Public Health, "As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion." --

More informaton can be found in this Washington Post story titled "Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000" --

On Thursday, 130 Iraqis were killed by suicide bombers. On Tuesday, 80 peolpe were killed by a truck bomb, and a reported 70 people were killed, executition style, in realiation.

Where did you get the "fact" that less people are dying now than before? Did you just make it up and hope that no one would notice?
Anonymous said…
Facts don't matter, last anon. We are trying to WIN, the dems are tying to LOOSE, saddam was evil we are good, blah, blah, blah blah blah.

Thankfully I got through 3rd grade, maybe Orv got hungup along the way.

Question, when it was said that you are either "with us or against us" and it increasing looks like no one is "with us" (saudi's, brits soon, name someone w/us please!) perhaps it is us, the US, who has the problem. Is that problem our current administration? If we are fighting terror (questionable at best in Iraq) in a manner all others agree is failing, misguided or possibly fraudulent, should not the American people and the congressional branch of government at least question the policy? Or should we be deaf, dumb and stupid as suggested by Orv and so many others (the remaining 20+ who follow bush blindly).
Anonymous said…
Anon 11:07 --

People like Orv Smidt are not driven by facts. They're driven by a partisan need to support their President, and a desire to paint anyone who questions the Great Leader as anti-American.

They are driven by emotion rather than logic, feeling rather than fact.

They believe things like "there are fewer deaths now than there were before we invaded" because they need to believe those things, even if it's not true. They have to believe that al Qaida and Saddam conspired on 9-11, and that Saddam did have WMD, and that Democrats really do want America to be weaker... none of that is based in fact, but when you're driven by emotion and feeling, none of that matters.
Anonymous said…
9:23 -- what is a "shot leach?"
Anonymous said…
This is a supplemental appropriations bill. These are done every year for a variety of things that need funding because the budget was short.

Emergencies of all sorts get funded.

The timeline is the only issue here. The only issue with a timeline is if there is no improvement in the next three to 6 months due to the 'surge' not only is W toast but so will be those on each side of the aisle in the pro-war column. You won't need 2008 to figure this out.

Mission Accomplished--less Republicans because of failed leadership including diplomacy, honesty, and strategy. Three strikes and they are out.

A few years later and we will go back the other way. This vote is just another signal by the majority of Americans as represented in Congress that they have no confidence in the administration.

I think Bush has created a very unstable time in our country where Congress is managing the public relations of the war in Iraq and now the funding. Next, they will have an oversight committee to see if he is competent to continue.

I think it is going to be a long two years until the next President stands up like a real leader and puts us into a respectful light around the world with both military might and respect for other nations.
VJ said…
"Liberals have finally joined the ranks of scoundrels like Hitler." --former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, in his new book

Yes, Herseth has joined those ranks! The Democrat Surrender Group will not be around for long! The American people believe in our country and in our soldiers and will always stand behind them!

The American people know it's time to move forward and it is also time for the Democrats to be left behind!
Anonymous said…

Obtuse vapid nonsense.

Do you think before you write that drivel,
or does it just ooze out of you like puss?
Anonymous said…
Well, Tom DeLay certainly does know soundrels... and like Hitler, he has committed his fair share of crimes. But I'm not exactly sure I'd be citing the guy they used to call Hot Tub Tom as an expert in all that is pure and good...
VJ said…
Republicans and Christians don’t have to worry about Herseth and her Left Wing Liberal friends! God’s Army is winning!

I was emailed the following information from a friend that found it on the internet: “150 graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University are currently serving in the administration. Monica Goodling earned her law degree from Regent. Gonzales's predecessor, John Ashcroft, is at Regent as the school's "Distinguished Professor of Law and Government." Christian right lawyer Jay Sekulow, who also teaches at Regent and shares a Washington office with Ashcroft, participated in regular briefings with the White House on court appointments. The former dean of Regent's Robertson School of Government, Kay Coles James, is President Bush’s Director of the Office of Personnel Management.”

Let the Liberal Left rant and rave all they want! God’s Army is winning!
Anonymous said…
VJ's posts only reinforce the concepts in Chris Hedges' book, American Fascists. Be afraid America, be very afraid:
From Publishers Weekly:
"As a Harvard Divinity School graduate, [Hedges'] investigation of the Christian Right agenda is even more alarming given its lucidity. Citing the psychology and sociology of fascism and cults, including the work of German historian Fritz Stern, Hedges draws striking parallels between 20th-century totalitarian movements and the highly organized, well-funded "dominionist movement," an influential theocratic sect within the country's huge evangelical population. Rooted in a radical Calvinism, and wrapping its apocalyptic, vehemently militant, sexist and homophobic vision in patriotic and religious rhetoric, dominionism seeks absolute power in a Christian state."
I've actualy been there, have you? said…
11:07 you wants facts, here they are:

Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions - the vast majority of them Muslims.

"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003)

Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths. State Department, 2003.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south."

According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Now that's only 780,000 deaths.

What about those Shia's who were killed and placed in mass graves?

Sites have been discovered in all regions of the country and contain members of every major religious and ethnic group in Iraq as well as foreign nationals, including Kuwaitis and Saudis. Over 250 sites have been reported, of which approximately 40 have been confirmed to date. Over one million Iraqis are believed to be missing in Iraq as a result of executions, wars and defections, of whom hundreds of thousands are thought to be in mass graves. (State Department, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and Bureau of Public Affairs, 2003.)

So now were are up to over 1.78 million deaths. Do you want more?

Now, as to the John Hopkins death toll study here's what the experts have to say about the bogus study:

Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”

But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.

Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

“They’re almost certainly way too high,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

“This is not analysis, this is politics,’’ Cordesman said.

Hamit Dardagan, co-founder of Iraq Body Count, a London-based human-rights group, called the Lancet study’s figures “pretty shockingly high.” His group tabulates the civilian death toll based on media reports augmented by local hospital and morgue records. His group says it has accumulated reports of as many as 48,693 civilian deaths caused by the U.S. intervention.

Again, liberals will not let facts get in the way of a good argument. Our presence in Iraq is saving lives. Yes people are dying...but less than before and that's good. And it due to American soldiers.

Stop bashing the soldiers who overwhelming support this operation...reenlistment rates are at record highs.

From Oct. 1 through June, the Army had re-enlisted 53,120 soldiers, 6% ahead of its goal of about 50,000 for that period. At that pace, the Army would finish the year 3,850 troops ahead of its target of 64,162.

Re-enlistment rates the past three years have been at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army. There are about 105,000 Army soldiers in Iraq, including members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Soldiers believe in what they are doing. Joining the military in today's operating environment is a sure fire way to get deployed and recruits know that.

Even the Army National Guard, which has had 150,000 citizen soldiers mobilized for up to a year, has seen retention rates "going through the roof," said Guard spokesman Maj. Robert Howell.

The Army is at 100.1 percent of its "active duty mission," said spokesman Douglas Smith, reviewing numbers current as of March 29. Smith said 34,593 soldiers had been enlisted for the active Army and 8,331 for the Reserves. The Army has been ahead of its goal every year since 2000 and every month this year, Smith said.

The Navy is meeting all recruiting and retention goals and has cut the number of new recruits this year to the lowest target in 30 years.

Instead of bringing 41,200 new recruits into the service this fiscal year, the Navy will cut it off at 40,450, said Lt. Bill Davis with the Navy Personnel Command in Millington, Tenn.

The Air Force achieved 104 percent of its active-duty goal; the Navy, 103 percent; and both the Army and Marine Corps, 102 percent.

In the reserve components, the Marine Corps Reserve met 119 percent of its goal; the Air National Guard, 108 percent; and the Air Force Reserve, 101 percent.

why are so many soldiers reenlisting at high rates if they don't beleive in what's going on? Why would so many people want to go to Iraq with the military if what we are doing is so wrong?
Anonymous said…
Hey you above:

don't waste your time, these crack pot liberals do not care about facts, figures and statistics.

that's why whats his nuts above mentioned the trumped up Hopkins study that was debunked even by the MSM.

For decades liberals have wanted America to stop suffering around the world. Now, when we are finally taking a stand against some of the greatest enablers and prevactours of evil they bitch and moan and blame the US for a few car bombings that are actually caused by the terrorists.

that's like blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt!

We didn't have any troops in Kenya and Tanzania yet they bombed our embassies. We didn't have troops in the middle east before the first WTC bombing. We didn't have troops in Iraq on 9-11 or when the USS Cole was bombed.
scimitar said…
Thank you Doc for your informative post. Quite a positive change from most of what get on here.

Predictably, nobody wants to debate you. Instead, we get followup comments comparing Herseth to Hitler.

PP does deserve credit for giving us the opportunity to be either enlightened or dumbfounded. And readers can decide for themselves whether to fill their brains with logic or with scat.
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:47

Ok, Saddam was an evil psychopath. Got ya. To some extent things are better – in some areas of Iraq - than they were before we went in. Ok.

This still does not address some much deeper questions.
1) Why are we there? The reasons that we were told – WMD’s and links to 9/11 - have been proven false. So, is it just that Saddam was an evil SOB who kills his people? If so, when are we going after North Korea, the Sudan, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, half of the rest of Africa, and large chunks of South America?
2) What criteria do you have for success? We beat the Iraqi military, we’ve spent three years rebuilding and training, they have a government, a constitution, and have had elections. Do we have to wait for the first generation of Iraqi’s born after we got there to be able to vote?
3) Why was it ok for the Republican Congress to take the same types of actions (setting time tables, attempting to micromanage from the “war”) when we were in Bosnia under the Clinton Administration, but it’s wrong now? This would include South Dakota’s own John Thune voting against funding troops in 1999.
I’m pretty curious what your answers to these questions are.
Anonymous said…
Thank you 'actually been there' for the very good and documented information. Our men and women serving there are doing a good job and don't need the political stab in the back by the Dems.
Brian said…
been there, have you?...Were you in the service? If so I want to extend my gratitude to you and your family for your service to our country.

I would just like to bring it to everyones attention that there is a great documentary on our servicemen and women in Iraq called YOUNG AMERICANS. It's by (former Hollywood liberal) Pat Dollard. Go to his site at http://patdollard(dot)com and you can watch excerpts. Hear what they have to say, real facts, no liberal lies. There's a lot of other informative stuff, too.
Anonymous said…
Here's a link to an insightful story from the Wall Street Journal:
Anonymous said…
If you are REALLY serious about wanting to win the type of victory that we were promised would be a virtual walk in the park (including the greeting of our solders with flowers) there are steps to be made that neither the Republican nor the Democrats are willing to make:

Institute a draft; put 300000 more troops on the ground in Iraq. Put 200000 more in Afghanistan. Pacify the country and confiscate all guns not held by us or the national government. Then we plan on being there for the next 5 to 10 years policing and rebuilding. We completely overhaul their infrastructures in a fashion that hasn’t been seen since the end of World War II. How do we pay for this? Roll back all tax cuts/breaks/credits that have been instituted for the last 6 years. Tighten up tax laws on corporations (especially Big Oil) to make them pay their share. After spending a few trillion dollars on building them up, we can showcase them to other countries in the region.

I have yet to hear anyone from either party say that they are willing to make this kind of sacrifice. President Bush had control of congress for his first six years in office (ok…he did lose control for 1 year in the Senate) he could have taken these steps. He did not.

If we are going to go at this halfway - without enough troops to do the job, without the armor, without the training, without the rest they need, without planning as to when they can come home – we shouldn’t be there at all. Call me a surrender prone liberal when I say that if we're going to make a half ass effort, we should just come home.

The Republican party ran this war on their own for four years. They botched it. Someone else needs to try something.
Anonymous said…
For the most part a draft would not work.
The military is techy now.
I am not in favor of a draft anyway.
Anonymous said…
I'm not in favor of a draft either...and yes, the Military is pretty techy. BUT we need people to drive patrols, shoot guns, police the streets. We need people to build roads, schools, water treatment plants. we need boots on the ground in numbers that we cannot supply with a volenteer army.

If we want to really win, we must sacrifice. This isn't something that the President has asked us to do. We either make the sacrifice or admit we don't have the stomach for it.
Anonymous said…
I am sure that many of the US soldiers killed in Iraq were very good people from good families. I am also sure some of them were complete jerks. It makes no difference. The whole 3,000 were wasted.

How many more need to be wasted to satisfy the blood lust of the uber-patriots and the expedient politicians?

The US needs to be spending billions on conversion to alternate energy systems to eliminate our purchases of Iranian, Iraqi, Russia, and other's oil from countries which hate us.

If they hate us for buying their oil, let us give them a chance to love us for not buying it and see how these religious lunatics and despots do on their deserts and jungles without US dollars flooding them.

Similarly, we must get our trade situation corrected with China. We are turning them into a world power every time we buy something with the small type "made in China" on it.

And simultaneously, we must shut our porous borders to un-educated flooding the US for the opportunity they are destroying here.

We are fighting the wrong wars in the wrong places for the wrong reasons. We have "wars" that need to be fought that are ignored so that large petroleum companies can continue exploiting support of US taxpayers and purchasers given no other options.

))) Doug Wiken
Anonymous said…
Speaking of Stephanie (remember the original post?), does anybody know if the media covered her wedding or took pictures? At the risk of being roundly trashed by people on this blog, I am interested in her wedding and what it was like. Call me a hopeless romantic. Besides we could use some good news for a change.
VJ said…
Oh Oh! Condi Rice is not going to like this request from Henry A. Waxman! Does she have to appear? Can she also claim the “5th” and just not say anything. Wouldn’t Condi have “executive privilege” and not have to say a word?

Dear Madam Secretary :
… I now request your appearance before the Committee at a hearing on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building. At this hearing, you will be asked to provide testimony and respond to questions…on the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, White House treatment of classified information, the appointment of Ambassador Jones as “special coordinator” for Iraq, and other subjects….
Henry A. Waxman
Anonymous said…
VJ 2:38, I bet Condi wouldn't think of absconding with secret documents a la Sandy Burglar to cover up any mistakes she may have made. If anybody should be convicted of treason, it's Sandy.
VJ said…
3:05 Pm

I Agree!
Anonymous said…
What's winning? Help? When the stand up, we will stand down? When "they" turn another corner (which will be the 2nd time around the same track). Who's kid is going to be the last to die for something that failed a year or more ago? Who's kid!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous said…
For a Republican blog, there sure are a lot more Democratic/liberal commentators on this site than Republican/conservative. Is there any reason for that or are the Republicans actually working and too busy to post?
Anonymous said…
Well... a large number of the comments came in between Friday Night and Sunday night. That would be the weekend last time I checked.
Nice theory, but facts are again showing their liberal bias and proving you wrong.
Kristi Noem said…
10:00 am -- Who's on first? Yes that's right. But whose call is it?
Haggs said…
10:00 AM -

Actually, there are a lot of Republican's against the war in Iraq. Yes, it's a Republican war, but it's clearly been a failure and a lot of Republicans are backing away from supporting it and the President.
VJ said…
Hey post 7:40 PM

Did you notice nobody cares about your post or about my post 7:21 PM!

I love it!

God's Army is winning!

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long