Seymour Hicks, Skiatook (10/10/2007 3:49:50 AM)

Invoking the Holy grail, Hitler, WW2, blah blah blah. Does anyone remember that Americans supported this war because of false claims that Iraq had the capability to "destroy the entire east coast in 45min" It is a shame that the war machine must now exploit its most beloved heroes to create a diversion from the lies that have cost over 600K in innocent Iraqi lives. One need look no further than Halliburons stock report to see why "we must stay the course". The unmetered wells in Iraq have proven the biggest boon in history to corrupt US oil companies. Another lie is that ALL of the US troops are serving voluntarily, conveniently overlooking the involuntary tour extensions imposed on those whose tours ended months and years ago. The only cancer in Iraq is it's illegal occupation and the civil wars it has spawned. When reading this article keep in mind that Mr. Smith was not under oath. The first casualty of war is the truth.

Tony G., (10/10/2007 6:13:02 AM)

We have caused most of Iraq's problems.

If we can't win after 4 years and 300 billion dollars, its time to quit.

Seymour Hicks, Skiatook (10/10/2007 7:07:28 AM)

What exactly is a "win" in Iraq?? Since the purpose they sold the American people was to "disarm" Saddam of his "Huge stockpiles of WMD" Then victory was achieved before the first Elementary school was bombed.

Terri, Texas (10/10/2007 7:25:13 AM)

As usual, the "arm-chair quarterbacks" come out of the woodwork and think they know more than the Col. who's actually BEEN THERE. We need to start listening to our Troops, instead of to the garbage and half-truths the media continues to try to force feed us.

James, Weatherford (10/10/2007 9:07:29 AM)

More propaganda from paid shills for the administration like this officer. How can people like Terri from Texas not see through this nonsense? "Everything is going so well in Iraq, we should stay there." And I have a "compassionate conservative" president I'd like to sell you as well (but I can see you already bought that).

There is not one thing in Iraq worth another American (or Iraqi civilian) life. If you think there is, volunteer and go over there yourself.

If we had spent a TRILLION dollars on achieving energy independence, we'd be eventually buying no oil from the middle east and they'd be having bake sales to fund terrorism. Instead, we gave a trillion dollars to war and multinational military contractors, guaranteeing another generation of young militant Arabs in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Smart thinking! And there are some yahoos out there who think we need more of this? Please.

Daniel, Broken Arrow (10/10/2007 12:00:41 PM)

James and all others - Instead of spouting your uniformed opionions - you should come and listen to a decorated soldier like Colonel Smith and hear firsthand - not from the media - about what our military is doing and how things are going and what the stakes are. If you want to have muslim extremists fighting againts us here in American - in your neighborhood - then by all means I guess we should leave the middle east - because that is what will happen. Their #1 goal is to expel us from the middle east and then expand their jihadist movement worldwide - so if we voluntarity leave, then the terrorists will have completed their objective and use our defeat to claim victory and recruit more terrorist and then move on to their second objective which is to expand the muslim sharia law to the entire world. We need to fight them on their turf - not ours.

Judy , Collinsville (10/10/2007 2:46:15 PM)

It's interesting how some people pick and choose the military personnel they want to listen to, then blaming it on the media. Just like America, the military is full of soldiers that are against this war - they are just not as free to speak their minds, or do you call these guys speaking out against the war "phon" while you call this guy heroe? They are all heroes, it's our civilian leadership who are the criminals. It's time to impeach this administration and bring our brave soldiers home.

Judy, Collinsville (10/10/2007 2:48:43 PM)

I get so emotional, I can't spell, what I meant to say: do you call those veterans who speak out against the war "phony" too, while you call Col. Smith a hero because he shares your views? Interesting...but a little hypocritical.

James, Weatherford (10/10/2007 4:59:51 PM)

Daniel, I find it interesting that you would think my opinions are uninformed. My stepson has served two tours in Iraq as a Marine and may shortly serve another. In fact, he was awarded the Silver Star for bravery. I have heard quite a bit firsthand about this war. I do trust the media far more than Cheney or Bush, for what it's worth, even though the media was complicit in aiding the administration as they lied us into war.

A huge majority of the people we are fighting in Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11, WMDs, or jihad. They simply want the people who invaded and occupied their country to leave. You and I would fight anyone who invaded and/or occupied our country as well, and we would not be terrorists or jihadists -- we would simply be defending our homeland, as most of them are. The "terrorists" arrived after we created chaos. They are products of our own creation because of incompetence in planning for post-invasion occupation.

If we wanted to avenge 9/11, we should have focused on getting Osama Bin Laden (by the way, where is he lately? Bush, by his own admission, doesn't spend much time thinking about him).

Again, I ask -- what in Iraq is worth one more American life? If you think there is something there worth it, then volunteer (or be a typical "troops-supporting" hypocrite).

Seymour Hicks, Skiatook (10/10/2007 5:49:27 PM)

If we wanted to avenge 9/11 we would impeach Bush and/or invade Saudi Arabia

Daniel, (10/10/2007 6:00:19 PM)

James - I am sorry - perhaps uninformed was too strong of a statement - unlike Judy suggested - I did not "pick" and "choose" which military person I wanted to listen to - Colonel Smith readily identified himself as neither a republican or democrat - but registered in his state as "no Party". So this was not a "political" speech. There are so many issues involving the war whether in Iraq or elsewhere and i'll be the first to admit that we have made many, many mistakes in how we have handled things - but those mistakes are all in the past - I am more concerned on the present and future and I just happen to believe that a defeat in Iraq will do much more harm to our country than staying. The vast majority of military personnel believe this - otherwise there would not be a more than 100% voluntary re-enlistment rate. I do respect the opionions of those who disagree - didn't mean to offend you

James, Weatherford (10/10/2007 7:58:05 PM)

David, no offense taken and thanks for the apology. But I still quarrel with the words you choose. "Defeat" is not a word we should even entertain. Defeat in what endeavor? Finding and getting rid of WMDs? No defeat possible there -- there weren't any. Toppling Saddam? Done in May 2003. Instituting Democracy? They have a constitution, elections, and a congress -- also done. Let's get the hell OUT before more of our soldiers die.

How would you define victory? When everyone gets along and exchanges flowers on holidays? We're in the middle of a civil war and neither side wants us there -- there is no "victory" possible for us. Only the possibility of death for more young Americans, one of whom means a great deal to me.

And how is it possible to have a greater than 100% re-enlistment rate? Anyone re-enlisting (my stepson included) probably did so because of the $40,000 bonus they waved in his face. As a young father with only a HS education, that was a large incentive.

I am as angry with the Democrats as I am the Republicans that we still have troops in Iraq. Neither party has the backbone to admit the facts and get our troops out. The Dems are afraid of being called weak, the Republicans are afraid to admit they were wrong in the first place. Neither party is doing the will of the people of this country and for that, we should all be outraged.

James, Weatherford (10/10/2007 7:58:45 PM)

Make that Daniel -- sorry, not wearing my glasses!

Daniel, (10/10/2007 9:48:30 PM)

Yeah - OK, maybe there were no WMD's, etc - that's in the past and there's nothing we can do about it - what is in the present is that there are terrorists - al queda extremists - in Iraq and the region now who want to control that territory so they can recruit and use it as a base to spread jihad - we've got to deal with what the situation is now. All you have to do is just look at the jihadist websites, material, etc. to see that they want to destroy and kill not only us, but all who uphold democracy and freedom - it's all about restoring the califate - this is not our military or politicians saying this - it's the their very own people like Bin Laden, etc and their positions/objectives are very well known.

Well - I guess the bottom line is this - if we don't defeat over there (however you want to define it) the people over there who want to kill us over here - then I guess we might just as well invite them over to get on with it - then none of us will be safe.

James, Weatheford (10/10/2007 11:08:58 PM)

Aside from killing every person in the Middle East, we will never defeat everyone who wants to hurt us. There can be no military solution. We must defend ourselves here by being vigilant AND we must seek political and economic solutions.

They want us out and fight us when we stay. Solution: we get out of their country.

They are wealthy because we are almost hopelessly addicted to their oil. They use the money they make from selling us oil to fund terror (around the globe). Solution: We get serious about conservation and develop alternative sources of energy. They can drown in their oil for all I care.

What you propose is a never-ending war, which cannot work and only delays a real solution. It also continues to make Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. etc. very wealthy, which is the REAL reason that it continues.

You still haven't answered what in Iraq is worth the life of one American.

Daniel, (10/10/2007 11:32:16 PM)

Well James - it's not just about Iraq, but about the fight to defeat global terrorism - right now - part of that fight is in Iraq. Sure - we've lost some good soldiers in that fight - but maybe your question shouldn't be what is that fight worth for the life of one American, but rather what were the lives of nearly 3,000 americans who perished at the hands of those radical terrorists on 9/11 - the same radical terrorists who are in Iraq.

You say correctly that they fight us while we're in their county - yes they want us out. Your solution is "get our of their country" - only problem with that is when we do, they won't be fighting us in their country, they'll be fighting us in our country. So basically, we've got one of two choices - fight them over there or over here. If they can kill 3,000 Americans in a day over here, then it won't take long until not only our military is fighting - but all Americans will be. What will our lives be worth then.

Seymour Hicks, Skiatook (10/11/2007 5:44:36 AM)

"Yeah - OK, maybe there were no WMD's, etc - that's in the past and there's nothing we can do about it"

Nothing we can do about it? This from the country that impeached a president over a blowjob?!?! How about taking those that lied about WMD and charging them with perjury for starters?!?! How about seizing the assets of the corrupt American contractors. How about prosecuting the US soldiers that have raped US soldiers, and here is a really radical concept, how about prosecuting the "private security firms" for their slaughter of un-armed civilians. I could go on, but their is no use. As long as millionaires are becoming billionaires the sheeple in uniform will continue to murder, rob and rape unchecked.

James, Weatherford (10/11/2007 10:07:06 AM)

Daniel,

Are you comfortable with the idea of a war with no end? I am not. Your argument of "fight them there or fight them here" is a false argument. It assumes that there will be war. There are other ways to solve problems, even though none of them have been tried by the current administration because playing the fear card is part of their strategy to hold on to power. It apparently works on some people, but more and more of the population (especially those who value logic) is beginning to question the Cheney administration's basic assumptions.

We will withdraw from Iraq. Will it be sooner or later? Only those in power know, but the problems will still be there when we finally decide to leave. The only difference will be how many Americans die before we leave.

Daniel, (10/11/2007 12:57:26 PM)

I am comfortable fighting against terrorism and terrorists as long as they want to inflict harm on our country and others who promote freedom and democracy. Muslim terrorists aren't interested in "diplomacy".

Back to WMD's - our intelligence along with British intelligence made mistakes in their assessments - I wouldn't call that a "lie" - sometimes myself and others say things that aren't exactly true - not because we are "lying", but because we are mistaken on the facts at the time. Saddam had chemical weapons at one time because he used them on his own people, and maybe he had them again, or maybe he would have pursued the opportunity to use/get them again - guess he won't be doing that now.

Yeah - President Clinton didn't deserve to be impeached as defined by the Constitution- get over it.

Again - there are terrorists who want to destroy America - we are fighting them - if we don't, then they will be in a much better position to achieve their goal - KILL THE INFIDELS - that would be us.

James, Weatherford (10/11/2007 1:19:18 PM)

So you're "comfortable" fighting terrorists. OK, how does that relate to Iraq? We may as well have attacked Switzerland -- there are some Islamic extremists there, and (like Iraq) they had nothing to do with 9/11. And does your comfort level have to do with the fact that you or a loved one are not doing the fighting?

How do you know they are not interested in diplomacy? We haven't tried it -- that's why they resort to terror attacks. I am not defending terror in any way, but when a population feels that they have no power against an insurmountable foe, the outcome is pretty predictable (there goes that logic thing again).

A lie is saying something you know is not true. We now know that is exactly what happened with the BushCo claims of WMDs, with claims of Iraq-9/11 links, with claims of no wiretapping without warrants, and too many more things to list. At some point you have to believe that Bush and Cheney are liars because they have done so much of it. To not believe it defies logic.

I could care less about Clinton. He hasn't been president in the last seven years. Bush, however, does richly deserve impeachment but attempting it would like like payback for Clinton.

They can say "kill the infidels" all they want in their country. That doesn't give us the right to attack and occupy a sovereign nation.

I'm done here. You buy the administration rhetoric, I don't. I believe when you find yourself in a hole, rule number one is stop digging. We're in a hole.

Daniel, (10/11/2007 2:01:38 PM)

Yeah - I'm done here too. I don't "buy" the administration rhetoric - because this administration has been far from perfect - what I do buy is the fight against terrorism which is in many places, but definitely in Iraq as well. I guess if it was up to all the anti-war crowd, we all be speaking German today - well - I don't want to be speaking Arabic.