WASHINGTON -- Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.

Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

"I don't see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that's why they signed up," said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. "I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there."

Patience with the war, which has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, is wearing thin -- particularly among families who have sent a service member to the conflict. One-quarter say American troops should stay "as long as it takes to win." Nearly seven in 10 favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away."

Military families are only slightly more patient: 35% are willing to stay until victory; 58% want the troops home within a year or sooner.

Here, too, the military families surveyed are in sync with the general population, 64% of whom call for a withdrawal by the end of next year.
Bush loses ground with military families - Los Angeles Times

But don't worry.
Our *elitist* president knows what is best for America, in attacking a country that had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, so we can fight people "over there" in Iraq who have never EVER been shown to have an interest in fighting us "over here"...

The President and his people lied when they said it would be a quick war.
They lied when they said it would pay for itself.

So they polled the families instead of the troops?
GW NEVER promised a short war.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

Do you have any troop polls?
Oh wait. If the troops speak out, there can be repercussions. Even crack-downs on their outlets to the mainstream U.S. society. (e.g. web-cams, blogs, etc, etc.)

While conservatives claim about the "biased media" and "why don't they ask the troops", when the troops ARE able to be directly asked it is quickly halted and/or controlled.



What planet are you from?
Do you suffer from Alzheimer's?

CLAIM: �Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.� � President Bush, 5/1/03
CLAIM: The war �could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.� � Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]
CLAIM �We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.� � Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

CLAIM: �Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.� � White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, 2/18/03

CLAIM: Iraq will be � an affordable endeavor � that � will not require sustained aid � and will �be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion .� � Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]
CLAIM: �Costs of any such intervention would be very small.� - Top White House Economist Glen Hubbard [CNBC, 10/4/02]
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/p...imfact1029.htm

Why do conservatives repeatedly try to re-write history on this issue?

If you can't figure it out, than you don't know what an accidental loose lip can do to a battalion in war...

Did I re-write this, too?...

From the exact same "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" speech...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

If you had their record, you'd want people to forget about it too.

Sadly, the tactic works all too often.
The American public has a very short memory.

Convenient excuse...
I guess in the new "Bush" language, "supporting our troops" means silencing them so we can't hear what their REAL lives are like...


I'm sorry, but what in that speech somehow rewrites the phrase "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended".

Do I need to draw you a picture about what a president who is requesting a SURGE of troops to Iraq means with regards to "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended"?

I never said anything to denote that I took it to mean ALL combat operations have ended.
But you will note that he DID say MAJOR, right?

This is just another example of "you're doing a heck of a job Brownie".
I am amused at the balancing act our administration undergoes.
We proclaim that there is this great terrorism threat whereby we "have to fight them over there to prevent having them fight us here" (for Iraq that has NEVER had any demonstrated links to U.S. terrorism), and then we proclaim that the war that we claimed would be over in weeks, would pay for itself, etc, etc, is going "well" as it stretches on for YEARS and BILLIONS of dollars...

Apparently yo DO need a little lesson on loose lips...whether accidental or not...

A soldier writes a blog or some sort of commentary for public consumption...

He writes some pretty innocous stuff about his day-to-day duties...

Pretty lighthearted stuff, huh?...

Nope...Now he's marked if the enemy is reading...

1) He's declared he on the outskirts of Bagdhad, but doesn't pinpoint it...Or does he?...

The fact that he heard gunfire on the 14th of June and to the north just gave away his position...If anyone from the neighborhood knows of an attack with gunfire and it's location on the 14th, then they know they just need to travel south to find the place...Now that might not mean much...The base may even be out in the open...

BUT!!!!!

2) He just told everyone reading that security is lax at night and they feel more secure...Now the enemy knows it can wait until nightfall to catch the base off guard since Harry just went "all in" with and open-ended straight...

The enemy can now test the water and move in close a few times(maybe laying traps or IEDs...maybe even using children) and see if they get a response...They might not, seeing how the soldier just came out and told everyone they're not really watching...

3) Who knows the geography, landscape and the animal populations better than the locals helping Al Qaeda and/or old Baath Party loyalists?...There may be scorpion "hot spots" where they breed above normal circumstances (depending on the season, too) and that fact alone may have pinpointed their exact location...

See how that's done with just ONE paragraph?...

All it takes is for one soldier to innocently give away locations and/or activities and you pretty much just told the enemy when, where, and how to attack...

"loose lips sink ships"...

Yes...

Draw me a picture...Because it appears to me that you have no concept that it was the Americas that started it back up well after MAJOR combat operations have ended...

Most of the casualties, from both a military and civilian population, have been done by roadside bombs, IEDs, traps, and other devices...NOT actual combat...

There were only dustups and small renagade attacks until over 1 1/2 years later when the Coalition forces attacked Fallujah...


And what part of the speech did he say they couldn't start up again at any time depending on the circumstances on the ground?...

Oh yeah...he didn't...

Your doing a heckuva job foundie...

It will pay for itself exponentially if we never let it become a base for Al Qaeda...a situation that history has already proven in Afghanistan while we slept...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Have you ever had a "classified" military classification?
Ever had to sign a document swearing you'd never reveal info?

I have.
Don't give me this dumb crap.


Just out of curiousity, do you think our soldiers all go to bed at the same time? With no guards?
Do you think they slip in to a secret "bat-cave" so that nobody knows where they have their ammo and weaponry and where they sleep?

If you were an Iraqi civilian walking down the street, living in an occupied city, you could probably give such information with full detail without any need to "decipher" a blog.

You made up a hypothetical scenario, ignoring reality, and you think that proves something?

As a former military man who actually HAS info in his noggin', I can tell you that they let us know pretty explicitly what is classified and what isn't.
And if they find violations, of course they should act accordingly.

But that la-la land scenario you just created is ridiculous, ignoring reality.


Fine.
Can you define for me what "major combat operations" means, and what classifies them "ending"?
Cause what I see is a LONG history of the U.S. EXTENDING our military personnel's committment in the Middle East.

I'd say that's pretty clear violation of "major combat operations have ended"...


I am amazed at the Republican's willingness to nuke not only the constitution, but also the dictionary.
The word "torture" gets redefined. Even "war" gets redefined.

combat:
1 : a fight or contest between individuals or groups
2 : conflict, controversy
3 : active fighting in a war : action <casualties suffered in combat>

Yes. That IS combat.

And furthermore, I would LOVE to see you explain to some military survivor that their husband or wife died, but "not in combat". :


Fine.
Then spin me another explanation as to WHEN the "major combat" supposedly started up again, and what was the sudden qualifier by which we could once again say we were in "major combat".


It's a repeated ploy of yours that when somebody points out the president being clueless, you take it personal.
Suddenly, the person making the observation is a "Bush-hater".
Or, like in this case...

All the while, you repeatedly MAKE NO ATTEMPT to excuse the president's inexcusable actions.


Are you freaking KIDDING ME???

While we slept????

Riddle me this cnredd.
WHO HELPED bin Laden get into power???

We weren't "sleeping".
We were HELPING the terrorists come to power.

And let's not forget that the Taliban WAS NEVER EVEN IN Iraq until we UPHEAVED the place, providing the instability for them to get in the door.
I repeat, the Taliban would NOT EVEN BE IN IRAQ if we hadn't invaded it first!

OVER and OVER and OVER again we insist on stepping into that turd box of an area, boosting up some guy who turns around and stabs us in the back.
How many groups have we propped up out there now to only have them make us regret it???

Then don't believe me...

Don't believe this either...

A Soldier's Blog : Balancing Service Members' Personal Rights vs. National Security Interests.


Existance is not combat...we've had Major operations in South Korea for over 40 years...A commitment that's "long extending" does not equal combat...

In fact, I'd say with the history the US has in putting bases in other countries, we've had a pretty good string of preventing worse combat than any that actually exists...Just in the eastern Bloc alone, had we not had "operations" there and an "extended commitment", the Soviet Union would've extended west to London...

And then the hyperbole...

I'd prefer, to say "Your spouse died due to some coward who wouldn't confront the strength of your spose on the battlefield."

Fallujah...November 2004...

awww....now the veins are showing...

Not the US Mister Misguided...

Bin laden was in power with the US "permission" ONLY when the Soviet Union was attacking...He left, went to Saudi Arabia, go thrown OUT of Saudi Arabia, went to the Sudan, got thrown OUT of the Sydan, THEN went back to Afghanistan with NO US "power" or onvolement whatsoever...

False...and not true...and a lie...

The US LEFT Afghanistan right after the Soviet Union backed out...which was in 1989...

The Taliban took over Kabul in 1996...And it happened because we didn't stay and rebuild, making the place a political vacuum with tribal fighting...

There was no help whatsoever...If anything our NON-help of the country was the cause...Nothing we did directly...

But that's okay...Just skim this and believe whatever you want...

I assume you mean Al Qaeda and not the Taliban in Iraq...

As far as the "number of groups etc"...The real question is "How many have we propped up in order to not let another group in that would be worse?"...Almost everytime...

Much easier to pull out the "Blame America" card, eh?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I found the conclusion poignant.

Over the centuries, restrictions on the accessibility of military
information during war time have changed. Such changes are necessary due
to various intervening factors, such as increased weapons capabilities,
better computer technology, and speedier communication devices. When
changes occur, the government and military’s policies regarding
restrictions on a soldier’s right to speech must be adapted to balance
competing interests.
There is a delicate balance between protecting military interests and a
soldier’s right to freedom of speech. Interests of the military, including
protecting national security, promoting order and discipline within the
military, and safeguarding military secrets must be balanced with a
soldier’s right to tell his or her story and the public’s right to know the truth
about the war on terror. The government should not be allowed to restrict a
soldier’s right to tell his or her story because it is unfavorable to
continuation of the war or the administration’s policies. Such restrictions
not only violate the soldier’s right to free speech, they also limit the
public’s access to information received directly from active participants in
the war.

Did you even bother to read any of it?
Or did you like the title, so you threw it at me?


And predictably, absolutely NO definition of "combat" is given.
Meanwhile, I DID give a definition of combat, which has been steadily ongoing since the invasion of Iraq.


What "hyperbole"?
YOU YOURSELF tried to claim water-boarding was not torture.


And again you avoid the issue.
Would you tell a military widow that her husband did not die in "combat"?
Or would that statement be something that you would avoid because of some word you used above...


Interesting.
You answered the question on when the major combat supposedly started up again, but avoided any qualification as to what would supposedly qualify as a lack of "major combat".
And considering Bush said that in May, his "heck of a good job Brownie" statement gives a whopping 5 months during which we were supposedly "not" in major combat.
Should I dig through the history to show you what happened in that time-frame?
Or is it all pointless because you won't give a definition for "major combat", ergo you'll just claim it wasn't "major" enough or "combat" enough?

I'm amused you cut-and-paste around me using Merriam Webster's definition of "combat"...
Amused, but not surprised...


And once again, cnredd goes for the personal comments while ignoring the actual point of the comments made.


ROFLMAO!!!
Oh my gawd. That was funny.

Just out curiousity, do you think bin Laden gave back all the toys and $$$ we gave him for that "Soviet Union" thing?
Seriously!

So if I were to give a gun to somebody's kid, and they turned around and used it to mow down the school, I wouldn't be culpable at all....

You've got an amazing sense of lack of responsibility there...


Good catch.


Okay. Riddle me this.
How many Iraqi people died in the five years BEFORE we invaded.
And how many Iraqi people have died in the five years AFTER we invaded?

How much presence did al Qaeda have BEFORE we invaded Iraq?
And how much presence do they have there now.

And just out of curiousity, what could be worse than giving the guns and $$$ to the man who helped the planes fly into the WTC on 9-11???