Navy Officer

I have supported our efforts in Iraq with reservations while attempting to be constructive, but slowly I'm losing my patience. Not that it makes any difference about my patience but all vets should truly be outraged.
Why? Soldiers and families are being hurt immeasurably because of doing their duty. But, it appears that the "powers that be" are totally unresponsive to the plight of the National Guard and Reserves serving in Iraq. Many of these folks have expected, at most, to be deployed no more than six months. Many are serving 18 months or more based on their jobs.

Why? Simply, the levels of troops and the war have been mismanaged by the Pentagon. And, who is paying the price? The soldier and his family. They are having to declare bankruptcy and losing small businesses that they have sacrificed to have for years. Many are losing families.

Think about this: with all the money we are spending in Iraq, 200 billion at last count. And, we cannot even look after our troops or their families.

OUTRAGEOUS! It would be very easy to set up a fund to ensure that levels of income would remain the same for the soldier's family the entire time he or she is deployed. This is easy. And, the amount would be a pittance compared to what we are spending in Iraq.

Where is Rumsfeld's head? If money can solve the problem, it's no problem.

The President and his advisors are thinking globally, I guess, and totally missing the picture. Does this smack at Nero fiddling while Rome is burning.

Two hundred billion in Iraq to rebuild a country we destroyed and give democracy to a people who don't want it. What is wrong with this picture here?

Two hundred billion. Most of us cannot simply compute an amount that large but we know this: some of that money ought to be going to these National Guard and Reserve troops who have answered the call. We owe it to them. I'm losing my patience. How about you?

Clint Eastwood

George W. would do well to examine his cowboy image. I think Gary Cooper would be a far better choice than his Clint Eastwood persona in Unforgiven. Remember when Eastwood leaves town, his comments were something like, "OK, you sons of bitches, if one of you fires at me, I'm going to kill him and then hunt down his family and kill him and burn his house down."

How about Gary Cooper in High Noon. Quiet, resolved, fearful but a will of iron. No great protestations, strutting around, just knowing that he will do what he has to do.

I often think when I read George W. on Iraq--what is he smoking? He seems obsessed with Saddam. What is it? The fact that he owes it to his Dad who didn't finish the job? What!

After 9-11, for most of the country who cares, George W. had enormous moral and political capital. He took over, did the deed, was deliberate-Gary Cooper to the max.

Clint Eastwood

What has happened to G.W? Politics, I guess. He's getting bad advice? Reached that stage where many leaders do: believes his godlike protestations must be true per his cheerleading minions? It's a mystery.

He makes a good move taking the case against Saddam to the United Nations, a fairly impotent organization. Saddam promises to let the inspectors in, unconditionally, no less. He is probably lying or figuring out a way to buy time but for the time being, he has to be believed. The world community has heard him-the bad man of Baghdad will have to put up or shut up. Either way, Gary (George W.) wins.

Well George W's reaction? He goes into his Clint persona, "I'll kill your families and burn your houses." What is this!

All along, telegraphing of our positions, intentions, almost having a carefully worked out plan to kick sand in the face of even our friends.

We all understand international politics. Americans who read and care and are involved are not stupid. We see foreign politicians playing to the press like we do. Why intentionally go out of our way to look bad or like a big bully with a big stick.

And, what is it with this first strike thing? Even the language is guaranteed to sound like Clint, "The United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged the way it was during the cold war." Please! Gary Cooper would never talk like this.

I think of the great political capital Bush had after 9-11 was in terms of leadership. What we want in a leader is someone who'll take the hard path, show integrity and courage in the face of crisis. By any stretch of the imagination, I don't see any redeeming quality in George W. being Clint other than bad posturing-"I'll kill your wife and burn your house." There's not even any political capital to be gained. Unless, the "war-Iraq" talk is a ploy to keep the country thinking war and not other issues.

The conventional wisdom is that war talk helps the Republicans. This would make George W. less a leader and more a politician.

I doubt seriously if Congress is going to give Clint a "go for it" first strike as a military strategy. Maybe he's counting on terrorism being the silver bullet.
The Clint persona simply doesn't play well and makes even less sense. And, let us not forget timing. This appears to be the worst possible time to introduce something like take out Saddam or Regime change or whatever they are calling it today.

We're still attempting to get our act together from 9-11. Homeland Security is an allusion. Our military is stretched incredibly thin around the world. Financial markets are a mess. And, Clint wants to wage a war where the experts can't agree on what the villain has or doesn't have.

Chill Clint and let's do some Gary! Kelly Thomas