Bring It On!

By Steve O on Jun 23, 2006 | Reply

If you’re not with us you’re against Jesus!!!!!

By Emmet on Jun 23, 2006 | Reply

So, did you speak to the Hero in the casket?  You people are true bastards!  How about the ones carrying the Hero…did you speak with them?  Didn’t think so!

By windspike on Jun 23, 2006 | Reply

Emmet,

Take your head out of your own ass long enough to breath the free air this GI died to ensure you can breath it.  How many times could we count the W, Rove and Co using dead GIs for propaganda purposes? Making political statements on the behalf of dead GIs is a  straight out of the Rovian play book, brother.  Do you think Aaron Seesan asked to be used in W’s Class of 2006 benediction at the Merchant Marine graduation.  Nope, he couldn’t because he was KIA in W’s illegitemate war.

 You really have chosen to swollow the poison pills that the w, Rove and co are feeding you hand over fist aren’t you?  Is there nothing that this bunch of characters “in charge” are doing that you can’t disagree with?

By Tom Baker on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Blame me not Ken. I picked it. Oh well I’m a bastard. Not the first time I heard that. I guess it’s an improvement over coward. 

So Emmet still want to “Stay the Course”? 

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Bush uses the dead for his propagandistic purposes and he’s bad.

YOU use the dead for YOUR propagandistic purposes and you’re…what?

By Tom Baker on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Trying to keep more people from being killed.

It’s more fair to say Bush used his propoganda to to create dead people.

Bush (or Karl Rove, or Dick Cheney) uses Dead people to call Democrats cowards because we are not lemmings who think thet blindly jumping off a cliff to our doom is a “smart” course of action.  

We are simply pointing out the end result of such a failed, flawed policy.  

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Yes, Tom. That’s Bush’s goal: more dead people. He just can’t get enough corpses. Bah!

By Steve O on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Craig, we might be using these pictures for political means but atleast, I would think, all of us would have no problem attending a funeral to honor and remember the person in said casket. The same cannot be said for Bush & Co. He has not attened one funeral, he has not even dispatched any of his cronies to a funeral.

Yeah sure, he’s met with their mothers in the safety of the White House where any civil discourse can be controled so that Georgie won’t be embarrassed. A real leader would honor his military followers by attending atleast one funeral.

Lincoln had no problem visiting Gettysburg but then again Lincoln was a true leader.  

By Emmet on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

86-13

Can anyone tell me what these numbers are?

By Steve O on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Yeah, the numbers are called a farce!!!! Bullshit, a vote not worthy of my dog shitting on it. That’s what those numbers are.

By Tom Baker on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Yeah it shows me that 13 Senators have some courage.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Steve O,

“…we might be using these pictures for political means…”

Point made.

As for Bush attending funerals and the rest, you’re right. Blast away!

By Emmet on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

SteveO wrote:  “Yeah, the numbers are called a farce!!!!”

No Steve O it’s NOT a farce.  It shows 86 Senators KNOW things are going well in Iraq and we need to finish the job!  Hey, it’s Saturday Steve O why don’t you go pick up some dog shit in your back yard and do some long hard thinking

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

“…things are going well in Iraq…”

Res ipsa loquitur, I know; what’s Latin for “The thing refutes itself”?

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Res ipsa refellit would work or res ipsa refutat.

By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Yeah, Emmet.

Things in Iraq are going really well. It’s only traitors and liberals who say otherwise. Like the US Ambassador to Iraq. But what does he know? It’s not like he’s actually there on the ground or anything.

By ken grandlund on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Thanks for the link there Paul- I was just getting ready to pull that up myself for Emmet so he can see how great things really are going in Iraq. Not that the US Ambassador to Iraq would have any clue though, right Emmet? Not nearly as much as you seem to.

As for showing pictures of flag draped coffins, do you think there are none? Just because Bushie Boy doesn’t want them to be seen doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It’s time for people to really get a grip with the reality going on. To say people are dying is one thing. To see the evidence brings it home a little better. If you can’t take it, put the blinders back on.

By windspike on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

I suppose that Craig and Emmet, who seem to exploring each others’ orifices so deep that they can’t see the light, believe that it’s the “terrorist” who are responsible for dead GIs in Iraq, not the W, Rove and Co who put them there.  The burden of responsibility for these deaths reast with whom?  What about the lies used to get them dead?

The difference between showing flag drapped coffins here and the president filling the presidential propaganda catapult with coffins (not the GI variety either, let’s talk contractors, civilians, Iraqis, children) and selectively choosing to tell us stories about said GIs is that as The Bastard says, we are trying to stop the killing.  The W, Rove and Co. wish to “stay the course” and keep the killing moving forward.
 

I happen to know one or two special forces folks who suggest we not look away from the coffins.  In particular, one I know uses them as motivation to keep doing the job he does, which is not printable.  Makes me gald he is on our team, but also, the sanitized news recieved here in the USA only keeps the people blind to the atrocities and circumspect about their own opinions.  That is, how is one to formulate a high quality opinion about Iraq when one does not recieve the full report?  Keeping us safe from ourselves is not the mission of governement. 

By Laura on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Emmet,

So things are going well in Iraq.  That’s why the Iraq government declared a state of emergency in Baghdad yesterday.   That’s also why 12 U.S. troops have been killed or found dead this week. 

Yep, everything is smooth sailing in Iraq.  At least that’s what Bush&Co and Fox News want you to think. 

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Windspike,

I have been the first to refute Emmet’s lunacy here. If that’s inspecting each other’s orafices, then I have no idea what that would mean by that.

Yes, I blame the people who are killing our soldiers. I’m crazy that way. The responsibility for their deaths rests with the person that pulled the trigger or detonated the bomb. The reason that we disagree here is that I believe that we should have gone to Iraq, should have removed Saddam, and should have worked, as we have worked, to allow the Iraqis to fashion a decent, representative government for themselves. For that reason, I don’t blame Bush for sending them. In short, we have different enemies. Yours appears to be Bush; mine is militant jihadis. I’ll leave it to you to decide which of us is supporting the fight against the right enemy.

Lies, if lies were told, are reprehensible but they do not, for me, refute the very good reasons for fighting in Iraq.

You really think that the killing will stop if we withdraw from Iraq?

All I’m pointing out is that you are doing exactly what you excoriate Bush for doing. You’re politicizing our soldiers’ deaths. You’re just doing it for different reasons. I don’t care what your reasons. I find it to be as reprehensible as you find Bush’s propagandizing.

Ken,

I don’t have blinders on. I have no objection to looking at a flag-draped coffin or 2,500 of them. That’s not my point.

By ken grandlund on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Craig, my comment was not aimed at you. I have a good understanding about your take on the situation and while our views diverge at a certain point, the purpose of this video is not to call into question the war on terror per se, rather the avenue it has taken and the vitriol from the republican party towards detractors of its execution. Those who firmly insist that all is well and that we are doing everything just as it should be done, and that to voice another opinion is traitorous are the people this is aimed towards. It is an effort to show the disconnect between the actions of the republican blow hards and the feelings of a growing number of Americans who do not buy their empty rhetoric. It is a subtle finger pointed at the way the will pump up the hot air while slashing funding for VA affairs, et. al.

Also, there is a chance that you may not be seeing the whole video due to a minor error in uploading. It will be reuploaded soon. The last thing you should be seeing is a full screen that says Bring It On. If you didn’t get that far, try again later.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Ken,

The video is pretty well done. Kudos on it, even if I’m not persuaded by it to change my support for fighting in Iraq. Nevertheless, very good.

Who did the voice-over?

The names of the offending congresspersons is, unfortunately, too long to be effective. It goes by too fast.

Was that the entire text? How could anyone vote against a resolution that declares that we will prevail in the GWOT, the struggle to protect freedom from terrorists? The marvel is that there were 153 votes against, not the 256 for. If that’s the entire text, it says nothing at all about staying or leaving Iraq so I don’t get the fuss. Nor does it say anything about HOW we will prevail, that is, whether tactics and strategy will remain the same or change over time so I’m not even sure that “Stay The Course” is an accurate depiction of the vote for the resolution.

Of course, staying in Iraq will assure that more soldiers and civilians will die but that’s true in any war. So was Roosevelt willing to sacrifice more lives to win WWII, many more lives than, at this rate, we will ever loose in Iraq and Afghanistan but that brings us to the relative merits of those two wars which really doesn’t belong in this discussion.

It isn’t quite true to say that Bush has refused to admit to making mistakes, even big ones. The administration HAS addmitted to mistakes in the conduct of the war but not that it was a mistake to go to war at all. Of course, I don’t think that they should admit that.

Calling Democrats or, let us say, war critics “cowards” is reprehensible behavior. However, I don’t think that voting for the resolution is a cowardly vote, not with the polling where it is on the Iraq war. Anyone who votes to stay in Iraq is endangering their own political future, in my opinion. A yes vote on the resolution might have been stupid but it wasn’t cowardly.

Anyway, to recap, very well done. Good luck with it.

By ken grandlund on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Well Craig, I don’t want to be a spoiler, so I’ll wait until the upload is redone for you to view the rest.

Thanks for the nice comments re the video. I did the voice-over BTW. This kind of thing (video prodiction) is how I pay the bills.

By Tammara on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

windspike-

i can clearly see that craig and emmet are not the same-

craig has a point, makes it politely, listens to reason, changes his mind sometimes, and is in general a part of these discussions.  even if i do not agree with him, i respect him.   

By Liberal Army Wife on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Ken. thanks, good job. Craig, whilst I may not agree with most of what you say, I appreciate that you say it with respect, and are coherent!

LAW

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Tammara and LAW,

Thanks. That’s nice of you to say. 

By Tammara on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

tom and ken, 

what are you doing with the ad… there are 2 candidates here that are interested in it… one a dem, one a populist- 

craig-

you are more than welcome.  discourse between disagreeing parties is the goal.  i am more than willing to carefully consider your points, and i agree with much of what you say.  there are points i will not ever agree with you about, but i do not believe you are ignorant, or stupid because of your views.  i don’t in general respond to crap- because i believe it encourages the writer to spew more of it. 
 

By ken grandlund on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Tamarra-

Aside from posting the video here, and asking anyone and everyone to link to this post, I don’t know that we’re taking it anywhere else. I certainly don’t have a problem with them referencing this video, but as far as using this in some mainstream advertising, the length is not formatted for standard broadcast advertising. That would take a little more work. Also, they would need to get a broadcast formatted version (media format that is) to be of any real use.

Tom? What’s your take here?

By Tom Baker on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

As far as I’m concerned anyoen who want’s to use the ORGINAL version as is, can as long as it is linked back here so that we can track viewage. (hey it saves them bandiwdth too). If someone wants a more professional version of the same, they can talk to Ken and I directly to work something out.

Hey Ken - poltical advertisement might be our thing
 

By RTW on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Normally I do not post, but this is for folks like Emmet.

I served two years in Iraq and it’s in total disarray contrary to what the Bush propaganda machine want you to believe. To you armchair civilian chickenhawks who sit in your warm, secure, comfortable homes watching FOX News; if your so damn gung-ho get off your flag waving lame ass’s and prove how patriotic you really are by enlisting, let’s see the true color of your blood. In Iraq you’ll come to your senses real quick when you smell the air permeated with the foul odor of death. The innocent Iraqi people are more than willing to share their daily suffering of losing a family member or friend. Having their homes reduced to rubble, living in constant fear day and night. And who do they blame ? They blame the people of America for allowing George Bush to destroy their country.

The men and women arriving home in caskets are no longer able to speak the truth. Now their loved one’s must endure and struggle with the pain of losing a son, daughter, husband, wife, father, mother a friend. And what exactly were the reasons for dying ? For George Bush’s noble cause of spreading democracy, finding WMD’s, freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. I don’t think so. Yes, many of us truly did think going into Iraq was all about protecting America from terrorists. It’s taken me a while, after many sleepless nights, to figure out what our governments real intentions and purposes were for engaging in this illegal war of aggression. The Iraqi people are not terrorists nor was their government hiding weapons of mass destruction. Have I earned my right to speak out against this war … your damn right I have and I live with the constant nightmare every day. And I personally don’t give a rats ass if you think I’m unpatriotic for standing up for what believe to be a evil political cover up.

Bush supporters better start paying attention to who the real enemies are in this country. This so-called ” war on terror ” is a fictional creation, designed to distract the American people from the real problems in this country while the war mongers in the White House steal more power and destroy the real America. This current FUBAR of a government is systematically disassembling every system of citizen protection, due process and anything resembling the rule of law, it is simultaneously creating a monster, a system of tyranny that has no safety checks or counterbalances.

The War on Terror is, in fact, the War on Freedom. They just didn’t name it correctly. And people who support this war and this administration share philosophies with the Nazi party members who bolstered Hitler to power. Rah rah ! Shoot more people ! Bomb more nations ! Wave more flags ! We’re #1 ! Go USA ! Grab that oil !  Imprison all the traitors ! Censor the media to protect national security ! Thin the herd out by getting rid of the liberals ! The list goes on …

And the cross-eyed Bush supporting morons, who have literally no understanding of history or the extreme dangers of unchecked war powers, are marching us right down the same corridor that led Nazi Germany to ruin. Every transgression by the U.S. government against some particular group, the Bushies say, is justified as long as it doesn’t target flag waving, Bible thumping, war hollering white people. In time, it will be turned against every citizen, including the Bush supporters, who will one day wake up to find their freedoms lost and say to themselves, ” But I thought they were only going after the terrorists ! I’m not a terrorist………..”

To damn bad you stupid jack-ass’s ! You made the fool’s bargain by trading liberty for security.

By Pia Savage on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Will link.  Really good video, guys.

 Took a poll in some blog a little while ago.  Hillary was the top pick for 08.  Hillary, Senator from the bluest of blue states, who couldn’t find it in her heart to be the fourteenth senator….actually she’s never been a real senator so why start now?

Both senators from NY had unprecedented chances to stand up for the people of NY after 9/11.  Neither did

Am cynical, jaded and fed up
 

By archers on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Unbelievable KOOKs!

 Imagine this,I got aplan, and a few guns but what is missing is money. I get some hunger thugs to go along with my easy–one two klnock’um plan. We team up to rob a 7-11.

 Here’s what happens you dorks!–We shot the cashier dead,put three bullets into the baby in the carriage,the husband arrives, takes a few shots of my good x- marine sniper boys, two of them dead, several of our jewsus boys are wounded. However luckey,we got the owner’s face smached but alive. The town folks and police are such good folks–they told us to keep the money and kick the shit out of the owner. What a whole town turn out, at our boys funeral–flagdrapped coffins and all that tear jerking moaning for our good old boys.

 Wake-up dreamer assholes!

By Tammara on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

earth to planet claire?  hello? hello?  

By Liberal Army Wife on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

archers…. excuse me.. what was that? I’m still trying to figure out what language it was supposed to be in, much less anything pertinent to this post..

LAW.

By Liberal Jarhead on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Craig,

Your thoughtfulness and sincerity are apparent.  I beg to differ on a point, though; you said ‘In short, we have different enemies. Yours appears to be Bush; mine is militant jihadis. I’ll leave it to you to decide which of us is supporting the fight against the right enemy.’

Try this one on for size.  If we decide whether someone is our enemy based on the effects their actions have on us, that’s a false choice.  the Bush team and the militant jihadis are both the enemies of our national security, civil liberties, and way of life.  The difference is that on the part of the jihadis, that does not constitute treason.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Liberal Jarhead,

You’re right. The offending sentence was snarky and uncalled for. I retract it with sincere apologies. 

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Um, well, I did not mean to imply that I agree with you that Bush is the enemy of our national security or of our civil liberties or of our way of life. I simply mean that I should have not made the offending statement and for having done so, I apologize.

By Samuel on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Two points to share….

First is that the U.S. Army just upped the enlistment age ceiling to 42, so those in support of this war can put their money where their mouth is. If they’re outside of the 18-42 age range, then they can at least donate everything they earn beyond bare necessities to support the war… until it’s paid off.

Second point is that if anyone believes for a moment that there is a real difference between the dems and gops, you are in big time denial. Ever hear of ‘Mutt and Jeff?” They’re both sold out to their special interest handlers (read:AIPAC/PNAC). NOT seeing this is a large part of the disease.

It’s too late to make real changes, the time for that has passed. The whore that rides on the beast is judged. It’s just a matter of a very short time.
 

Samuel 

By Dan H on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Well Craig, I applaud you for being resonable and very smart. I don’t agree with you, but like said before I do Respect you.

For your reading please check out http://www.whatreallyhappened.com for more reading that may show you facts not mere talk, in showing you how Bush has betrayed old glory…

I do again respect your way of discussion, if we all could do this - America could be saved…

I will ask My Lord Jesus to send you blessings… and do not impose my will on you.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Dan H,

Thanks.

By Libby Buck on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply

Dear RTW,

Thank you for your input.  I have a friend who’s brother is struggling seriously with what to do with the information in his head after spending several months in Iraq.   I don’t know if this is even related, but I went to a lunchen and saw Bill Clinton speak.  I used to love him but now I have to hate him… I’m so depressed about the loss of our values in the good ol’ USA. Worth fighting for? Yes, but only at the expense of REAL and TANGIBLE, PROOVABLE danger - not just some statements about WMD that don’t exist.

Someone said to me the other day, “Yeah, what about when they tell us all about the nukes in Iran and we don’t believe them? Is that what we are going to do? Wipe ourselves out because of the lack of truth and the boy who cried wolf and ruined everything?  They say that some criminals commit “cop suicide” by not cooperating.   I feel that, we, as a nation are nearing that same kind of stand-off.

Thank you for your service to our country, I hope it doesn’t destroy you, we support you and encourage you to continue to express yourself.

Love, Peace and more Peace,

Libby Buck

By Libby Buck on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply

How many of those 256 were Democrats and who were they?  Looks like another letter writing day today.

By ken grandlund on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply

Libby- Yes, some of the 256 were democrats. Their names are not listed on this list, and I struggled about whether or not to include them. I put them in, took them out, put them in, took them out…finally left them out. This piece is meant to reflect the republican hyperbole about ’staying the course’ and ’supporting the troops;’ the first which seems a lot like keeping your hand in the fire and insisting that the crackling, pungent odor isn’t your own flesh burning and the second being little more than hypocritical back-slapping. This is the republican modus operandi, they control both houses, the course of debate, and what comes up for discussion. So while there are plenty of spineless democrats who still won’t stand up to the republican onslaught, that is not the point of this piece. You can find out who the dems are here:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll288.xml

Of course, we can’t assume that a reversal in leadership in congress will suddenly make these democrats grow a pair, we can certainly hope that would be the case.

RTW- I can’t thank you enough for speaking out. Your words have more weight than mine do. So, truly, thank you and good luck.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply

Ken,

Is it not possible that the support for the war by those Democrat lawmaders has nothing to do with the lack of “a pair” as you say, but simply that they honestly, rationally, and consistently don’t agree with you? Does the issue have to be reduced to ’spinelessness’?

By ken grandlund on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply

Craig-

Of course that remains a possibility. However, I think their reticence stems from a fear of being (falsely) labeled a traitor, which in my book makes them weak in the leadership department. Clearly, ’stay the course’ is not having positive effects, at least according to anyone willing to look at the Iraq situation with open eyes. Further, since I’ve not looked at the comprehensive voting records of the democrats in question, I can’t say whether they consistently disagree with me on this issue or whether this was an abberant vote on their part. If in fact they think that the present course of action is both correct and effective, then I question their ability to look at this (or perhaps any issue) rationally or honestly.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply

Ken,

I don’t think that the choice is that simple. I doubt that there is a single Democrat who thinks that every aspect of the war has been either correct or effective. One can think, as I do, that Bush has made many mistakes in the conduct of the war and still believe that leaving Iraq before, say, the Iraqi government is stable and it’s military and law enforcement agencies are sufficiently trained and capable of keeping it’s own peace would be bad, not only for Iraq but, ultimately, for America. In short, the choice isn’t between continuing to do everything exactly as we’ve been doing or setting timetables for withdrawal that are not tied to the capabilities of the Iraqi government and military or the strength of the insurgency. One can, in fact, think that things ought to be done differently than they have been AND think that any withdrawals should be connected to Iraqi military strength and preparedness and the levels of violence experienced in Iraq. In other words, not supporting the sort of phased withdrawal that Kerry has endorsed does not equate to “stay the course”. We can stay in Iraq AND change the course of what we do there. Wanting to stay until Iraq is ready for us to leave has nothing to do with presence or absense of a political spine.

You could, of course, be right and, if that’s your estimation of the situation, then go with it. It just seems to me that you set up somewhat of a false dichotomy and that, since you haven’t (nor have I, by the way) investigated the congressional record, you really don’t have the evidence that you need to sustain the ’spineless’ charge.

By ken grandlund on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply

Fair enough Craig, and since you’ve previously read my own thoughts on ending our presence in Iraq, you know that I’m not in the “everybody out now” camp, but rather in the “let’s set a date and get out” camp that takes into account many other factors.

But that is not the point of this video. We are simply reporting (albeit in a dramatic fashion) what the republican leadership has affirmed…namely that the presidents decisions are the best and should be followed and no amount of discussion from the left is necessary or wanted. Nevermind that several of the president’s ‘ideas’ are lifted from the thoughts of distinguished democrats and co-opted by the GOP. And still, the democrats stand silent (largely anyway.) To allow you’re rivals to take your words, call them treason, then try to pass those same ideas off as their own, without standing up and speaking out, is, imo, spineless.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply

Ken,

Yes, I have a good handle on your position. I do not believe that the presiden’s decisions are necessarily the best and I would much rather the two Parties could work together in working out the best course of action in Iraq and at home.

Because I don’t pretend to know everything, I’m wondering what ‘ideas’ you’re talking about, specifically? It sounds like politics to me. I don’t use that word in a complimentary manner, by the way.

By ken grandlund on Jun 26, 2006 | Reply

Most recently, the ( various) plans put forward by democrats to begin drawing down troops, characterized by republicans as ‘cut and run’ followed by plans from Gen. Casey to do that very same thing and credited to the administration as the next step.

And frankly, this whole Iraq debacle is mired in politics, and none of it is very complimentary to any of us.

By soldier on Jul 2, 2006 | Reply

I, As an OIF Vet would like to just say.I personaly don’t care about the personal verbal war you have amongst you’selves.As for someone who was on the ground and amungst the Iraqi people;just think of the children.They are smart enough to make there own futer.And with our guidance and protection they will.       Thank You