|
Support the
Troops By Sending Them to War!
How can the Democratic leadership say that
with a straight face?
By Kevin Zeese
03/24/07 "ICH"
-- -- As the United States enters the fifth year of the
quagmire of the Iraq war and occupation the Capitol Hill
leadership claims: we need to continue to fund the war to
support U.S. troops. Does this claim pass the straight face
test? Is this what the troops want?
Do we
support the troops when we send them to die and kill? Do we
support the troops when we send them into a quagmire without
adequate armor?
Three
troops a day are killed in Iraq, each month approximately 500
are listed as casualties (ten times more are unlisted casualties
who suffer physical, emotional and mental injuries from Iraq)
and countless numbers of Iraqis are killed every day. So, when
the Democrats call for a withdrawal by August 31, 2008 it means
there will be 1,500 more U.S. troops killed, more than 8,000
officially injured and many tens of thousands of Iraqi children,
women and men killed. In 2007, if the supplemental passes,
Congress will have appropriated $165 billion, and in 2008 it is
likely much more will be spent.
And, the
loopholes in the House Democratic supplemental are large enough
to ensure that even after the deadline President Bush will be
able to keep as many troops as he wants in Iraq. For example,
troops can stay to capture or kill members of Al Qaeda or other
terrorist groups. We have approximately 140,000 troops in Iraq
doing that right now. With the wording of this supplemental
that will continue after the so-called withdrawal date. And, the
supplemental does nothing to prevent a military attack on Iran.
This
supplemental is more likely to lead to a larger war in the
Middle East than it is a withdrawal from Iraq.
How does
this support the troops?
On the
Fourth Anniversary of the war military families, Iraq War Vets,
Gold Star family members and active duty troops held a press
conference with a simple message displayed behind the speakers:
“DE-FUND
THE WAR TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS”
These are
the members of the mere 1.6% of the U.S. citizenry who bear the
daily burden of the Iraq War and occupation. The military and
their families who live with this war every hour of every day
understand that sending troops into a civil war, that is not
supported by the American people or the Iraqi people, is no way
to support the troops. They realize that inadequate funding for
the Veterans Administration while at the same time flooding it
with new casualties is no way to support the troops. They have
lived not only with battlefield deaths and life changing
injuries, but with suicide, the dysfunction of PTSD, the guilt
of killing women and children, and broken families – all the
result of Congress supporting the troops by sending them to war.
The claim
that the only way to get Veterans benefits or armor for the
troops is by supporting the supplemental is patently false. The
Democrats should have said that Bush’s supplemental was dead on
arrival and drafted their own – a supplemental that would have
supported the troops, funded the VA, provided for the rebuilding
of Iraq by Iraqis, the funding of a regional stabilization force
and a diplomatic surge in the region. That would have been an
appropriation that would have really supported the troops.
Some
of the speakers at the military family’s press conference
included Joyce and Kevin Lucey
of Belchertown, MA whose son Cpl. Jeffrey Michael Lucey,
a Marine Reservist, served in
Iraq in 2003, and took his own life after being released and
refused treatment at a VA hospital in 2004. Also speaking was
Tina Richards of Salem, Missouri a mother of a
Marine who is suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and
other injuries but may be sent on a third deployment to Iraq.
She recently had a chance meeting in the Halls of Congress with
Rep. David Obey, the Chair of the appropriations committee,
where he described war opponents as “idiot liberals” who “must
be smoking something.” She has a column in the Milwaukee
Sentinel Journal urging “We owe it to the troops and their
families to end the war now.” Corey VanBuskirk
of Greeley, PA whose husband is a Marine serving his second tour
in Iraq. He was deployed 12 days
after the two were married.
Stacy Bannerman of
Kent, Washington whose husband served for a year in Iraq with
the Washington Army National Guard, received a mental health
exam eight months after serving at the most attacked base in
Iraq, and, almost one year from that exam was notified by the
military of his diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
These speakers at the
Military Families Speak Out press conference describe the real
stories of soldiers in Iraq. Rep. Jack Murtha described the
Iraq War as more intense combat than Vietnam or World War II
citing a survey that found that 93% of soldiers had been shot at
and 86% knew someone who had been shot.
The
opposition to the war shown by these soldiers and their families
is consistent with polls of soldiers. More than a year ago a
Zogby poll showed that 73% of soldiers in Iraq believed the U.S.
should come home within a year. And a poll by Military Times
found that their readers, who are generally more senior and
career military, found a majority opposed the war.
So, if the
Democratic leadership wants to support the troops, why don’t
they listen to the troops?
A group of
soldiers and their families went to find out what the Democratic
leadership was thinking after the press conference. Tina
Richards led a delegation of 30 people to the offices of Speaker
Nancy Pelosi after the press conference. Richards has been
trying to see Pelosi since November 8th – as soon as
the Democrats knew they had won majority control of both Houses
of Congress.
Richards
had worked on a Democratic congressional campaign in Missouri
and had made small donations to Democrats across the country
thinking that when they were in the majority they would end the
war. She has telephoned, written and visited the Speaker’s
office seeking to meet her. Last Friday, before she broke
through to the national media with an appearance on Hardball,
she received a call from the Speaker’s office saying they would
set up a meeting as soon as possible with Pelosi. But since
that time she has received no phone calls from the Speaker’s
office and one reporter told her that the Speaker had decided
not to meet with her.
So, along
with other military family members, vets and active duty
soldiers she went to the Speakers office to ask when she could
meet with Nancy Pelosi. She did not receive an answer despite
her repeated contacts. She and other members of the delegation
insisted on meeting with Pelosi. TV cameras from networks and
citizen news groups monitored the discussion despite a Pelosi
rule that no cameras are allowed in her office (whatever
happened to “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
the press!).
The
receptionist told Tina and the others that someone from their
press office would be coming to meet with them. Of course, a
media spokesperson was more to do damage control with the media
in attendance than to communicate with the vets, soldiers and
their families.
Terry
McCullough, the Chief of Staff for Speaker Pelosi, finally came
out of her office and after urging by those in attendance
suggested a meeting with her. During the meeting families, vets
and active soldiers spoke about their opposition to the
supplemental that extended the war, their experiences with the
VA denying them basic health care, and the challenges they have
coming home from the war with no jobs or housing. They spoke
about the impact of depleted uranium poisoning. One couple
described the suicide of their son when the VA refused to
provide him treatment for post traumatic stress disorder.
Ms.
McCullough could not answer for Speaker Pelosi. She did not
even attempt to explain how sending troops to war – a war the
Speaker says she opposes – is supporting the troops. Ms.
McCullough promised to convey the messages of the delegation but
wouldn’t it have been better if the Speaker would meet with this
type of delegation? Listen to their experiences? Understand
their reaction to the supplemental? Hear their disappointment
with the lack of leadership of the Democratic majority?
President
Bush refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan to explain to her for
what noble cause her son was killed. Will Tina Richards and
other soldiers, vets and military families have to camp out in
front of Speaker Pelosi’s office to finally get to talk to her?
If so what does that say about the lack of difference between
Democrats and Republicans?
If the
Democrats want to “support the troops” shouldn’t they at least
talk to military families about their concerns regarding the
continuation of this war?
For more
information visit:
Tina
Richards website
www.GrassrootsAmerica4us.org
Military
Families Speak Out
www.mfso.org.
Iraq
Veterans Against the War
www.ivaw.org
Click here
to comment on this and other articles
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
