Skip to main content

View Diary: We Are Going to Crawford to stop the killing (243 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Questions (none)
    2 and 3 ae not good questions. It is almost base to ask them.

    I really respect what you're doing, but what those two humans do with their lives is their choice and it's nobody's fucking business. W. can't "send" them over there any more than he can send me over there.

    A protest in Crawford? I love the idea. But honestly, there are so many good and important questions to ask.

    Anything by Loudon Wainwright III

    by Earl on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:45:32 AM PDT

    •  Base My Ass -- It Is APPROPRIATE To Ask (3.50)
      Base my ass -- it is appropriate to ask those kinds of questions.  And if he, or anyone else, does not like it -- screw 'em.  

      That asshole wants to stand up there and lie to the American people about a noble cause -- well then, put those noble party girls' prissy asses to work for the noble cause.  

      They are both college graduates.  Let them learn to be Second Lieutenants in the Army. Send their asses to OCS and then to Iraq.  

      Let's see if they can hold an M-16 as well as they can hold a shot glass full of booze.  

      This is no time to be timid.  Full court press!

      •  I agree with (none)
        everything you say--the lies, the illegal war, the hypocrisy--but those are his, not Jenna and Barbar Bush's. And he can't make them go--they're adults. They make their own choices. I'd rather they and all people that age party their ass's off than go fight in this war.

        The hypocrisy of the Fighting Keyboarders and the chickenhawks who never served who beat the drums of war--they deserve it. But not those two. That's all I'm saying.

        Anything by Loudon Wainwright III

        by Earl on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:11:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What about stop-loss? (none)
      As Commander-in-Chief he's sending soldiers back to Iraq whose tours of duty are done, completed, fulfilled.

      Yes, technically he's got the right. Technically he also has the right to re-activate the draft and send every one of us over there to man checkpoints, perform house-to-house searches in Ramadi, drive supply trucks through streets mined with IEDs, etc, etc.

      It is an absolute travesty that men like Bush, Cheney, and Rove, all of whom had to take active measures to avoid combat in Vietnam--BUT WHO REFUSED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE WAR AT THE TIME--have lied us into this horrifying Iraq quagmire.

      Invoking "the twins" is an attempt to get through to them in the matter of the human cost of their stunning failure. Yes, it's probably doomed to fail--their elephant hides are too tough, the habits of total self-absorption too entrenched.

       

      •  As ugly as that is (none)
        His daughter did not sign up. Stop-loss doesn't apply to them. And yes, he can start a draft (he can try)--but he hasn't. If one is started and they use tactics like their father did to avoid it, that would be worth a public outcry.

        My feeling for the young people caught in that horror show does not stop at the border of Left and Right. I don't want them to go any more than I want others to go.

        Anything by Loudon Wainwright III

        by Earl on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:15:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh there is a draft alright, it's just not called (none)
           a draft.  It started as a volunteer military but it has become an involuntary military with the use of stop loss, extended and repeat tours, activating National Guard, Reserves and IRR.  When it is time for the soldiers to re-enlist they are often told they will be sent to Iraq under stop loss if they don't re-enlist.  They are told they may as well re-enlist and try to navigate for a unit not deploying to Iraq (fat chance).  So it winds up being a situation of limited choices, re-enlist and get bonus and go to Iraq or don't re-enlist but still going to Iraq under stop loss.  

            The President authorizes the use of stop loss in times of National Emergency and can re-new use of stop loss annually.  The military is bound to the orders of the CIC in using the authorized mechanisms as described.  We learned this painful lesson in the Santiago v Rumsfeld hearning trial.  Santiago completed his contract enlistment, but under stop loss was to deploy out to Afghanistan with his unit.  The trial ruled in favor of the military useage of stop loss explaining the President is the one authorized to declare National Emergency and use of stop loss.

             The word 'draft' is not used, but believe me, retaining the troops through repeat deployments, extended deployments, stop loss is a creative way to keep troops involuntarily and avoid the use of the word draft.

          my blog Dying to Preserve the Lies "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Ghandi

          by dyingwarriors on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:08:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site