Congress Probes Report That Soldiers ‘Medically Unfit For Battle’ Are Being Sent To Iraq
Congress Probes Report That Soldiers ‘Medically Unfit For Battle’ Are Being Sent To Iraq
Salon.com’s Mark Benjamin, who first revealed the squalor at Walter Reed hospital two years ago, this week reported that injured U.S. soldiers are being dispatched back to Iraq:
As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.
Yesterday, House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman Vic Snyder (D-AR) requested an immediate review of this report in a letter to the Government Accountability Office.
Also yesterday, Benjamin appeared on Hardball, one of the few major media outlets to cover the scoop. Benjamin noted that the Army does not dispute the central claim of his report. “When I interviewed the brigade commander here, he is not disputing that he is sending people back to Iraq with some of these problems. What he’s saying is that I’ll put them behind a desk and they’ll be safe,” Benjamin said. “The soldiers frankly just don’t buy it. I mean, they’ve been to Iraq before and there’s just not that many safe places.” Watch it:
Benjamin appeared with Army Sgr. Ronald Jenkins, who was ordered to Iraq despite having spinal fusion surgery that made it extremely difficult for him to wear body armor. Jenkins admitted he was “concerned about reprisal” for speaking out, but said, “this is about taking care of soldiers. And, you know, this is what I’ve done my whole career…and a lot of soldiers, like I said, they can’t speak out.” Jenkins said that since the story was published, he was informed he was no longer being sent to Iraq.
Transcript:
BARNICLE: Mark, briefly, what’s the story?
BENJAMIN: Well, there are two questions that my reporting, I think, uncovered down in Fort Benning. One is, should we be sending injured troops to Iraq, some who are so hurt that they can’t wear their body armor? The second is, if we’re going to make that decision to send people to Iraq — you know, people who can’t wear their body armor — what kind of review — can they, can we just have them walk into a room and take a quick look at them and have a conversation with them and decide that in fact they are fit for duty, or should they have some sort of, you know, serious medical review, exams, x-rays, that kind of thing?
BARNICLE: Sergeant Jenkins, did you have a medical review? You’re not going to Iraq, right?
JENKINS: No, I’ve been informed I’m not going now. I was there in a meeting we had with some of the soldiers from my brigade on 15 February. I was brought in. I sat down with my brigade surgeon and my division surgeon. They welcomed me into the room and he looked at a few things on the screen as far as my military medical records. As far as what they had on the screen — they actually didn’t have my medical records, my medical records were at the military correspondence being copied. He made a statement to the fact that the Army — more than likely, I should have been Rear D, which, Read D is someone who stays in the rear while they deploy. Then he also stated the fact that I could be deployed to a place where I don’t have to wear any gear, and also in the same conversation, he told me that if a mortar round hit, that I wouldn’t have time to grab the kevlar anyway, which, I didn’t really find the humor in that.
BARNICLE: So, sergeant, you are career Army, correct?
JENKINS: Correct. 21 years.
BARNICLE: Twenty-one years in the service. And what’s your medical issue?
JENKINS: My medical issue is I had a spinal surgery where I had a spinal fusion. I had four of my — my c-3 through c-6 vertebrae were removed in the back and I have titanium rods and screws in my neck now, my neck and upper back.
+++
BARNICLE: Sergeant, were you afraid to speak on the record? You spoke on the record to Mark. Were you afraid of any lash back at you?
JENKINS: Well, I’m concerned about reprisal. But, you know, this is something that — this is about taking care of soldiers. And, you know, this is what I’ve done my whole career. And for me to go in there and have this happen to me, and my profile was adjusted and changed and that was not the correct thing to do. So, yeah, I had a big problem with that, and a lot of soldiers, like I said, they can’t speak out. And I’m not saying I’m the advocate for this. Like I said, I was just a guy that was approached. I had a situation that occurred and I spoke out about it. And yeah, yeah, I do have concerns though.
+++
BENJAMIN: And I just wanted to add, the Army is not disputing — when I interviewed the brigade commander here, he is not disputing that he is sending people back to Iraq with some of these problems. What he’s saying is that I’ll put them behind a desk and they’ll be safe. The soldiers frankly just don’t buy it. I mean, they’ve been to Iraq before and there’s just not that many safe places. The only thing that’s under debate is, when the command brought 75 soldiers to the troop medical clinic on February 15, lined them up in a line and brought them into a room — these are people that doctors had previously, in some cases, said, you can’t go to Iraq — and changed that decision, was that okay? That’s the only dispute that remains in this particular story that I’m aware of.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Patrick in substandard body armor in Bagdhad
March 15th, 2007 at 11:26 amI predict that the trolls initially dispute the accuracy of this report, and scramble to change the subject when they get stuffed once again by the truth.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:30 amThere are unexpected problems in every war. Good news, of course, is that the rate of killings of U.S. troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by more than 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:32 amVoila! Today’s “egg on the face” of this administration….another day/another scandal…..and so it will go unless/until they are all removed from office. Horrendous degree of chicanery, irresponsibility, and ineptitude involved in anything these Rethugs touch.
THIS COUNTRY SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE ANOTHER RETHUG IN THE HIGHEST OFFICE EVER AGAIN! Time to purge the GOP and see if there are any with any sense of morality, respect, and honesty left!
Those with these attributes are moving to the top and “outing their party” daily.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:33 amANYONE CARE TO ‘TAKE BETS’ ON WHAT WILL SURFACE TOMORROW TO EMBARASS OR INDICT THIS ADMINISTRATION OF SMOKE & MIRRORS?
March 15th, 2007 at 11:34 amVerbalKint:
I know soldiers who, despite being wounded, volunteer to go back with their unit. Then there are “soldiers” who frag us. There’s a whole spectrum.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:34 am#3 WHICH NUMBERS ARE YOU SPOUTING? THE FICTITIOUS ONES OR THE REAL ONES? AHAHAHAH! TRY AGAIN - BUT THANKS FOR PLAYING!
March 15th, 2007 at 11:35 amBush Regime treats soldiers as cannon fodder, so untill they are dead or too maimed to be of combat use, then they are treated like garbage to be neglected in military or VA hospitals. Bush and Cheney must be impeached.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:35 amComment by VerbalKint — March 15, 2007 @ 11:30 am
agreed. They will attack the “left-wing liberal media” for reporting this, but run from any actual discussion.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:36 amI know soldiers who, despite being wounded, volunteer to go back with their unit. Then there are “soldiers†who frag us. There’s a whole spectrum.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Yes, but if they are too heavily wounded to wear body armor, then their chain-of-command needs to step in and say no.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:37 am#6 And what does that have to do with forcing injured and unfit soldiers back to duty? I missed that part.
#3 “There are unexpected problems in every war.”
March 15th, 2007 at 11:38 amOkay, Don. Stuff happens.
Some “evidence” — a lefty writer’s interpretation of what one military person said.
And to Jake’s point — how many of these injured people are asking to go back and serve?
Shoddy work, TP
March 15th, 2007 at 11:38 amBesides, the only thing that is truly “surging” is the expense of this war! Astronomical national debt we’re putting so cavalierly on the backs of our grandchildren! They’re the ones who will create Bush’s legacy as being “the worst administration ever in the history of this country” and the one “who tanked america”….thanks for burying us in a quagmire of debt to the extent that China owns clearly one-third of this country!
March 15th, 2007 at 11:38 amHey jake - isn’t brainwashing lovely?
March 15th, 2007 at 11:39 amThey will attack the “left-wing liberal media†for reporting this, but run from any actual discussion.
Comment by Chris — March 15, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Just watch Jake as he bobs and weaves his way around the truth the whole way down this thread.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:40 amBesides, the only thing that is truly “surging†is the expense of this war! Astronomical national debt we’re putting so cavalierly on the backs of our grandchildren!
Comment by veritas — March 15, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Osama bin Laden said his primary goal was to bankrupt America. He learned to use that same technique against the Soviets in the ’80’s.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:41 am#12, right on cue as predicted in #2
March 15th, 2007 at 11:41 amAnd to Jake’s point — how many of these injured people are asking to go back and serve?
Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 15, 2007 @ 11:38 am
I have seen both cases. I had a platoon SGT that seriously injured his knee, but did not want to go home. I have also seen injured soldiers returned against their will. It works both ways.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:43 am“Then there are “soldiers†who frag us.” Jake #6
So, are you arguing that any soldier who is too wounded to wear body armor is “fragging” us? And who exactly is “us”? Bush? You? They aren’t “fragging” me. But, then againl I support the troops.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:43 amLame, Jake, lame.
What does “medically unfit for battle” have to do with “unexpected problems”??
Even if soldiers “volunteer” to go back to the front, they shouldn’t be sent there if they are “medically unfit”. The fact that they’ve “volunteered” does not absolve the military of its responsibility.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:43 amJust watch Jake as he bobs and weaves his way around the truth the whole way down this thread.
Comment by VerbalKint — March 15, 2007 @ 11:40 am
I can’t complain. I’ll take Jake over Patrick1 any day.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:44 amveritas (and VerbalKint if you think there’s something wrong with this source):
“Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers
BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) — The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.
Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.
Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.
The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/ Home/ Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365
March 15th, 2007 at 11:46 amThanks, Chris. I agree there are cases all along the spectrum.
P.S. bob (not the hacker) — I meant “frag us” as in their fellow U.S. troops — sorry that was not clear enough for you.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:48 amHaven’t we covered this topic previously?
I seem to recall hacker bob claiming that this wasn’t happening, since he had never seen it firsthand…
March 15th, 2007 at 11:49 amWhy does the Republic Party hate our troops?
March 15th, 2007 at 11:49 am#16 Chris, and this time OBL didn’t need to do much because bull shit bush was helping from with in….Blessings
March 15th, 2007 at 11:50 amGOP support of troops= We don’t want our wounded troop in that hell hole Walter Reed so we fly them back to Iraq so they can be with their friends..
March 15th, 2007 at 11:50 amAh, excuse me, Jake. When are you volunteering to go to Iraqnam to take the place of one of these poor bastards being put again in harms way for a pack of lies? Will you be catching a late afternoon C-5 from Andrews AFB this afternoon?
March 15th, 2007 at 11:51 amthe rate of killings of U.S. troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by more than 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad.
Comment by Jake
And what numbers do you have for the overall killings in Iraq including civilians? Have they gone down. Here’s something to think about. Do you think the rate of US casualties would go down dramatically if they left Iraq? How’s that for a plan.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:51 amJake your simply a liar. To say the number of troops being killed is 60percent less is the stupidest lie I heard! Yesterdays figuers state that the last 3 month have had the highest amount of attacks and injuries scince the war began.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:52 amGet your facts straight before you talk about our heroic men and women. Lies like yours hurt everyone
http://www.kuna.net.kw/ Home/ Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Wonderful, super. I spent 18 months in Iraq, including a year in Baghdad, and it is always good to see drops in violence. Realize, however, that they did not send us over ther to lower the amount of American deaths there. There are still many fundamental problems with the Iraq war in general. I am always happy to see the periodic drops in violence, as I still have many friends over there, but realize too that this is a small part of a much larger picture. As violence drops in one area, it increases in others. We still have not figured out who the enemy is, and without that knowledge, our troops are left in a paralyzing situation.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:52 amYou gotta keep on fighting, even when it hurts. Fight through the pain.
By the way, the Army is full of Republican warriors, not liberal pussies. They can take the pain.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:52 amOnly officers who are gung-ho creeps get fragged. In Vietnam any field officer who forced troops into the jungles, and certain death by VC, got fragged. There is no evidence that fragging is taking place in Iraq yet.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:55 amJake keeps trying to derail the thread from the subject. Why?
He supports Bush even though the Veterans and wounded are being treated like crap by Bushco.
Jake doesn’t really give a DAMN about the troops. That is why he keeps trying to change the subject.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:55 am#
the rate of killings of U.S. troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by more than 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad.
Comment by Jake
And what numbers do you have for the overall killings in Iraq including civilians? Have they gone down. Here’s something to think about. Do you think the rate of US casualties would go down dramatically if they left Iraq? How’s that for a plan.
Comment by dlet — March 15, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Think of the larger picture. A drop in violence is not a sign of success, anymore than an increase in violence is a sign of loss. Our soldiers don’t know who the enemy is, and worse, the mission changes constantly. And, yes, I am speaking from experience.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:56 amYou gotta keep on fighting, even when it hurts. Fight through the pain.
Comment by firehead
Firehead’s morning mantra.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:56 amSo… the Recruit Young Republicans drive has stalled, has it?
My son when into Iraq (after having earlier served in Bosnia) a staunch conservative. He came home from Iraq 1.5 years later a thinking liberal. Fortunately he came home alive and unharmed.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:56 amfirehead > either join up, and go to Iraq to die for Bush, or shut up.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:56 am“Overgrown military establishments are,
March 15th, 2007 at 11:59 amunder any form of government,
inauspicious to liberty,
and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty.”
President George Washington
Farewell address, September 17th, 1796
“There are unexpected problems in every war. Good news, of course, is that the rate of killings of U.S. troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by more than 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 11:32 am”
WRONG!!!! Stop listening to FOX and reading Drudge!!!!
It is only down slightly and it is closer to 35%, not 60%. But the violence has increased in other areas of the country, so big fning deal……..
Have you ever served Jake????? I have, and I can tell you from my training that there is NOTHING that the millitary can do to stop this violence.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:59 amYou gotta keep on fighting, even when it hurts. Fight through the pain.
By the way, the Army is full of Republican warriors, not liberal pussies. They can take the pain.
Comment by firehead
War is not a Jane Fonda workout video, fireant.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:01 pmWatch something else, for f*ck’s sake.
“I know soldiers who, despite being wounded, volunteer to go back with their unit. Then there are “soldiers†who frag us. There’s a whole spectrum.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 11:34 am”
Jake do you know why they want to go back?????
Let me help you out with that…….
When you train and live together, and your life depends on them you want to defend them just the same. It is a bond that ALL service members have. However, some members actually prevent their TRAINING from overcoming them and realize that there is nothing that they can do and rather than die for a WORTHLESS cause they would rather live.
I doubt you would ever know anything about this fact though, am I right? Have you ever served?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:03 pmfirehead at 32: Could you please josh it up with the injured Republican soldiers in question and let them know they can take the pain?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pmMike Hunt:
No thanks, but I’ve done my tour.
dlet:
The death of innocent civilians is an unavoidable tragedy in any war, but we done more than ever before to keep collateral damage to a minimum. I think we would have more 9/11 type attacks if we left Iraq, so no, the rate of U.S. casualties (and even more significant damage than last time to our infrastructure, economy, and way of life) may go UP if we pulled everyone back to the homeland.
mb:
I believe you are referring to “the last 3 months” of the 4th quarter 2006, as released by the Pentagon yesterday. That was BEFORE the surge. We are approaching the end of the first quarter of 2007 (I know that new time change was a bitch, so I will forgive you for calling me a liar).
Chris:
If you have any evidence of increased violenced in other areas, please let us know. Everything I’ve seen reported is that it is down in all areas except suicide vest bombers. That’s great news, but I agree we have a long hard road still ahead (most of the terrorists simply went underground or fled the country).
March 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pmIf all the gung-ho Bush lovers went to Iraq, then America would be a better place with them gone. Those who advocate war must fight in it.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pmIt’s been reported that some troops are on thier fourth tour of duty and more than a few are experiencing post traumatic stress symptoms, left untreated. Is this f*ing administration crazy? Wait a minute… that’s one silly question- OF COURSE, THEY’RE F*ING INSANE!
March 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pmI hope that this U.S. Attorney scandal reaches its’ zenith, soon. This administration and it’s members need to go down, just as they have dragged down this country, it’s way of life and the people who have had thier lives interrupted this past six years.
Jay Randal:
Just before the Iraq War, a black Muslim sergeant fragged and killed fellow soldiers in Kuwait. I don’t know if it has happened since, but I was describing the whole spectrum.
wayne:
I thought I dealt with the thread topic in my very first post. If you have more questions in that regard, by all means post away.
Raven:
George Washington never had to contemplate nuclear holocaust.
RemoveBush:
I have served, and my source was Kuwait News (see link above) not Fox News — are you going to boycott them now too?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:09 pmWhat does “medically unfit for battle†have to do with “unexpected problems�? Comment by Peter
Didn’t you get the memo? Who could have forseen the casualities of the war in Iraq?
/sarc off
March 15th, 2007 at 12:11 pmChris:
If you have any evidence of increased violenced in other areas, please let us know. Everything I’ve seen reported is that it is down in all areas except suicide vest bombers. That’s great news, but I agree we have a long hard road still ahead (most of the terrorists simply went underground or fled the country).
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Violence has increased both in the south and the north, and this has been widely reported. We won the war long ago, we are losing the occupation because there is no defined enemy or mission. We are simply being told we have to leave our soldiers over there forever, or the terrorists will attack us here.
Everyone, I would love to stay and chat, but I have to get back to work. I’ll try to pop back in later when I have a chance.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:14 pm“RemoveBush:
I have served, and my source was Kuwait News (see link above) not Fox News — are you going to boycott them now too?
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 12:09 pm”
You do realize that Kuwait is in the pocket of the US, so that IS NOT a reliable news source? Which still referes to my comment about Drudge….. This is where he proclaimed the same nonsense you are….
I don’t expect you to understand that though, because you still equate no attacks since 9/11 as equaling that the war in Iraq is preventing that. That is the most rediculous comparison that there is……
By the way…… 9/11 was performed, at the least allowed to happen, by our own government. No I am not a “kook”, I am a engineer and I have looked at the evidence and it does not support the governments claim.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pmI thought I dealt with the thread topic in my very first post. If you have more questions in that regard, by all means post away. — Jake
No, you skipped the subject and posted a lie on the “surge”.
Unless you mean you statement “There are unexpected problems in every war. ”
If that is what you mean then you are a sorry piece of elephant dung as well as a liar.
They are sending wounded back into Iraq and all you could say about it was “There are unexpected problems in every war. “. You blow it off like it is nothing and then try to derail the thread.
A$$holes like you are why the troops and veterans are treated like crap. You are excusing the Bush administration, so you are part of the problem.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:20 pmIsn’t it fun when the only person responding to a troll is another troll. One big TROLL CIRCLE JERK>
Remember yesterday Patrick1 said he was 75 and too old to serve. My guess is our trolls are all retirees who already got theirs and don’t care who else has nothing. Having all day to do nothing but count SS and pension checks gives them all day to troll and do the King’s bidding.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:21 pmPerhaps you guys have forgotten what happened on 9/11? Did you know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to planning attacks against the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building and New York Stock Exchange, the Panama Canal and Big Ben and Heathrow Airport in London? He also said he was involved in planning assassination attempts against former Presidents Carter and Clinton, attacks on U.S. nuclear power plants and suspension bridges in New York, the destruction of American and Israeli embassies in Asia and Australia, attacks on American naval vessels and oil tankers around the world, and an attempt to “destroy” an oil company he said was owned by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on Sumatra, Indonesia.
In all, Mohammed said he was responsible for planning 28 attacks and assisting in three others. The comments were included in a 26-page transcript released by the Pentagon, which blacked out some of his remarks. Are you guys aware of ANY of that?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:22 pmRemove Bush sez:
Thank you.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pmAs I said, wayne, if you have more questions in that regard, by all means post away.
P.S. RemoveBush — I agree that the government “allowed” the WTC to fall as soon as they outlawed asbestos, so?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:24 pmShane:
Where did Patrick1 say he was 75 too?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:25 pmAstronomical national debt we’re putting so cavalierly on the backs of our grandchildren!
Comment by veritas — March 15, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Why would Bush care - he and his congress passed all the tax laws so they, the top 1%, pay less taxes and their children and grandchildren won’t have to pay inheritence tax. So when you say our grandchildren you mean OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:25 pmJake, here is the REAL information about the casualties…..
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ articles/ march2007/ 140307drudge.htm
But if you read down into the story — as many Drudge readers surely will not — even the author of this quasi-article admits that it’s bunk — check this out:
The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.
Say what?! The story purports to be about “Iraq.” How crazy was I to think they were talking about the entire country?!
….
The thing is, I work with the casualty numbers three or four nights every week, producing a feature for the Philadelphia Daily News called the Numbers Racket. And I could tell that the figures in this Kuwait article/press release are nowhere even in the ballpark of reality. For that, we look to the indepedent Web site icasualties.org, which is used by many major news orgs and bases alot of its info on Pentagon releases.
This is the table of all the deaths. First, the one piece of good news. Overall deaths did drop during the period addressed by the article. But the grim news is that the totals are much, much higher than suggested in this story, that tens of thousands of Drudge readers are relying upon for talking points.
The number of American troops killed from Feb. 14 through March 13 is 73, not 17, or more than four times higher. In the prior month, from Jan. 14 through Feb. 13, which was a remarkably bloody period, 116 American troops died. So the tally did drop overall, and that’s great news, by it was 37 percent, not nearly the 60 percent as the story reports. And the decline in deaths per day is even less — because, as the article also fails to note, February only has 28 days.
Here’s what I find most significant. The U.S. death rate for the 28-day period in question is 2.61 deaths a day. The daily American death rate since the war began four years ago is 2.37 deaths a day — so even now, Americans are still dying now in Iraq at a higher-than-average rate for this conflict.
Is anyone really happy with that? As we’ve argued on this site almost every day since we started it, even 1 American death is one too many in an unnecessary and useless war, based on lies from the start. And now the proponents of more war continue to lie in a desperate effort to keep it going.
This whole Drudge caper needs to be looked into. What is the role of Kuwait and the military command in Baghdad, seemingly in concert with Matt Drudge, in spreading this disinformation? This has all the earmarks of deliberate psy-ops to influence the American political debate, which is not only illegal but also unconscionable.
If Matt Drudge really rules their world, it’s time for a revolution.
UPDATED: Also this afternoon, the AP — which has more credibility than the Kuwait News Agency — published a positive article on a different aspect of the situation in Iraq — a decline in the number of bombings and executions in Baghdad. That’s real data that should be weighed as we determine our future policy in Iraq.
That also doesn’t change the journalistic fraud carried out today by Drudge — using completely incorrect data from a government news agency to paint a rosier picture of American troop fatalities than what is really occuring. Would you defend, for example, a prominently promoted news article that said 9/11 was horrible — 700 people died? I don’t think so. This is a serious debate that needs accurate data.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:25 pmJakers, unless you have served, “soldiers†who frag us” is not an approriate metaphor.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:25 pmPlease go Cheney yourself.
Oops, Jakers, just saw your post that you have served.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:27 pmNever mind… Except, were you an officer? or Enlisted?
Even if soldiers “volunteer†to go back to the front, they shouldn’t be sent there if they are “medically unfitâ€. The fact that they’ve “volunteered†does not absolve the military of its responsibility.
Comment by Peter — March 15, 2007 @ 11:43 am
During WWII my father was not allowed to serve because they felt he was unfit because of minor issues. But I guess that wasn’t a real war this one is.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:28 pmAs I said, wayne, if you have more questions in that regard, by all means post away.
Comment by Jake
I did, thanks for confirming that you are avaiding the real subject of the thread.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pmThanks for confirming you do not give a damn about this war’s wounded not any veteran
Now we know…..
http://www.kuna.net.kw/ Home/ Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 11:46 am
People Jake is sending us to a Kuwaiti Newspaper link for his figures on decreasing casualties. I am going Trollfree today so could somebody ask him if he translated and why we should believe he did and his figures are accurate.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:32 pmRemoveBush:
So, you are an engineer AND a newspaper reporter?!
RUCerious:
Enlisted - you?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:33 pm“RemoveBush:
So, you are an engineer AND a newspaper reporter?!
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 12:33 pm”
What in the world does my proving that your information is INCORRECT have to do with whether or not I am a “newspaper reporter”????
March 15th, 2007 at 12:36 pmAs someone who has had two spinal fusions, I can assure you that there is no way in hell anyone who’s had such a spinal fusion should be allowed into combat.
Now, if they can get a desk or Public Affairs job, fine.
But considering the maximum amount one is supposed to lift after such a surgery is 25 pounds — lest one of the screws come lose, bend, or outright snap — I don’t see how anyone with a soul could allow a fusion patient to serve in an active fighting role.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:38 pmupside00:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to disagree. Here are some “Repug talking points” for that, whether you think they are good or not:
“In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment . . . The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq . . . The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2003/ 05/ 20030501-15.html
March 15th, 2007 at 12:38 pmwayne:
You asked ME a question?
shane:
The link I provided was in ENGLISH. Does someone have to translate that for you? I am looking into the claim that the article used low stats right now.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:41 pmYou gotta keep on fighting, even when it hurts. Fight through the pain.
By the way, the Army is full of Republican warriors, not liberal pussies. They can take the pain.
Comment by firehead — March 15, 2007 @ 11:52 am
People - so firehead is sitting at his desk thumping his chest and taking credit for the bravery of our soldiers because he is a Republican.
Still trollfree and proud.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pmNo thanks, but I’ve done my tour. Jake
I did mine in Vietnam, which was just as big of a clusterf@ck as this one is… but we may have had more adult supervision. And they also allowed caskets of returning fallen soldiers to be viewed and respected, not treated like so much worn out equipment like now. And members of Congress and the Administration actually attended funerals.
But this bunch of NeoCon Chickenhawk draft-dodgers only care about power and money.
And why are we still spilling blood in Iraq when our real enemies have ALWAYS been in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
And what about the lack of caring about the soldiers that do survive when they return?
Why aren’t the Repugs giving you any talking points for these issues?
Inquiring minds want to know!!
March 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pmRemoveBush:
I’m just trying to keep all your careers in check (so I don’t confuse you with someone who is 75 years old ; )
March 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pmupside00:
Perhaps the “Repugs” aren’t giving me any talking points for these issues because I am registered Independent?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pm#64 Acting Jack upon graduation from the Kirchgoens 3rd Armored Div NCO academy.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pmJake:
My initial post was deleted and I resubmitted but to answer your points: Why do the talking points always go to the deocracy building when there NEVER were WMDs, and Iraq was NEVER an Al-Qaeda ally… until we invaded? Seems there is very selective memory here.
And do you REALLY believe those points from 2005? WOW!!! You are truly in the minority on that one!!
March 15th, 2007 at 12:47 pm#71- Or, a registered Independent?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:49 pmRepub/Independent: A neo-fascist by any other name, would be the same.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:56 pmupside00:
Iraq is just one front in a multi-front war on terrorism. You do realize that FDR invaded AFRICA after Pearl Harbor, right? Do you think FDR “allowed” Pearl Harbor to happen?
As to whether I “believe” those talking points, I believe Bush was sincere about the points he made (at that time, we were still looking for the WMD every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had — Saddam was supporting OTHER terrorists, if not al Qaeda — and all bets would have been off had he acquired nukes).
R:
Is that a question?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pmFrom the article above:
a unit of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.
And Jake excuses it with “There are unexpected problems in every war.”
I suggest we ignore this crap troll, and do not let him hijack any more threads.
including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle.
My God, stop loss has gotten so bad they have to send those who are deemed medically unfit? This is not right.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThere is nothing any troll here can say that will make it right.
We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
Nothing wrong with this, other than the acknowledged fact that Saddam was never an Al Qaeda ally, far from it. And the last sentence is so loaded with irony that it’s almost funny: the terrorists gained huge quantities of weapons of all sorts from the Iraqi regime because the regime is no more. Happily for the terrorists, the invading US forces didn’t bother to secure all those ammo dumps, giving insurgents and foreign terrorists ample access to them.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:00 pmI don’t know what our liar propagandist friend Jake is referring to when he claims that U.S. troop deaths are down 60%. He pulled this number right out of his a**. They aren’t down at all. 39 so far this month actually slightly exceeds the long term average.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pmThanks for the clarification, R.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:05 pmVerbalKint:
I posted the link above.
gummitch:
FDR and Truman made mistakes during WWII — Lincoln even more during the Civil War — we still won those.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:08 pmI am going Trollfree today….
Comment by shane
Heh. Frickin’ hilarious…
Great idea though. I’ve already responded to a couple trolls, but I know I can go troll-free anytime……I’m just not sure I want to…..
March 15th, 2007 at 1:14 pmI’ll quit tomorrow. :-D
FDR and Truman made mistakes during WWII — Lincoln even more during the Civil War — we still won those.
Comment by Jake
Sending wounded troops back to a battlezone if not a “mistake” a$$hat, it is a travesty.
That you support it shows exactly what kind of scum you are and proves beyond a doubt that you truely do not support the troops.
As a veteran, with family serving in Iraq as well as family home now wounded in Iraq, I can confirm from your posts that you do not care about the brave men and women serving at all.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:16 pmFDR and Truman made mistakes during WWII — Lincoln even more during the Civil War — we still won those.
Comment by Jake
No f*cking way. You simply cannot be comparing the f*ck up that is George W. Bush and his vanity war, to FDR, Truman and Lincoln.
This war was lost on March 19, 2003. There is no chance of winning this war. WAKE THE F*CK UP!
March 15th, 2007 at 1:18 pmSorry Shane, I know I can do it…..
March 15th, 2007 at 1:18 pmFDR and Truman made mistakes during WWII — Lincoln even more during the Civil War — we still won those.
Comment by Jake
It appears that you’re admitting that the “talking points” you yourself quoted were mistakes (e.g. Al Qaeda was a Saddam ally). That’s progress.
The reality, though, is that if Bush and Cheney had been running the show in the 1940s or the 1860s, there is no evidence at all to suggest that we would have won either war. And, if you read any history at all, you’ll note that all of those Presidents required real sacrifice from the American people in order to pull a victory off. They weren’t busily giving away the store to their business friends while at the same time sending young men off to die.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:21 pmFDR and Truman made mistakes during WWII — Lincoln even more during the Civil War — we still won those.
Comment by Jake
Perhaps in no small part because the “enemy” in each case was a group of states, instead of an abstraction.
I doubt we’ll win the “war on terror” any more than we won the “war on drugs”.
And Bush is sure as HELL no FDR.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:24 pmComment by Zooey — March 15, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Zooey - I read so much stupid troll shit yesterday that last night I couldn’t count my toes.
Trolleeze kills brain cells just like Fox News.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:30 pmwayne:
Generals under Lincoln, FDR, Truman all sending wounded troops back into battle — war is hell — which is why we need to win this one as quickly as possible.
Zooey:
I am awake, and I indeed made that comparison. THAT just happened! In fact, if you want to discuss further, there were BIGGER mistakes in both WWII and the Civil War that cost the lives of more troops than Bush’s “vanity” war.
gummitch:
Do Bush and Cheney get to take our current nuclear arsenal in the time machine? Back in reality, isn’t it great that America is strong we DON’T have to resort to rations / converting our factories to fight wars anymore?
March 15th, 2007 at 1:31 pmJ-rock:
In certain respects, Bush is BETTER than Franklin Roosevelt.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:31 pm#87 - J-rock
Thanks for always saying things the way I wish I’d said them. :}
Cooler heads prevail….
March 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pmGenerals under Lincoln, FDR, Truman all sending wounded troops back into battle
– jake the snake
Prove it, with a verifiable, reputable historical source.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:35 pm#89 - Jake
Frankly, I’m done with your bloodthirsty, water-carrying, BushCo butt-kissing, assholierthanthou attitude.
Get back under your bridge.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:35 pmOnly 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13,
This is what your precious link says, Jake, and it is totally false. 67 U.S. soldiers were killed during that time period, a rate of 2.4 per day, which happens to equal the long term average.
So shut up, liar.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:37 pmAs I wondered a few moments why some resist the evidence of the sham nature of this “war” (invasion/occupation), this occurred to me:
“Jesus said, ‘I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.’ Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, ‘Surely we are not blind, are we?’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say “We see,” your sin remains.’” John 9:39-41
BTW, as a public service to my fellow progressives looking to put a damper on hypocrisy, the scripture reads as follows (in the KJV, which has a nice style here): “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7)
March 15th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWow, Jake, you really shot your credibility (or what little was left of it) with that disinformation planted by your source, the Kuwait News Agency (those guys wouldn’t be biased, would they?). The story plainly states 17 killed when it is 67.
Loser.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:43 pmI see that Jake conveniently slithered away from this thread when his lie was uncovered.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:49 pmIn certain respects, Bush is BETTER than Franklin Roosevelt.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
BAHAHAHA, that’s FUNNY!!!!!!
Maybe a better *cheerleader*, but in no way is he a better *leader*!!!
You’re an idiot!
Thanks for also pointing out that your *source* is Drudge and the Kuwaiti news that *conveniently* left out the casualty figures for *much* of Iraq in predicting casualty numbers. It just shows to the world what a naive and st*pid old senile fool you are!
Hey Jake, piece of advice for an *old-timer* like yourself! Not everthing you read on these *tubes* IS REAL! Especially crappolla that comes from any site tide to the GOP!
If you choose to accept this advice, you might stop looking like a gullible and dottering old fool!
March 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pmIraq is just one front in a multi-front war on terrorism. You do realize that FDR invaded AFRICA after Pearl Harbor, right? Do you think FDR “allowed†Pearl Harbor to happen? Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
You rehashing that same sh*t you posted and I destroyed yesterday? Do you have a case of the alzheimers old timer - you don’t remember me wiping your frail old *ss all over the floor with this?
We didn’t invade AFRICA, we invaded AXIS TERRITORY, controlled specifically by GERMANY - a TREATY BOUND ALLY OF THE COUNTRY THAT BOMBED US.
Us attacking Iraq would have been equivalent of us attacking Argentina or India.
You’re a crazy st*pid old lunatic.
As to whether I “believe†those talking points, I believe Bush was sincere about the points he made (at that time, we were still looking for the WMD every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had — Saddam was supporting OTHER terrorists, if not al Qaeda — and all bets would have been off had he acquired nukes). Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Ah, now we get to the crux of this. The OTHER terrorists. You sound like you’re so st*pid you might be valiant venus’ grandpa! She kept *whining* about Saddam sending condolence money to the surviving families of Palestinians. Is that what this is about for you? Israel?
Because if it is, you’re an id*ot - because Israelis think this entire Iraq thing was a foolish idea, and that we’ve made them less safe!
As for the claims that the majority of the world thought he had WMDs, wonder what country was supply THAT misinformation! The ones that had their own intelligence disagreed - or do you forget France in particular saying we’re full of sh*t at the UN!
So how does it make you feel, to know that the French Intelligence Agency makes *you* look like a fool!
R: Is that a question? Comment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Are you capable of answering one, without a st*pid talking point from drudge?
Or has your brain worn out at your age, so all you can do is repeat st*pit sh*t day in and day out that’s been debunked months ago.
All of the sh*t you post may be new or accepting in the realm of dum basses you call friends. But here, you’re nothing more but an ignorant fool posting the same tired old talking points.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:09 pmThe political system is just incredibly rigged in favor of the Republicans. And yet they still lost.
One has only to imagine if any one of these festering atrocities had occurred under a Democratic President. It would be all over for him or her.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:14 pmwayne:
Civil War — Alexander Mack, during successful attacks against Fort Morgan, rebel gunboats and the Tennessee in Mobile Bay, on August 5, 1864 — even though wounded and sent below for treatment, Mack immediately returned to his post and took charge of his gun and, as heavy enemy return fire continued to fall, performed his duties with skill and courage until he was again wounded and totally disabled. Read more here: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohciv2.htm
WWII — Charles L. Thomas, on December 14, 1944, near Climbach, France — while riding in the lead vehicle, Thomas’s armored scout car was subjected to intense enemy artillery, self-propelled gun, and small arms fire. Although wounded by the initial burst of hostile fire, Lieutenant Thomas signaled the remainder of the column to halt and, despite the severity of his wounds, assisted the crew of the wrecked car in dismounting. Upon leaving the scant protection which the vehicle afforded, Lieutenant Thomas was again subjected to a hail of enemy fire which inflicted multiple gunshot wounds in his chest, legs, and left arm. Despite the intense pain caused by these wounds, Lieutenant Thomas ordered and directed the dispersion and emplacement of two antitank guns which in a few moments were promptly and effectively returning the enemy fire. Read more here: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohb.htm
Korea — Tony Burris, on October 9, 1951, was wounded by machine gun fire but continued his assault, reaching the crest of the ridge ahead of his unit and sustaining a second wound. Calling for a 57mm. recoilless rifle team, he deliberately exposed himself to draw hostile fire and reveal the enemy position. Burris, refusing evacuation and submitting only to emergency treatment, rejoined the unit in its attack eventually throwing his last grenade which destroyed this position, when he fell mortally wounded by enemy fire. Read more here: http://www.usa-patriotism.com/heroes/moh/kw_a-d.htm
VerbalKint and by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
As I stated, I am looking into the allegation that the news source underreported casualty rates. I’ll let you know what I find on that. As for destroying my ass yesterday, that didn’t happened so how could I “remember” it — Alzheimers or not — I’ve answered every question you fools have asked. Let me know if you have any others.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:35 pmComment by Jake — March 15, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Since you address this post to wayne, it would seem that you’re responding to his post #93.
The trouble with your lengthy cut-n-paste response, while it does detail the incredibly heroic efforts of a few soldiers, falls far short of answering his question. Let’s look at wayne’s post #93 again, shall we?
None of the examples you cited involve anyone sending wounded troops back into battle. They all involve troops that continue to fight on during the battle in which they sustained wounds.
Jake, this is weak, even by your standards.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:48 pmJeebus crispy. You’re seriously suggesting that the fact that soldiers in combat have continued to fight after being injured is proof that disabled soldiers should be sent back into combat or into a war zone?
Twit.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:54 pmI seem to recall hacker bob claiming that this wasn’t happening, since he had never seen it firsthand…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — March 15, 2007 @ 11:49 am
I never said it wasn’t happening, I just said that I had never seen it. So please show me where I said it wasn’t happening.
I also spelled out a form of redress that the soldiers have that they seem to not have taken advantage of.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:00 pmMe thinks the Jakester is beginning to unravel at the edges. Let’s hope he doesn’t have to go to the VA for help, could get even worse!
March 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pmhacker bob sez:
Here you go.
Honestly, bob, did you think I wouldn’t be able to back up my statement?
March 15th, 2007 at 3:18 pmTMM,
Where did I say that it is not happening. From what you linked:
There is a big difference between “it’s not happening” and I have never seen it happen”.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:23 pmhacker bob sez:
bob, I’m not going to let you cherry-pick your own post. Sorry.
Your own words:
This statement, coupled with your outright rejection of said accounts, makes the statement quite eloquently, your denials notwithstanding.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:37 pmActually, wayne @ 1:16 pm claimed that “Sending wounded troops back to a battlezone is not a ‘mistake’ a$$hat, it is a travesty. That you support it shows exactly what kind of scum you are and proves beyond a doubt that you truely do not support the troops.” I disagreed with that assessment, and pointed out that same “mistake” has happened in every war. Unless you are saying that every wounded soldier who has gone back into battle did so in violated of direct orders, I think I proved my point just fine. As I said before, I’ve answered every question you have asked. Let me know if you have any others.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — March 15, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
The above talks about weapons and body armor, not injuried troops being sent into combat.
Also, if you read a little further down the thread, Chris posted a story about his experiance in Iraq and seeing NG troops without armor. I told him that, because of his first hand account, I would have to re-think my position.
I have been to Iraq twice. Fact
Everyone I saw had a weapon and body armor. Fact
I want to see and actual account of someone that didn’t. If one can not be provided, then one does not exist, right?
Read Chris’s experiance and my reply to it.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:46 pm“Yes…You will be safe at a desk job in Iraq…” “Did I mention that that desk is located outside the Green Zone of the Emerald City?” “You’re not in OZ or Kansas anymore, Toto!” FAMOUS LAST WORDS AS A HUGE BOMB BLEW THE POOR SOLDIER TO SMITHEREENS!!!!! NOW THAT’S WHAT I CALL “COMPASSIONATE CON-servative”–CONNING THE POOR SOLDIERS TO RESUME THEIR BECOMING CANNON FODDER FOR THE GREED AND MENDACITY OF CHIMPya and Bushland Uber Allies!!!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 3:53 pmJake sez:
No, Jake, you didn’t. Again, every example you cited was that of a wounded soldier continuing to fight on of his own initiative. Nowhere in any of your examples does it say that the wounded soldier was ordered to continue to fight, or was ordered back into battle. Your attempt to twist the tales of these heroes to your own sordid ends is physically sickening, and has forced me to revise my opinion of you down yet again. I didn’t think you could sink any lower, but there it is.
(BTW, it’s absolutely charming how you put “mistakes” in quotes….perhaps, on some subconscious level, even you can’t stomach your vile lies. ^_^)
Nice attempt to move the goalposts, jake. Too bad I’m not falling for it.
There’s a significant difference between ordering a wounded man to fight and not ordering a wounded man not to fight. The difference lies in the soldier’s personal initiative. To rephrase it a bit more simply (in deference to you, Jake), there is a big difference between a wound man volunteering to fight, and a wounded man being ordered to fight. The first is heroism, the second is depraved indifference. I honestly don’t know how I can make it any clearer to you, but odds are good you either know full well what the difference is, or you are so impaired you’ll never understand. As you can see, we’re back to poisonous disingenuousness vs. terminal stupidity. Which is it?
March 15th, 2007 at 3:58 pmIt’s neither, TripMaster Monkey. Look, I agree there’s a difference between ordering a wounded man to fight and not ordering a wounded man not to fight. This thread, however, is about “Congress Probes Report That Soldiers ‘Medically Unfit For Battle’ Are Being Sent To Iraq” — are you seriously saying that no one who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle have ever fought in battle? That was my main point above.
Of course I want every wounded soldier to get the best medical treatment available — and I think it is undisputed that they are which is why we are even facing this question in the first place — it is just unrealistic to suddenly declare, for this war only because we hate the current occupant in the White House, no one who is wounded can fight anymore. Oh, and BTW if you haven’t had a vacation in a year or by-the-book training (when did that happen in WWII?) those troops can’t go to Iraq either. I mean, I want our boys properly equiped as much as the next guy, but at least admit that you are throwing up all these technicalities just so you can stop the war. Wouldn’t it be better to just defund the whole thing if that is your goal?
March 15th, 2007 at 4:43 pmHere’s that first question again:
Are you seriously saying that no one (who a doctor has said is medically unfit for battle) has ever fought in battle?
If I read your post correctly, you are saying plenty have VOLUNTARILY done so. My position is that plenty have been ordered to do so as well.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:59 pmRemember Patton’s infamous slapping incident?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:01 pm…but that’s not “undermining” - - HA!!
March 15th, 2007 at 5:05 pmOf course I want every wounded soldier to get the best medical treatment available — and I think it is undisputed that they are which is why we are even facing this question in the first place — it is just unrealistic to suddenly declare, for this war only because we hate the current occupant in the White House, no one who is wounded can fight anymore.
What part of “unfit for duty” is too complicated for you to understand? No one has suggested that a soldier or Marine that has been wounded can never be redeployed. The point, which seems remarkably simple to understand for most people, is that you simply do not do this until the person is “fit for duty.”
The only reason this even comes up is that the Administration has so badly botched this entire conflict that they do not have the necessary healthy resources to continue.
Your implication that people are opposed to the Iraqi occupation because we “hate” Bush is asinine. I might just as easily suggest that you only support it because you’re a big fan of the man.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:43 pmWhat’s that son? You had both arms and both legs blown off by an IED/ That’s fine boy, now take this rifle and get back in there. Atta boy.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:09 pmfirehead(dickhead) says You got to keep fighting, even when it hurts. Fight through the pain. So dickhead, when are you enlisting?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pmJake sez:
Well, at least we’ve managed to accomplish that…
I’m curious…in what way do you feel that that’s substantively different from “Congress Probes Report That Wounded Soldiers Are Being Ordered To Fight”? In other words, where’s the part where you disagree with me?
No, I never said that. You really ought to lay off the straw men.
Interesting. If that was your main point, it’s unfortunate that you didn’t even try to support it with argument. Look back to post #112 to see why you fall short.
I could go on and on here, but I think gummich summed it up quite concisely when he asked you, “What part of “unfit for duty†is too complicated for you to understand?”
I know you’d like to link all the ills of the world to the Dems’ irrational, foamy-mouthed hatred of Chimpy, but reality just doesn’t work that way. Sorry.
That’s not the topic of discussion here, and you know it. You’re gonna break those goalposts if you keep moving them like that.
You’re judging us by your own detestable moral standards. We don’t use our soldiers as chits in political arguments. And we don’t regard injuries that render soldiers medically unfit for duty as “technicalities”.
And look…my opinion of you has fallen even further. I guess there’s just no limit to how low you’ll sink.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:35 pmLIFE SUCKS !
March 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pmJake-if he is a veteran-proves the wise saying by Yoda: ‘Wars do not make one great.’
March 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pm