Lute: War Debate Does Not Undercut Troop Morale
Lute: War Debate Does Not Undercut Troop Morale
Iraq war supporters have repeatedly claimed that U.S. troops are harmed when Congress debates alternatives to the Bush administration’s failed policies in Iraq. “Think about the message we have sent them,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said recently. “We have undermined their efforts, lowered their morale, and clearly sent the wrong message.” Vice President Cheney said the war debate was “detrimental to our troops.”
Today, however, Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, President Bush’s proposed “war czar,” disregarded these claims.
“I don’t believe it undercuts their morale,” Lute told the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing. U.S. soldiers “understand the democratic process,” he said, “and, in fact, that’s what we’ve sworn to protect and defend.”
Watch it:
Lute is by no means alone in disagreeing with the administration’s rhetoric. In testimony before the House Armed services committee both Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace and Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed arguments similar to Lute’s:
Pace: As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported.
Gates: I think they’re [the troops are] sophisticated enough to understand that that’s what the debate’s really about.
Those who claim to be defending the morale of U.S. troops are really just using them to deflect substantive criticism of their own policies. Very courageous.
Transcript:
LEVIN: Do you believe, General, that the debate that we’ve had in the Congress on amendments that call for troop reductions starting at a certain point or — that those debates undermine the troops?
LUTE: Senator, I know of no evidence of that.
I believe the sort of people that are serving in American armed forces today understand the democratic process. And, in fact, that’s what we’ve sworn to protect and defend.
And when they see it play out here in Washington, they understand that. And they’re driving on with the mission they were given.
LEVIN: So is it your answer, then, you do not believe that…
LUTE: I don’t believe it undercuts their morale.
LEVIN: Thank you.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good for Lute, but he should never have accepted Bush’s war stooge job.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:30 pmOf course he said this, he wants to get confirmed. Once in place he will be just another drone.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:30 pmUndo Clinton-era terrorism!
June 7th, 2007 at 1:31 pmU.S. soldiers “understand the democratic process,†he said, “and, in fact, that’s what we’ve sworn to protect and defend.â€
Yes, but Republicans have to pretend that this process soldiers have sworn to defend is “undermining the troops.”
That way, Republicans can walk away from a debate they can’t handle.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:31 pm.
If soldiers are constantly hearing how they are not making progress and there is no chance to win, how could it not effect their morale?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:32 pmWhy does Lute hate Republican fear-mongers?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:32 pmThank you, General Lute.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:33 pm“I don’t believe it undercuts their morale,†Lute told the Senate Armed Services Committee during his conformation hearing. U.S. soldiers “understand the democratic process,†he said, “and, in fact, that’s what we’ve sworn to protect and defend.â€
amen!
Gates: I think they’re [the troops are] sophisticated enough to understand that that’s what the debate’s really about.
amen again!
do we think the troops are all sitting around over there watching C-Span and shaking their heads in disgust?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:33 pmTroops in Iraq are harmed because they’re sent to wage wars on countries that never invaded or attacked this country.
They’re used as an imperial force, and not a defensive force.
The time for this to end is now. Not next year, not next fall. Now.
Some further reading on this:
June 7th, 2007 at 1:33 pme
“Revealed: Why Your Sons and Daughters Died in Iraq”
http://www.populistamerica.com/revaled_why_your_sons_and_daughters_died_in_iraq
And he calls himself a czar? He needs a refresher course on Russian history.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:34 pmCould it be that the generals are starting to tell the truth and not just what BubbleBoy wants them to say?
Only time will tell.
IGNORE THE TROLLS – Debate is good -Trolling is Bad
June 7th, 2007 at 1:37 pmHmmmm… imagine that…
the people who never wore the uniform think it undercuts morale
the people who wear the uniform think that it doesn’t cundercut morale at all….
who to believe
June 7th, 2007 at 1:44 pmwho to believe
Don’t cha’ think the soldiers know what’s going on? Do you think they’re seeing progress? Do you think they understand their “mission”? Do you think there is a “mission”?
How about this: Our mission is to defend this area while highly-paid contractors half-assed build a Public Library that is not connected to the infrastructure of the surrounding community, because there is no infrastructure in the surrounding community. And, once we get the library “finished” – just exactly as long as it takes to get a good photo – we abandon the site, and it is picked to pieces by the local populace, who have been reduced to cave man status by the civil war raging around them.
Do you think our soldiers are stupid?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:48 pmYet another right wing talking point fizzles away.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pmDo you think our soldiers are stupid?
Comment by smafdy
No. Just our politicians.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:52 pmIf soldiers are constantly hearing how they are not making progress and there is no chance to win, how could it not effect their morale?
Comment by timmy — June 7, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Exactly, Timmeh. Because the troops are children, just like you, and they get their feelings bruised awfully easily, just like you. Poor widdle soldiers. Those mean liberals should think about what they say and not try to get the troops home, so that they will feel better about themselves, right?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:55 pmThe simple-minded, single-mindedness of the Bush Administration whose intention is purely “division” (as in Napoleon’s rule: Divide and Conquer mentality) is appallingly bigoted, divisive, and destructive. Of course, anyone who doesn’t parrot the Bush “party line” must be siding with evil in his “war between good and evil” where there exists no middle ground or gray area. It’s this type of mentality which allowed Hitler’s heinous reign of terror – where those who disagreed were branded as “enemy sympathizers” and punished for their voice of disapproval. Bush’s energy is Hitler’s energy compounded exponentially and many leaders have alluded to the exact comparison.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:58 pmThe tactics of the unitary executive where the voice of the people is not only NOT openly solicited but also totally ignored is the very same mentality of a dictator. And we have the nerve to call ourselves a viable democracy? That moniker is so far out in left field that it’s becoming comically pathetic.
TP’ers…..Timmy is Jake is our resident troll…..many monikers for one sick schizophrenic sociopath. Don’t waste your precious time attempting to reason with this sicko.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pmIf soldiers are constantly hearing how they are not making progress and there is no chance to win, how could it not effect their morale?
Comment by timmy
No, soldiers on the ground, like my son, see what is happening first hand.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pmknow what really hurts troop morale?
Insufficient body armor and lack of armored vehicles. 15 month deployments and cutting short time home from the promised 12 months. Deploying wounded. Censoring their internet access. Censoring their right to free speech. Deplorable conditions for wounded vets. And so on.
Of course it doesn’t. I would be willing to bet what hurt the morale of the troops was when they learned that the Democrats had caved to Bush and had signed a blank check that will keep them there in Iraq from now to kingdom come.
It’s too bad someone can’t take an honest poll of how the troops feel. By “honest” I mean that the troops wouldn’t fear answering truthfully. You saw what the one soldier said about being honest with LIEberman. He said he was afraid if he spoke up he would be demoted. I suspect he said that because he has seen it happen. Anyway, if there was some way to take an honest poll of the troops, I would bet the farm that a very large majority of them think that there is no way they are going to “win” the occupation and that they all want to come home ASAP.
There is no way you can ever win an “occupation”. Any country is going to want to fight the people occupying their country. We would fight anyone who wanted to occupy our country. So why is it wrong for the Iraqi’s to fight us because we are not only occupying their country, we are also trying to steal their oil. Their oil is their man source of income. If we steal 70% of their oil profits, they will have precious little left to rebuild their country.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:03 pmDamn straight, Wayne. Thank you!
June 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pmI never got the idea of how free, open debate hurts the troops. These people go into combat, often with insufficient body armour…and we’re supposed to believe that they turn into a bunch of weak-kneed crybabies every time somebody suggest they should come home?
It defies reason; it’s inane; and it’s incredibly insulting to people (mostly kids!) who have put their lives on the line.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pmExactly, Timmeh. Because the troops are children, just like you, and they get their feelings bruised awfully easily, just like you. Poor widdle soldiers. Those mean liberals should think about what they say and not try to get the troops home, so that they will feel better about themselves, right?
Comment by spit take
You don’t think it weighs on them and their family to hear that what they are doing over there is a waste of time and should never have been sent? How couldn’t it? I didn’t say that liberals should not stand up for what they believe and try and get them home if they think it is the right idea, but to say that it is an illegal war and there is no chance of victory does weigh on the soldiers.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pmNo, soldiers on the ground, like my son, see what is happening first hand.
know what really hurts troop morale?
Insufficient body armor and lack of armored vehicles. 15 month deployments and cutting short time home from the promised 12 months. Deploying wounded. Censoring their internet access. Censoring their right to free speech. Deplorable conditions for wounded vets. And so on.
Comment by Wayne
I agree all those things hurt morale of the troops as well.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pmTP’ers…..Timmy is Jake is our resident troll…..many monikers for one sick schizophrenic sociopath. Don’t waste your precious time attempting to reason with this sicko.
Comment by veritas
I have never posted here with another name.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pmBut the Bush Crime Cabal has very definitely in 6.5 years shot down the Morale of the American People.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pmThere is no way you can ever win an “occupationâ€. Any country is going to want to fight the people occupying their country.
A blogger put it this way once. Imagine if a foreign country came here to help us out and then proceeded to build huge permanent military bases and the worlds largest embassy.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:13 pmWhy does General Lute hate our toops? When can we expect the Swift Boat liars to attack? Has Sean Hannity brought out the ghostbuster slime guns yet? More at 11
June 7th, 2007 at 2:14 pmIf anything, I would think that the discussion of the “war ” would offer hope and encouragement to our servicemen and women, that they are not being sent blindly down a path to death and destruction….
er, well…offer some hope, anyways, that they can make it back up the trail away from the obvious death and destruction…..
June 7th, 2007 at 2:15 pm“You don’t think it weighs on them and their family to hear that what they are doing over there is a waste of time and should never have been sent?”
And you don’t think these soldiers know what they do is a waste of time without being told? How condescending of you.
“How couldn’t it? I didn’t say that liberals should not stand up for what they believe and try and get them home if they think it is the right idea, but to say that it is an illegal war and there is no chance of victory does weigh on the soldiers.”
As much as being stuck in an untenable situation? You don’t speak for the soldiers, so quit putting forth only half the equation. The soldiers know who supports them, and who is willing to see them go into combat without proper protection. Which are you?
June 7th, 2007 at 2:22 pmbut to say that it is an illegal war and there is no chance of victory does weigh on the soldiers.
Comment by timmy
Even if it’s true?
June 7th, 2007 at 2:27 pmYou don’t think it weighs on them and their family to hear that what they are doing over there is a waste of time and should never have been sent?
Comment by timmy — June 7, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
General Lute says it doesn’t.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pmIt is sad. The Bush team has wrapped itself in every cherished American belief that it could in order to escape close scrutiny of its Iraqi war performance.
The Bush team rarely talks about its performance and to the casual observer the reason is obvious. And if the Bush team was “managing” its own resources only it would care about the quality of its management. But the Bush team is “managing” much more. How well?
Secrecy is a big tool in the Bush team’s management portfolio. If it puzzles you as to how a rational mind could rip apart a governing body and leave the people who were governed “stranded”, welcome to the Bush team’s secrecy. They’ll never tell. So, who will tell?
Perhaps Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s book will tell, if the British Government allows him to publish it. Would the British government want to stop the publication of a book? Is that somewhat out of character for a “Western Government”?
Remember Sir Jeremy Greenstock was there when it happened. He saw the conquering heros march into Baghdad. He saw the fall of the Hussein regime. He is like an eyewitness.
So, what is it about the fall of Iraq(done by the American and the British) that somebody might not want this Diplomat and eyewitness to talk about?
Could the reason to desire secrecy be the transition from the Saddam regime was a transition into chaos. It looks like the Motherland’s eyewitness, Sir Jeremy, is not being encouraged to describe what he saw. It is unlikely that “sibling land # 1″ would disagree with the Motherland’s handling of the publishing of Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s book. And Sibling land # 2 may not have weighed in on this as of yet.
The truth, perhaps delayed, shall be known.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:31 pmGeneral Lute says it doesn’t.
Comment by spit take
yeah, but . . . Sean Hannity
Bill O’Reilly . . .
Willy Kristol . . .
June 7th, 2007 at 2:33 pmI’m glad he said that, because it’s important for the sheep to hear it.
Why does Gen Lute want this job!?
June 7th, 2007 at 2:41 pmGeneral Lute also said in his testimony today that the “Jury is Out” on whether or not the surge is working. Thats gonna go over real well with the Reich Wingers. Imagine, someone who actually speaks the truth in charge of the War. Afraid he won’t last too long.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:46 pmGeneral Lute says it doesn’t.
Comment by spit take
Perhaps if he read some of the comments from the left he would change his mind.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:57 pmI’m sure he does Timmy. But, unlike you and the rest of the Wingbats he doesn’t advocate censorship.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:02 pmWhy does Lute hate America?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:03 pmLute supports is giving aide and comfort to the enemy!
June 7th, 2007 at 3:04 pmtimmy,
For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that you’re entirely right that the war debate affects the morale of the soldiers. (This is an absurdly condescending view, and lacking any supporting evidence, but we’ll ignore this.) Has it ever occurred to you that the only way to avoid debate about the war is to shut down all debate about the war–meaning censoring the press, radio, television stations, magazines, and the Internet, and preventing Congress and the American people from mutual communication (as our system of representative government requires)? Even if this were possible (and probably could be done if the President declared martial law), it would undermine democratic self-government in this country and substitute the will of a single individual, that of the President, for the collective will of the American people (the definition of tyranny). Do you really want this? I doubt it.
And remember–I granted all this only for the sake of argument. So, even if you’re right, which is most unlikely, it’s an unavoidable price to pay to maintain our democratic system.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pmLute is a commie pinko, just like me, for engaging in a truthful conversation about Iraq!
June 7th, 2007 at 3:08 pmIs the surge working? What was it supposed to do? Does anybody know what its goals were. Can one speak in quantitive terms at this time. Perhaps only qualitative.
The surge was supposed to make things better?
And you see, the surge, in 2007 should work better that it would have in 2003. Many Americans asked, in 2003, if the Bush team didn’t need more troops. The Bush team said no!
in 2007 America said bring the troops home! The Bush team said Iraq needed more troops, call it a surge.
So, the Bush team maintained it 180 degree phase shift from mainstream thinking. And its performance has been one train wreck after the other.
So, the Bush team’s strategy gave the insurgents plenty of time to train and equip before the Bush team decided to “SURGE”. Always give your war enemies a fighting chance. Let the Iraqi insurgents get four years of training and then SURGE them.
Mainstream America would have done it differently.
It is my understanding that Will Rogers said:,
“When you realize you’re in a hole, stop digging”.
Will Rogers had no idea that the front part of this statement would be a problem. But Will Rogers never met the Bush team.
The Bush team is different.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pmTimmy, can we debate if it should even be called a war? Congress has the power for that but hasn’t done it so far so, for the sake of the troops let’s call it what it is.
Any ideas on what it actually is?
June 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pmThey use the troops just like they use Religion and the word Democracy.
Political Toilet Paper
June 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pmWOW! I wonder if, when offered the war emperor position, he thought “Hell, yeah, that’ll give me a chance to end this thing.”
June 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pmWouldn’t that be awesome? Bush appoints him, turns over all his CIC powers, and boom, war is over. So what if some third tier general gets “the blame” for “losing” the war (which he wouldn’t)?
Come on, Lute! Be that guy!
(I know, I’m dreaming.)
Colonial occupation.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:34 pmTimmy: Join Me. I am looking for Republicans who believe like me.
If all us registered Republicans would sign up for Iraq duty, we should be able to field an on-the-ground force approaching 100 million people, requiring perhaps 200 million support staff.
With 100 million troops on the ground, we could ensure that each and every Iraqi alive would have round-the-clock, 24/7 accompaniment by at least 1 US soldier, in 8 hour rotations.
Anything less is surrendering to the Global Caliphate Jihad.
Join Me
Mike Crotch
Republican Loyalist
June 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pmAs much as being stuck in an untenable situation? You don’t speak for the soldiers, so quit putting forth only half the equation. The soldiers know who supports them, and who is willing to see them go into combat without proper protection. Which are you?
Comment by barfly
And you speak for the soldiers?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pmProf. Colby,
I am afraid we would all be stunned to find out how many people really would rather live under a tyrranical dictatorship. I don’t know what else to conclude about some people anymore. If you are really insecure in your viewpoints, you need to listen to talk radio for some reassurance. If you are really uncomfortable with people being against wars you are for, you might rather those people just be prevented from talking at all. Why do you think Bill O’Reilly is so popular? He literally drowns out opposing viewpoints by yelling. People live vicariously through that.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pmFor the sake of argument, let’s suppose that you’re entirely right that the war debate affects the morale of the soldiers. (This is an absurdly condescending view, and lacking any supporting evidence, but we’ll ignore this.) Has it ever occurred to you that the only way to avoid debate about the war is to shut down all debate about the war–meaning censoring the press, radio, television stations, magazines, and the Internet, and preventing Congress and the American people from mutual communication (as our system of representative government requires)? Even if this were possible (and probably could be done if the President declared martial law), it would undermine democratic self-government in this country and substitute the will of a single individual, that of the President, for the collective will of the American people (the definition of tyranny). Do you really want this? I doubt it.
And remember–I granted all this only for the sake of argument. So, even if you’re right, which is most unlikely, it’s an unavoidable price to pay to maintain our democratic system.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby
Did you even read what I posted? I never said a war debate should be stopped, actually I pointed out that I thought the opposite in post #23. I said that comments like it is a lost cause and we should never have been there weigh on them. I never said that the war debate should not occur. I would think that a professor would be better at reading than you seem to be.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:05 pmIf all us registered Republicans would sign up for Iraq duty, we should be able to field an on-the-ground force approaching 100 million people, requiring perhaps 200 million support staff.
With 100 million troops on the ground, we could ensure that each and every Iraqi alive would have round-the-clock, 24/7 accompaniment by at least 1 US soldier, in 8 hour rotations.
Anything less is surrendering to the Global Caliphate Jihad.
Join Me
Mike Crotch
Republican Loyalist
Comment by Langx
I have served in the military.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:05 pmFreedom of speech is not a republican virtue. Your next move will be to visit the woodshed for a session with the VP of Torture.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pmHey Timmy and Barfly; I’ll speak for the soldiers, since I am one.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pmWhile “over there” you get a limited chance to watch TV, let alone monitor what the hell is going on, so we could really care less who is saying what. All we wanna do is make it through the next watch or patrol without incident, and come home to see our families. We think that there are liberal kooks who would call us baby killers, but we also believe there are right wing rabid animals that would call me a coward when I state I’m not anxious to get back over there.
Bottom line is that we do our job, come home, and hope we don’t have to go back. Any positive debate that speeds up the end of this thing the better. I personlly never wish to carry another flag draped coffin to the tarmac, nor attend another memorial ceremony for a fallen brethren.
Hope this clears it up….
timmy, I’m glad you agree: nothing is more important than free speech and open debate, even if it damages morale. I don’t know about you, but if I were serving in Iraq and the majority of my fellow citizens didn’t think we should be there, I would probably want to know that instead of being led to believe something that wasn’t true.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pmCraig Mack,
A sincere thanks for your service. You are a much better and braver man than I. You and your fellow soldiers deserve an honest debate about our Iraq policy. I’m sorry that most of the time the debate consists of insinuating (or flat-out stating if you’re the VP) that debate itself is a damaging thing.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pmtimmy,
You’re partly right. Even if you don’t want to forbid debate, you’re still attempting to restrict it by preferring that comments about it being a lost cause and the like not be expressed. Even restricted debate harms democracy, by preventing the widest possible range of ideas and opinions from being articulated and examined for their possible value.
By the way, try being more respectful and less presumptuous about my reading ability or anything else about me. (I have a lot to do besides reply to you. In the best of all possible worlds, I wouldn’t have to skim.) I treated you as an equal by addressing you in a respectful manner; I expect the same in return.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pmYou’re partly right. Even if you don’t want to forbid debate, you’re still attempting to restrict it by preferring that comments about it being a lost cause and the like not be expressed. Even restricted debate harms democracy, by preventing the widest possible range of ideas and opinions from being articulated and examined for their possible value.
By the way, try being more respectful and less presumptuous about my reading ability or anything else about me. (I have a lot to do besides reply to you. In the best of all possible worlds, I wouldn’t have to skim.) I treated you as an equal by addressing you in a respectful manner; I expect the same in return.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby
First off I never said things being said about the war should be banned. I merely suggested that it does effect the troops. As for being respectful to me, you were certainly condesending. With quotes like these:
“(This is an absurdly condescending view, and lacking any supporting evidence, but we’ll ignore this.)”
“And remember–I granted all this only for the sake of argument. So, even if you’re right, which is most unlikely”
Those are not things to say to somebody you treating in an equal and respectful manner.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:40 pmHey Timmy and Barfly; I’ll speak for the soldiers, since I am one.
While “over there†you get a limited chance to watch TV, let alone monitor what the hell is going on, so we could really care less who is saying what. All we wanna do is make it through the next watch or patrol without incident, and come home to see our families. We think that there are liberal kooks who would call us baby killers, but we also believe there are right wing rabid animals that would call me a coward when I state I’m not anxious to get back over there.
Bottom line is that we do our job, come home, and hope we don’t have to go back. Any positive debate that speeds up the end of this thing the better. I personlly never wish to carry another flag draped coffin to the tarmac, nor attend another memorial ceremony for a fallen brethren.
Hope this clears it up….
Comment by Craig Mack
Thank you for your comments and your service. I understand that you don’t get to see much t.v. to know what is said, but what about your wife and kids at home? Did it wear on them at all hearing the comments? Did they ever convey any frustration due to those comments to you via mail, email or phone?
June 7th, 2007 at 4:43 pmTimmy says, “If soldiers are constantly hearing how they are not making progress and there is no chance to win, how could it not effect their morale?”
What, you think the soldiers can’t plainly SEE that they’re not making any progress and that we have no chance to “win”, whatever that means?? C’mon, bud. They’re there every single day… they know. And they want out too.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:04 pmWhat, you think the soldiers can’t plainly SEE that they’re not making any progress and that we have no chance to “winâ€, whatever that means?? C’mon, bud. They’re there every single day… they know. And they want out too.
Comment by Chris from Philly
Perhaps you are right
June 7th, 2007 at 5:29 pmCaption:
“Did you say LOOT ?!!!
June 7th, 2007 at 8:36 pmThank you, general. I can’t think of anything more Hitlerian: “The democratic process harms our democracy.”
June 7th, 2007 at 9:03 pmWhat, Tony Snow and Dana Perrino couldn’t handle this spokes person job?
June 8th, 2007 at 3:24 amThe soldier, once in combat, has no ultra-patriotic motive other than the desire to survive the tour. Combat exists in a chaotic realm of death and mayhem that is absent of grace and mercy.
The politic of war is miles away in the hands of those who are safe. Politicians may talk of the need for war; old men may talk of the glory of war, but the soldiers…they just want to go home.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:15 pmSo how long before Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh. Bill O Lie-ly, Ann the Snake Coulter, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Michele Malkin and a thousand and one others claim General Luke has deserted his troops??
June 21st, 2007 at 5:36 pmGood for you General. I am a Vietnam Era Vet and I can tell you it is half assed missions for shit reasons that undermine the troops..esp if send by the likes of Bush and Cheney!!