Mark:

Uh, it is the Congress that is supporting the troops. Their bill requires proper training, equipment and time off for family (yeah, that family at home).

Bush stands nearly alone against American sentiment, common sense and the reality on the ground.

There is no more "stay the course" rhetoric that is taken seriously anymore.

Wade

Deleted - slanders

raker, you are so off base it isn't funny. What is it about teh Troops having to ask for support, that same "Support" we always hear from you lefty's, that you fail to understand?

Obviously they are feeling supported if they feel the need to petition Congress to ask for it.

If you think facing up to terrorists there isn't protecting America, you have lost all sense. Wake up before it is too late. This isn't just a small local skirmish, it is a fight against a global take over by radical Islamists, Jihadists. They are not only the enemy of the West, but to Islam itself.

They have been fighting us for 28 years. When do you leftists say "ENOUGH" and stand against them? How far do you iintend to allow them to take over before you too see what they are doing?

Wake up, boy, before it is too late.

What an interesting trail this site has.

appealforcourage.org is part of three sites - appealforcourage.net and appealforcourage.com are the other two. The one here has the most ambiguous details.

Appealforcourage.com and the other two were both registered by US Navy CIS plans department, with a contact by the name of Jason Nichols, who on the site is described as a "Navy Information Professional" officer - in other words, a person who communicates information to the public or the press on behalf of the military.

CIS is the Citizenship and Immigration department of the US Department of Homeland Security. It could reasonably be argued since Lt Nichols is therefore employed as a press liason officer by the employer of the CIS, which is the Department of Homeland Security, vis this site is inspired by the Department of Homeland Security who, by their definition, wish to encourage the war in Iraq in order to promote expansion under the Global War on Terror.

If there's a flaw to this logic, and it can be proven, please point it out. I'm not holding my breath though that this comment will not simply be removed with a flimsy excuse.

Deleted - slander

To add to my previous comment, Lt Nichols also appeared on Fox News to promote the site around March 16th 2007, and the segment has been posted on Google Video.

It is a distinctly "official party line" segment, with exactly what Mr Bush is saying in terms of "don't let congress ask for a retreat" etc, almost practically word for word.

I find it interesting that Lt Nichols claims in the video that "nearly everyone" he has spoken to holds the same opinion. As of the time of posting this, the site claims 2462 members. Even if troop levels were only 50,000 that would still only represent 4% - hardly "nearly everyone."

Whisperwolf,

Naval CIS = Naval Criminal Investigative Service. It has nothing to do with the "Citizenship and Immigration department of the US Department of Homeland Security".

Your (il)logic defies explanation.

A-10, maybe you should edit the CIS disambiguation page of Wikipedia to that effect then, because that's my source for the definition - hardly illogical, even if it ultimately isn't the correct disambiguation of the page.

And the final update on our Lt Nichols, according to the google video item he's been in Baghdad since mid january, co-incidentally shortly after Mr Bush announced (on January 10th) that the "surge" would take place and that lawmakers must give it enough time to work.

Your "Commander in Chief" is causing more terrorism, and bringing death and destruction to the Iraqi people.

How about putting the blame for terror where it belongs, on the terrorists? It's precisely the unwillingness to place blame where it belongs that motivates these savages.

Of course, war critics have a notable ability to be angry at an action, without having any anger at the perpetrator thereof, as shown by their anger over the "outing" of Valerie Plame, with none of that anger directed toward the man who did this thing, Richard Armitage.

I have yet to see anyone on the left, either in Congress, the media, nor any commenter here, who has shown anger toward the terrorists. Not anger at Bush "causing" the terror, not anger that our troops couldn't stop the terror, but anger at the REAL cause of the terror, which is the terrorists themselves.

BG..because right now we are directly questioning the merits of leveling politically motivated, pseudonymous charges of 'defeatist behavior' against the democrats under the pretext of:

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are appealing for Congress to start backing the troops

DefeatocRATs abound here at B4B.

I find it interesting that Lt Nichols claims in the video that "nearly everyone" he has spoken to holds the same opinion.

I find it interesting that you live in your mom's basement, and know everything about everyone, everywhere? Just how do you do it, Whispa?

Deleted - off topic

Your "Commander in Chief"

If you are an American citizen then Bush is your "Commander in Chief" too, whether you like it or not. So too Pelosi is my "Speaker of the House", Reid is my "Senate Majority Leader" and once upon a time Bill Clinton was my "Commander in Chief".

You cant pick and choose to disregard the chain of command or the voter-granted positions of people, not when you vote and partake of American democracy. Bush is your CinC, you dont have to like it, you do have to accept it.

Yes cyber, because ALL of that is directly related to Bush. Im sure they told you in class that the POTUS signs off on every minor detail about everything that happens every day in America, but its just not true. You see, there are generals and advisors and supervisors and commissions and committees...oh forget it.

Too bad Murtha didnt report all the problems at Walter Reed during his earlier numerous photo-ops, huh? (hint: Murtha is a democrat)

I'm sure that our troops want to win this war. I've no doubt that they would fight on as long as they were asked to. But this conflict cannot be won by military force alone, and no amount of wanting will make it so. Even Gen Petreus acknowledges this. Until Bush does, however, things will _never_ get better over there - not for us and not for the Iraqis.

They already won the war in 2003. They are now being used in a police action to keep a civil war from exploding.

I find it interesting that you live in your mom's basement, and know everything about everyone, everywhere? Just how do you do it, Whispa?

Posted by: keefer at April 24, 2007 05:45 PM

Keefer, have you ever posted a response to anyone who expressed a different opinion without issuing an insult or put down?

Wow! Never thought that this would make you lefties blow a collective gasket like that!

Just can't stand the thought of actual troops that you have to support, can you?

I find it interesting that you live in your mom's basement, and know everything about everyone, everywhere? Just how do you do it, Whispa?

Why don't you read the entire post before you try to nit-pick, it might give you some credibility.

Since it wasn't fed you by Fox News, I guess I'd better elaborate.

Lt Nichols was asked by the Fox News anchor "What percentage of your fellow soldiers feel it best to stick it out?"

His reply was "Just about everyone I've spoken to, and everyone that you read and you run into here on the street in Baghdad."

Now, the site, according to their own figures has got 2462 (at the time of writing) people to sign up and say they agreed. If there are 50,000 troops in Iraq, that equates (assuming you didn't flunk math class) to around 4%. 2% of 100,000. Less than 2% of 120,000.

So: the question you have to ask yourself is, if everyone that Lt Nichols has run into supports it, how come less than 5% by any stretch of the imagination have signed up? Surely if they wanted to be left to finish the job everyone he met and told about the site would be rushing to join.

Which leads to one of two conclusions. Either he hasn't met many people, or his estimate of how many support his petition and how many want to come home again is a long way out.

It ain't rocket science. Even a Fox News watcher with minimal math education can do the figures. This is purely a front by the pro-war lobby to promote the war and pretend it's more popular than it actually is. If it wasn't, those numbers on that site would be in the 40,000s not in the 2000s.

Herendeth the lesson, Keefer. Don't forget to wash behind your ears before bedtime.

Our soldiers work within a chain of command toward fulfilling our nation's military policy but you are greatly mistaken if you think they all have the same opinions about that policy.

legion,

Uh, we're not trying to win this on military force alone...but military force is a vital component in the overall strategy, and the worst thing we can do is set a date certain for our withdrawal.

Whisper,

And we heard about this for the first time today...you just watch those numbers over the next couple weeks.

Mark,

It's a surprise you only heard it today. It was posted on Google Video on 16th March, which means that it must have been on Fox either on the 16th or before, since the segment on Google Video is a direct capture from Fox News and therefore aired before it was placed on Google.

Maybe a month isn't long. But it just strikes me as odd that Lt Nichols would go to great lengths to emphasize just how many people were in favour of it, when the figures are so low. Googling his name gives multiple hits, mainly on right wing blogging sites - it can be assumed, can it not, that he would also publicise the site in military publications circulated around the troops in Iraq (since that is also his job).

So the figures are low, even given the site's relative newness. I would be very interested to see how many signed a position saying the opposite, but of course nobody has gone to great and official lengths to create one protesting the war...

Onward Christian soldiers. We Christians want you to win this war for Jesus. You have our prayers. You have our support. May you smite the heathen with your AR-15 rifle of righteousness. We are sure you have the Christ's blessing as you tap the boot of unrelenting mercy on those who would bring terrorism to the middle east.

Do this in the name of the Lord. Do this for the United States of America.

Do this to keep the Iraqi people free.

Very good raker, though you left out our plan to bring the righteousness of Christ to the unwashed barbarians at the point of the bayonet. Bibles no longer optional, read it or die.

Of course you would have to be a religious bigot to write what you just did, not that I think you are one of those people or anything like that. Its just not possible, seeing as how you are a member of the Big Tent Party© and therefore immune to such coarse vilification.

We all support the troops and wish them well, and best of luck to the surge as well. I am all for funding the surge until Bush leaves office, and think Congress should sign on to pay up. But we are not fighting a war anymore, we are attempting to subdue both ends of a civil war, which is an impossible task even for our army.

Among other things, this war is bankrupting our country--if you think it's not, I'd like to hear about it--and meanwhile we're hemorrhaging money to Red China, who is growing rich and more powerful by the day, and laughing all the way to the bank. Bush is contentedly presiding over the end of American world dominance. It's astounding, impressive even, that in so short a time he's managed to bankrupt our country and pile on debt that our children will still be paying when everyone here is food for worms. The money we earned under Clinton, Bush is spending, and "conservatives" have no plan for reducing debt, they just want more more more cash for the war.

Yeno,

Steven Conover, wrote, "I'm sorry, I don't buy the scary, emotional rhetoric. Why? Because I am one of an apparent minority who is not just happy-- but delighted-- that foreign investors with dollars to spare think the USA is the one of the safest, most stable places in the world to invest their money.

Ten (or so) years ago, Milton Friedman explained it this way: "It is a mystery to me why... it is regarded as a sign of Japanese strength and American weakness that the Japanese find it more attractive to invest in the U.S. than Japan. Surely it is precisely the reverse - a sign of U.S. strength and Japanese weakness."

Substitute China for Japan and you have the situation today. The US government is far from "bankrupt". Turn off the histrionics.

There was no "money [] earned under Clinton"

Keefer, have you ever posted a response to anyone who expressed a different opinion without issuing an insult or put down?

No, you insolent Canadian moron.

Herendeth the lesson, Keefer. Don't forget to wash behind your ears before bedtime.

Oh, I will, Whispa--unlike yourself, I don't have mommy come down to the basement and do it for me...

Yeno3 said:

"But we are not fighting a war anymore, we are attempting to subdue both ends of a civil war, which is an impossible task even for our army."

Afghanistan is in the midst of a civil war as well. It was already in the midst of a civil war when we invaded in 2001. According to your logic, it's "impossible" for the military to win the War in Afghanistan.

That's defeatist thinking to say the least.

"This isn't just a small local skirmish, it is a fight against a global take over by radical Islamists, Jihadists. They are not only the enemy of the West, but to Islam itself."

Posted by: Lew Waters

Lew, great post except for the italicized sentence. See: "Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims" Please read the first 2 paragraphs.

Freedom, great comparison, the civil war in Afghanistan to the "civil war" in Iraq. It really reveals the hypocrisy of these kooks. Of course, the biggest hypocrite of all is their dear leader, Harry W.F. Reid-tard. He lies every day, and now he's denying the word of the very man he helped confirm, Gen Patraeus. Reid-tard will say one thing one day, and something entirely different the next. Why was he such a force in getting Patraeus confirmed, and the surge approved, only to declare it a failure when it's not even at half-strength?

So really, you can't fault the kook trolls. They're--not there or their--merely emulating their dear liar...I mean, leader...

I would be very interested to see how many signed a position saying the opposite, but of course nobody has gone to great and official lengths to create one protesting the war...

It's all just a competition to you anti-America, unpatriotic kooks, Whispa.

You know, only an idiot would believe that if we leave the terrorists alone, they'd leave us alone. Let's see, who believes this? Uh, Dr. Rerun, tom Al-jeffie, Whispa, PM(S), CO, Cyberactor, constripper, raker, teenlib. They all believe this.

Only an idiot...

Deleted - off topic

But this conflict cannot be won by military force alone, and no amount of wanting will make it so. Even Gen Petreus acknowledges this. Until Bush does, however, things will _never_ get better over there - not for us and not for the Iraqis.

Are you suggesting that Bush should do non-military things such as: turn over the Coalition Provision Authority, demand that a new constitution be drafted, have a vote on that constitution, and have elections for a new government? Hmmm, that would be a great idea. I wonder if that will happen...

The decision to remain or leave is up to the American people