 |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, December 11, 2007 |
|
In the News on December 11, 2007
By Eric Livingston ::
4 Comments :: Email to a friend
|
|
Lt. Pete Hegseth, Executive Director of Vets for Freedom, writes an editorial in this morning’s Washington Times entitled “The Toops are Winning”. Hegseth discusses the progress, now widely acknowledged in Iraq from just six months ago, and calls on Congress to allow the troops to finish the job.
Despite the incredible progress made by our military — which has opened the door for real and sustainable political progress in Iraq — the Democratic leadership continues to insist that we de-fund the war and bring the troops home no matter what. Beholden to entrenched and noisy anti-war interest groups, the Democrat leadership in Washington seems willing to cut-off much needed funding, placing our brave troops in harms way.
In response to these overtly political threats, the Pentagon recently made plans to lay off more than 100,000 DOD employees across America in order to re-allocate money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What the Democratic leadership seems to forget is that these employees are responsible for training, equipping and supporting the troops in the field.
In short, for the sake of placating MoveOn.org and other radical anti-war groups, the Democratic leadership is willing to lay off thousands of employees in America and under cut the incredible success of our troops in Iraq. Such logic is perverse and infuriating, especially to courageous Democrats like Reps. Brian Baird and Jim Marshall, who have moved beyond partisanship to support the success being achieved in Iraq.
In The Hill, Mike Soraghan reports on the significant national job loss that will result if Congress does not pass war funding before the end of the year, with up to 100,000 expected to receive pink slips. Deputy Secretary of State Gordon England wrote to Congressional leaders last week that “While these actions will be detrimental to the nation, there are no other viable alternatives without additional congressional funding. Your support in providing these needed funds would be greatly appreciated.” These lay-offs won’t be confined to the Washington, D.C. area, but could affect every military base and community across the United States. |
|
|
|
|
| Comments |
By
bathroomboy @
Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:55 PM
|
|
Stop whining, they funded you. They were just letting you know that this little cash cow you have isn't going to be around forever. Cry about the democrats all you want, but had the American people not voted them to congress in we wouldn't even have a troop surge.
|
|
|
By
Jackson38 @
Friday, December 14, 2007 7:44 PM
|
You morons are still on the John Kerry train LOLLLLLLLLLLL. Thats it, I'm speechless
|
|
|
By
keeemosabe @
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:13 PM
|
Um. Lets see. I remember it was John Kerry and Dems who first proposed a troop surge during the campaign. Bush's policy was for far too long: Just enough to Lose, but NOT enough to Win. Kerry wanted to speed it up and get it over with already. Please give credit where it is due, but I would never expect that from a clone of the Murdoch War and Propaganda Machine. But are we really winning, or chasing our tails trying to be the world's policeman? Remember Bin Laden says the way to his victory is to bleed the US like thwe Soaviets in Afghanistan. They use $100 of hardware, likely stolen, to destroy ~3 million dollar tanks. and take out troops. Sure, they lose combatants , but they have an unlimited supply. It is far easier to destroy a country than to build and maintain it. We need to choose our battles and wars more carefully. At least, we must put one war to bed before seeking out new ones. Is that amount of prudence too much to ask?
|
|
|
By
Trammell @
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:54 PM
|
I just found Freedomswatch and I thank you for having it. I am frustrated to the max by the democrats and their politics. To them, politics are more important than the troops - just when the surge is working. They can't stand it and I cannot stand them. John T - a vet
|
|
|
Click Here to post a comment
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |