Today PatRoW brings you a point/counterpoint of sorts, although it may more accurately be described as fact/anti-fact (you try to guess which is which).
Bush Says Failure in Iraq 'Not an Option' (but failure in the White House is five years, three months and counting!)
Actually, I liked reading about a delegation of American governors who returned from a visit with our troops in Afghanistan. Apparently, the men and women of our armed forces fully believe in their cause. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said the troops' commitment to the mission in Iraq "is unanimous. They believe they are doing something important."
Remember that comment when you read this: Bloggers fanning the controversy over Rumsfeld.
Remember that whole "unanimous commitment" thingy? Yeah, uh…not so much. It turns out that a growing number of soldiers abroad are using their down time (you know, when they're not being shot at, spit on or blow'd up) to voice their discontent:
In the relative safety of anonymity, some military bloggers have fanned the controversy swirling around their civilian bosses. One man, describing himself as a helicopter pilot, ''Outlaw 13," who posts on guidons.blogspot.com, wrote that ''a lot of folks in the head shed have heartburn with" Rumsfeld.
Others posting comments don't hold their fire: ''The whole [expletive] bunch, from the [secretary of defense] on down did a [expletive]-poor job. So, as usual, the grunts pay the price," wrote another blogger on the site.
So which is it? Are our troops universally committed to America's occupation of two Middle Eastern countries, or are they – like a majority of Americans – feeling confused and betrayed about misrepresented justifications and an ever-growing list of causalities?
Like the song says – if we go there may be trouble, but if we stay there will be double. Who knew the Clash were clairvoyant?
No comments:
Post a Comment