DEMOCRATS TRUE COLORS PROVE THEM TO BE SPINELESS COWARDS

Disappointed?

You should be. You elected them.

And on that note, so did I.

I guess when we elected the Democrats back to Congress, we were expecting way too much from them.

We expected them to turn this chaos and craziness that the Republicans have been stewing the last 12 years into something positive, binding, and healing.

Instead, we got a bunch of spineless cowards who can't even pass a resolution with teeth. We can't get them to make the tough choices in Congress which will have a notable impact on our own American society--and that of the world.

And now, they won't even encroach on the idea of withholding future war funding on subsequent budget proposals--because once again--they are divided over how to go about this.

I suppose that I was expecting too much from them. But then again, I did this voting gig because I wanted out of the nightmare that the GOP had subjected the nation to for the last decade.

Well--come 2008--I'll have to vote someone else in that has the guts and courage to get us out of the mess that neither party can guide us out of.

And I'm not talking just about Iraq either.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

IF BRITS ARE LEAVING, WHY CAN'T WE?

I find it a bit perplexing. Tony Blair announced a timetable for troop withdrawal for the 7,000 troops stationed in Basra; explaining to the House of Lords (or Commons), that they had been successful in stabilizing that small part of oil-rich Iraq, but said: "We leave Basra not how we wished it, but the Basra we can live with."

Almost immediately, the Bush adminstration was citing victory at the withdrawal, claiming that it was "progress" in the war, and that their new war plan was being vindicated. (Again, I was scratching my head and thinking, "What plan?")

But all this political grandstanding led me to ask another question: If the British are leaving, why can't we?

What's to prevent us from packing up and leaving too?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

COMBATTING ONE IDEOLOGY WITH ANOTHER IS DOOMED TO FAILURE

COMBATTING ONE IDEOLOGY WITH ANOTHER IS DOOMED TO FAILURE

Once again, President Bush is trapped in a spin world fraught with the "us against them" theme.

Speaking recently at a news conference, Bush was begging other NATO nations to shore up US troops already in Afghanistan--and then jumped into his own parochial ideology that: "Forces of liberty must prevail against the forces of chaos and destruction"-speech.

It's sad to see that this buffoon of a President is once again invoking 9-11 as a catalyst, while engaged in useless propaganda designed to solidify his case of what General Casey recently deemed as a "slow failure" in Iraq.

A failure which this current administration refuses to see, let alone acknowledge.

The current security sweep taking place in Baghdad is once again proving that to a point: Before the 'surge' of troops came, militias on both sides were having a car bomb heyday. But the second the new influx came through, reports were showing that they met with little or no resistance.

Even though there are still car bombings, both sides evacuated the bulk of their forces, and took their campaign elsewhere--challenging our troops' capacity to respond to other problem areas.

And once they leave for parts unknown, the militias and insurgency will once again set up camp in their old stomping grounds--forcing our own troops to respond with aching slowness.

However, I still hear some people complain that we should've just completely disregarded the rules of war and just unleashed everything we have in one fell swoop. Get it over in just a few days.

But if we did that, we would no longer be the 'forces of liberty' now would we?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

NEW ENGLAND IS NOT HOME TO THE 'LOONY LEFT'

As an ex-New Englander myself, I find the author's latter comments in his letter, "Let's get real about getting great plan", to be considered outright bigotry.

The man in question lives where again? Oak Harbor?

What does he know about New England personally?

Let me tell you something about the area in question: New England was center stage to our own Revolutionary War against the British. Many of its citizens died so that we could remain free of their control.

Many monuments and markers scattered across the state of Vermont (itself) pays tribute to their memories and the sacrifices they made.

In fact, if it wasn't for the courage of people like Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, we would all be singing, "God Save the Queen" right now.

As such, Vermont and the states bordering it, played a very crucial role in the Revolutionary War and in the subsequent formation of our own country.

Remember Massachusetts? The same state people now bash over its same-sex marriage laws? Our very own US Constitution was modeled after that state's constitution.

Betcha none of you knew that, now did you?

I grew up in Vermont for 14 years. And I am proud to call that state as much my home as I do this one--even though I am not a native. But that doesn't make me a party to the so called 'loony left'.

It makes me a product of two worlds. Two state cultures.

So please, if you know little of the history surrounding New England itself, don't make such inflammatory comments about a patch of Americana you know next to nothing about.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

WHO'S NEXT ON THE ANTI-FREE SPEECH LIST?

I'll admit, I was bristling when I read one writer's letter ("Tired of civilians' opinions on war."), and then relaxed when something about this interesting tirade dawned on me:

We civilians are intruding on someone else's "Bushworld" fantasy--by speaking out against the war in the first place. (A bad no-no in this author's book.)

And here I thought Lieutenant Watada was having a bad day...?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

IRAN ARMING SHIITE MILITIAS? NO SUPRISE THERE.

Of course some elements in Iran are arming the Shiite militias! (Duh!) As is Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-leaning countries covertly funding and arming the Sunni insurgency!

And why shouldn't they? This is a Shiite versus Sunni sectarian conflict dating back decades--even centuries. The animosity, hatred, and religious divides on both sides have rooted both sects against each other in a final battle for supreme control over Iraq.

So Iran takes the sides of the Shiites (the very same Shiites we installed and propped up in this faux paz government 4 years ago), helps arm and fund their cause, and the Saudis and other mid-East countries do the same for the embedded Sunni insurgency--and together, both sides are waging a civil war against the other for overall dominance and control of Iraq.

And what's even more surprising, is that the Bush administration has the audacity to accuse Iran of arming one side while turning a blind eye to the other countries arming the Sunnis--and then turn back to Iran and try to provoke that country into a widening military conflict which our troops are already paying a heavy price for!

So answer me this: Why? Why are we paying for this conflict with our country's treasure and blood when it clearly no longer concerns us?

In the end, either Iran or some other Sunni-leaning country will emerge the victor and in complete control of the region--and the US will lose all its influence in the Middle East.

And there’s nothing we can do militarily to stop that from happening.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

WRITER PAINTS BOTH VIETNAM AND IRAQ AS 'WARS WE WON'

I'm not sure which history book one recent writer ("Don't give up; cost too high") was reading when we lost Vietnam, but we were never any closer to winning that war as we are with this one.

Vietnam was a conflict in which we lost more troops than our so-called "allies" (must mean the French). The enemy was more numerous and more able to adapt to our tactics than we were at adapting theirs.

In the end, we dumped more unnecessary troops into the meat grinder when we shouldn't have. But if we truly were winning, why did we pack up and leave when the North was knocking on our doorstep in Saigon?

Interestingly enough, the writer is suggesting the same of Iraq: That we are winning and that we have always been winning in Iraq.

Even after 4 years of never ending war.

However, the realities on the ground are suggesting the complete opposite. But if and when we lose this war (and it looks like that we will), it won't spell the demise of Western civilization that we know now--as the writer suggests in his imaginative "doomsday" scenario.

But if he is so worried over the high price of oil in the future, then he'd better get off his duff, write his rep, and demand that we dump more money into alternate energy--instead of feeding it into the military war machine!

Unless of course, people like him are afraid of offering up alternative plans to our dependence on foreign oil...?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

WHEN DID OUR SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN BECOME DRONES?

I find it a bit disturbing how normal people in our country can speak up against this illegal and immoral war (meaning Iraq), but our own military men and women cannot?

Where does it say in the signing papers that recruits are forbidden to speak their minds once they enter service? When did they become drones the second they slip into uniform or go into combat?

Lieutenant Watada shouldn't be derided, and told to shut up and do his duty by those who want to see him silenced. He should be allowed to speak out, and prove that he isn't just another 'yes man' in the military--whom blindly follows orders and never questions anything.

If the military doesn't like their own speaking out against the way this war has been conducted (or any conflict for that matter), then they should've issued a blanket standing order to those who already have from the very beginning: By threatening any "dissenter" in the armed services with a court martial.

Because Watada wasn't the first military service man (or woman) to question this war.

And he won't be the last.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

WITH IRAQ, VIETNAM'S GHOST CONTINUES TO HAUNT MCCAIN

We've heard it all before from Bush and the Republicans: "If you're against the war, you better come up with a plan that's better than ours."

Well now, McCain is saying that the war detractors (meaning the Democrats) are "intellectually dishonest" and that the non-binding resolution they are trying to push demoralizes our troops."

He challenges them to come up with a plan that's better than the President's.

The thing with this, is that both Democrats and their supporters have.

However, none of their plans involve deepening the war's escalating conflict by spending hundreds of billions of dollars more, and sending in tens of thousands of US troops back into the civil war--currently gripping Iraq.

Which is what McCain and Bush want.

However, another hitch has come up which is making McCain equally nervous.

Bush's "go-for-broke" strategy isn't gaining all that much traction amongst nervous and skittish Republicans, and now he has to make a big stink about other plans which he sees as 'demoralizing' to a war which has more in common with another war fought almost four decades ago.

Vietnam.

Why?

Because while we've lost this war to both political gerrymandering and gross incompetence, John is being reminded of failures past with Vietnam. And this is something he can't live with now--30 years later.

Hence his ongoing attacks with the anti-war Democrats and their supporters.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

WHAT ABOUT CINDY SHEEHAN?

Amazing! Simply amazing!

Just 30 years ago people were blaming Jane Fonda for the US loss over Vietnam and allowing Communism to run amok--unchecked--throughout most of the civilized world!

Today, people are blaming her for the US losing Iraq too! (I didn't know Jane had this much power! Jeez! How come she's not President?)

What happened to people like Cindy Sheehan? Shouldn't we also lump them into her camp for protesting this backwards war and start calling them "Jihad Junkies" or "Jihad Jerries"--or something?

Maybe in 30 more years, we can blame the next generation of war protesters for something equally stupid. Maybe select a few of them, accuse them of making us lose the next war with Iran too--because they spoke up way too often?

Yeah, I like that idea. Sounds like something Bush and Cheney would come up with.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

WAR FABRICATION DOESN'T SIT WELL WITH THIS READER

In Charle's latest column, "Don't blame America for Iraqis choice of civil war", he mentioned that 263 militants were killed and 502 were captured in the battle in Najaf.

So my question is, why didn't the internet and news reports reflect this?

According to my sources (and they aren't based on Fox News accounts), only 250 militants were confirmed killed and only 100 confirmed captured--this based on official Iraqi government and US military press releases--2 days after the battle took place.

So where did the extra 13 dead militants come from? Where did the extra 402 captured militants originate from?

Thin air?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX