register |  login
Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
Blog
Blog Entry 21 of 66 Wrongmont
These are the Longmont stories you may have missed in the local paper, if they ran them at all. I will expand on what was either glossed over or totally ignored - but still may be of interest to you. I encourage citizens to be aware of their local, state, and federal government and to speak up and hold their representatives accountable for their actions - good, bad, or otherwise.

Backstabbing or Bandwagoning, Pt 1
Contributed by: Chris Rodriguez   on 8/14/2007

I like making predictions. I don't much care if I'm wrong, it's not as if my life or livelihood (in this context) depends on it. I look at past words and actions, current trends, and make opinions and predictions on possible future strategies and outcomes. Unless I predict candy-filled skies and rivers of chocolate, half of you are not going to like these opinions. As always, I don't care about, or need, anyone's approval or high rating. If you have a constructive disagreement, great, have at it. But if you're just another hater and this doesn't fit your worldview, pound sand and go scream in your own blog.

I don't pay or subscribe to any commentator or personality. I didn't go to one of those websites that bends news or transcripts to fit their (or their readers) political leanings. Much of what I comment on is bumped into accidentally, something that catches my attention. I don't need someone else's talking points, I have enough of my own. Today it's the political fallout of the Iraq War.

For months now we've been hearing about the September Iraq report from General Petraeus. It appears that the report will be positive on the situation over there. By many accounts, including anti-war correspondents, things, while not perfect, are trending in the right direction. The reaction from our leaders sure could be interesting.

On the one side you have the "stay the course" people, and while some have been swaying, they should be content with the report. I expect some "We told you so's" and the historical context of the number of casualties. On the other side, it's all over the map and it could go a couple of different ways.

Let's start with the negative approach: Total character assassination of Petraeus including lack of credibility, he's a liar, he's a Bush hack, not telling the whole story, etc. This should come from the same quarter that calls our soldiers criminals, thugs, mercenaries, baby killers, runners of gulags, and the comparisons to Nazi Germany. You know, the same ones who are against the war yet support the troops? (No one's buying that line anymore, by the way)

Speaking of which brings up a local angle on this, State Senator Brandon Shaffers votes on the war. He not only voted twice for SJM07-002 "Memorializing Congress and the president to stop the escalation of the war in Iraq", he was also a co-sponsor. He then voted for, and co-sponsored SJR07-022 "Concerning an expression of support for the United States military personnel in Iraq." Guess the winds (from Ken Gordon's office) were blowing differently that day. Re-election time is November '08 for him, watch carefully how this "tow the party line" type of representative zigzags.

The group that is anti any war should be consistent: no matter how things are going, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place and need to get out. A stand on principal, I can accept that, but they usually can't help themselves and delve into the same shrill nuttiness. I have noticed our local 3 marchers have taken down from their website the slanderous remarks toward some alleged troop misdeeds. I'm not sure if these are the same troops that were recently cleared of these charges, but it is telling how quickly this group will attack the military. Then again, not all military members are of one party affiliation, now are they?

In Part 2, we'll look at the implications of this on "Election '08". Speaking of predictions, in addition to calling every state but one (damn you Wisconsin!) in the '04 election, prior to the '06 midterm elections I predicted if one party controls both houses of Congress between '06 and '08, whichever party it is, that party will lose the presidential election of '08. Did I expect Congress's poll numbers below the President's this soon, or ever? No. Did I expect a possible positive Iraq report? No. Could I still be wrong? Sure, but these things don't point that way.

©2007 Chris Rodriguez/Wrongmont.Com
(Chris Rodriguez is a Longmont resident, and the editor and publisher of Wrongmont.Com, a community website that raises local issues to increase public awareness and interest)




SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above blog



Current Rating

Based on 1 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the blog

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 14 comments
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 8/19/2007 @ 2:05:26 PM
(Not Rated)
Chris you posted something, I took issue with part of it. I never suggested it was about me. Again you assumed something needlessly. Re read the posts, I was very polite until you basically called people like myself of being against the troops. While dismissing my POV. You call me names, then complain I call you names. I can handle you disagreeing with me, it is you that fly off the handle when I disagree with you. Just reread the posts on this thread alone. I called you a punk and a fool after you trashed my POV on support for the troops. And you still dismiss my POV by suggesting I am going to start selling it. Dude, everything you have accused me of you do in spades.
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 8/18/2007 @ 4:13:56 PM
(Not Rated)
Right. And you expect anyone to buy this swill based on your consistent hate filled rantings? Just cant get through a post or blog without namecalling, can ya? As I said, the almighty Bing wasn't in mind when I wrote this, you egomaniac, but the shoe is fitting. The fact you're taking this so personally speaks volumes. I suspect you'll get this pro-troop thing going now, not as if your previous posts here or on Fox were ANYTHING like that. And you know what? You're free to do it, no ones stopping you. I make you sick, hahaha, you need to take a pill, seriously dude, I'm not worth the effort. Thanks for the laugh though.
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 8/18/2007 @ 10:13:32 AM
(Not Rated)
Only your opinion is legitimate in your eyes Chris. I'll be damned if I'll let some punk tell me I am anti-troop because I am willing to fight for their safe return.
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 8/18/2007 @ 10:11:51 AM
(Not Rated)
What burning soldier pics? If you consider the reporting of troop suicides as being anti troop I honestly think you have a screw loose. That's not against the troops. Let's ignore the troop casualties then? You have a skewed version of what's "for" and "against." Just ignore troop deaths and support the president right or wrong. Ignorant fools like you are anti troops. Treating them like props so you can dis people you disagree with. You are about as disingenuous as they come pal. You make me sick. Wishing the troops were home, being sad that they are killing themselves in record numbers in a war that is not in our nations best interests is supporting the troops you insufferable @ss. A really twisted view of what is support and what is against. You self righteous jerk.
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 8/17/2007 @ 8:36:12 PM
(Not Rated)
Challenge it all you want, who's floating these burning soldier pics on the net? Troop/war supporters? Who touts any and every mistake anywhere the troops are? Who's making troop suicide numbers news? Who want's to make as much an issue with every single casualty? Family members of troops or supporters? No. If anyone has a problem with Bush or the war, that's one thing, but to use the troops to further a point of view in the above examples is pretty sick.
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 8/16/2007 @ 10:26:55 AM
(Not Rated)
I challenge your assertion that there is anti-troop sentiment among the anti war movement. More likely it is war supporters trying to portray those they disagree with in a negative light. And I am suggesting that Petraeus is being set up, as past Generals have, for Bush's failures not that he is a lap dog like Tommy Franks was. I fail to see how that is "another slam on the military." I and most of the anti-war crowd have been very clear when directing criticism towards the administration. We shouldn't have to preface any criticism by saying how much we appreciate the troops service. Including the generals. And technically Congress is supposed to get the report from the White House, but Bush has made it sound like it's coming from Petraeus. Also history has shown that any truthful testimony that conflicts with the White House ends up badly for the truth teller. Peter Pace is the exception to the rule.
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 8/15/2007 @ 9:08:54 PM
(Not Rated)
Bing, I wasn't talking about you specifically in my comments, but the overall face of the anti-war movement that get pretty nasty at times, including towards the troops. But your comment about "the whitehouse writing the report for Petraeus", that's the kind of stuff I expect to hear alot of. And it's another slam on the military, or does Petraeus prefer to be called a lapdog? "Yes, I spent my entire military career to be made a fool of by a lame duck president". Not likely. What's he got to lose by saying something negative if it's true? Bush gonna fire him? Doubtful.
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 8/15/2007 @ 11:54:05 AM
(Not Rated)
One last thing, now many people want a pull out because the time for sending in 5 times the troops has come and gone. The situation has deteriorated in the region to the extent that more troops now will exacerbate the problem. It's not a flip flop, it's strategic thinking. If we had gone in with the number as General Z. laid out and was replaced shortly thereafter. "to say that you can not question the president during a time of war...is not only morally servile it is treasonous to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 8/15/2007 @ 11:41:48 AM
(Not Rated)
And the White House apparently is going to write Petreaus's September report for him, which goes to the core problem. We have a president who says he listens to his generals, yet those same generals have retired early to refute those claims. Petreaus will not get the troops he needs because the powers that be won't allow it. I don't know where you get this "generalizing the military based on a few bad apples..." comes from. Look at what the critics say. The criticism is directed at the decision makers, not the military. The anti war crowd is so because they support our military and don't like how they are being misused. There is also a myth that those who dissaprove of the war in Iraq want to see it fail. I've heard local con hosts suggest that liberals applaud the deaths of our soldiers as it is proof of the failed policy. This is about as low as you can go and totally false.
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 8/15/2007 @ 11:32:25 AM
(Not Rated)
A chickenhawk is someone who avoided military service but wrecklessly uses the military claiming they support the troops but put them in an untenable position. I did not generalize the military, I condemn the civilian leadership that has failed them, as most anti war critics have. Also, the same chickenhawks have lowered the standards for military service to aaccomodate recruitment goals, to the detrement of our highly trained military. Further, no bid contracts and privitization has also compromised our military. I'm sure many troops want to get back and support their buddies and finish the mission. I never questioned that. Again, the anti war crowd, which includes military personnel and retired, are upset with the civilian leadership, not the troops. That's a false argument to make.
Showing 1-10 of 14 comments
< BACK | NEXT >
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Chris Rodriguez

Longmont , CO

Chris Rodriguez has posted 66 blog entries and 374 comments since joining on 3/22/2007. Chris Rodriguez's average blog rating is 4.17.
BLOG ENTRY RSS FEEDS
SAVE AND SHARE THIS ITEM

WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is  register,  then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyonewhat events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad