Pro-troops? Anti-war? Pro-war? Anti-troops?

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) issued an ACTION ALERT on March 26, 2003: "Using 'Pro-Troops' to Mean 'Pro-War' Is Anti-Journalistic." FAIR, a media watchdog group explained: "With citizens expressing their opinions on the war through marches and rallies across the country, many news outlets rely on the Associated Press news service to help them cover these important manifestations of democracy."

FAIR laments, "Unfortunately, AP has frequently used the terms 'pro-war' and 'pro-troops' interchangeably -- a practice that distorts the views of antiwar demonstrators and contributes to the media marginalization of the peace movement."

As someone who has attended marches and protests, I can verify the FAIR assertion: "'Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home' is a popular slogan at peace marches, which tend to criticize George W. Bush and other administration officials, not rank-and-file U.S. military personnel."

Recklessly Sending Our Troops to Kill and Die is Wrong
Bush's Reckless Iraq Policies Don't Support the Troops

Salon.com's Scott Rosenberg writes: "Before the war started, if one suggested that the US might be underestimating the problems of an invasion of Iraq, it was considered 'helping Saddam'; now that the war is on, discussing those problems as they unfold is considered 'helping Saddam.' Apparently there is no appropriate time to challenge what may well prove a misguided policy. We should all just shut up and let Rumsfeld do the talking."

This is hardly an academic point. As Rosenberg explains: "The plan was Bush's and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's, and as a result of it, hundreds of thousands of American and British soldiers are now stuck in what could prove to be a much more harrowing situation than those planners promised." See: Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment, Salon.com, March 28, 2003: http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2003/03/28.html

"Incestuous Amplification"

How do we define reckless policy? It begins when decision-makers ignore caution and sound, expert advice. This is what Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are doing according to a US military source. Reports of sniping and finger-pointing between Rumsfeld, General Tommy Franks and officers in the field -- blaming each other and the media -- hardly inspire confidence.

According to an MSNBC report, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the Army's top ground commander in Iraq told the Washington Post and The New York Times that US and UK troops were ill prepared for Iraqi tactics.

That and logistical concerns about supply lines were "slowing down the campaign," Wallace conceded, "the enemy we're fighting is a bit different than the one we war-gamed against because of these paramilitary forces." See US officials defend war planning, by MSNBC STAFF and Wire Reports, March 28, 2003: http://msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?0sl=-30

The Sydney, Australia Morning Herald reports "Bush and his inner circle seem to be suffering from what is known in the Department of Defence as incestuous amplification. This is a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation."

Is this dangerous? Yes, because Napoleon and Hitler disdained advice and found doom attacking Russia; LBJ and Nixon similarly ignored dissent and miscalculated horribly in the Vietnam War. As the Morning Herald quotes Doug Bandow, "George W. Bush's speech on Iraq is significant, mostly because it reveals that he long ago made a decision for war and has always viewed the inspection process as an impediment to war to be overcome, rather than a means to avoid war."

Although Bush repeatedly denied this, Bandow confirms, "War was always his first option. The president paints a positive picture of post-war Iraq that is likely to prove wildly optimistic." Bandow served as a special assistant in the Reagan administration.

Risks of Repercussions

Plans based on "wildly optimistic" assumptions rather that well-considered information. Shutting out dissenting experts in favor of "lockstep agreement" creates "a situation ripe for miscalculation." Could it get any worse? Unfortunately yes it can. The former US Central Commander US Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni -- a leading expert who directed US Middle East policy -- cautions that Bush is risking disaster in other Muslim nations with this invasion of Iraq.

Last October Zinni said: "Anti-Americanism, doubts about this war, concern about the damage that may happen, political issues, economic issues and social issues have all caused the [Arab] street to become extremely volatile." How volatile?

Zinni says, "I'm not sure which planet they live on because it isn't the one that I travel. I've been out in the Middle East, and it is explosive; it is the worst I've ever seen it in over a dozen years of working in this area in some concentrated way. Almost anything could touch it off." All of these dire predictions remain in effect, and the risks worsen as the occupation of Iraq begins.

See: Scepticism mounts among defence and intelligence officials, by David Mulholland, JDW Business Editor, London / Jane's Defence Weekly, March 05, 2003 quoted at: Tony Blair: The whole world's in his hands, by Margo Kingston, Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, March 8, 2003: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144864576.html.

All these comments predated the invasion of Iraq. News from Iraq shows “reporters” celebrating, but Bush's own spokespeople warn this war is not over, even as they hint at another rush to war against Syria or Iran. This recklessness and dishonesty endangers our troops and our national interests.

Warren P. Strobel of the Knight Ridder news service confirms: "President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials." Who then has Bush's ear?

"Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks," according to Bush administration officials.

What about the expert military and intelligence agency perspectives necessary to provide a reality check? What about the CIA and other intelligence agents? What about the generals and admirals with alternative views? They "were not fully or energetically communicated to the president," according to the Knight Ridder report based on "one top official," who, "like the others, requested anonymity."

What happens when a callow, uncurious, and unqualified CEO C in C hears only what he wants to hear and ignores wisdom and caution? "As a result, almost every assumption the plan's based on looks to be wrong." That's the view of Bush's own insiders, not just his critics.

See: Bush reportedly shielded from dire forecast by Warren P. Strobel, Knight Ridder news service, Mar. 29, 2003: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/5510092.htm

Events Since Invasion Confirm Peace Advocates'
Predictions Before the War: Saddam Was No Threat

Fortunately peace protesters were correct: Saddam Hussein never represented any serious threat to America, and casualties were less than many feared. Still, Bush seems merely emboldened by this easy success and hell bent on pushing his luck until he meets disaster.

Bush's critics see another Bush feeding the American people weak excuses for weak policies. Bush -- like his father -- is blaming his own mistakes on people he hired. AWOL Bush -- like GHW Bush -- is saying he was "out of the loop" in his own administration. In his own words, Bush is irresponsible at best.

If Bush is lying, then he was in the loop and bears the burden of blame for his catastrophic economic and national security failures. The long list includes -- recession, squandered surplus, record deficits, 100,000s of lost jobs, the stock market crash, 9/11 and now what might become an open-ended and costly commitment in Iraq.

If Bush is telling the truth, that might be even worse because that means Bush is letting "his" administration run adrift. Another administration of bungling arrogant know-it-alls leading us astray. Another recession. Another elective war against Saddam Hussein. This is an emerging portrait of another failed one-term Bush White House.

Protesting shortsighted policies supports the troops
Efforts to shortchange Vets undermine the troops

As shocking as it may seem, while sending our troops into battle Bush hopes to slash funding for our veterans. In an American Legion press release dated March 17, 2003, "The nation's three largest veterans organizations" reacted angrily to the Bush Administration's "budget cuts in disability compensation, pensions and health care to offset the costs of tax breaks and huge spending increases on defense and homeland security."

These groups focused on Bush's "fiscal year 2004 budget plan approved by the House Budget Committee [which] would slash $470 billion from domestic spending, including health care and compensation for disabled veterans provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The House budget resolution would leave intact the $1.6 trillion Bush tax cut plan and allow huge spending increases on defense and homeland security."

As the American people know, "Veterans' pensions and disability compensation are parts of the costs of defending freedom. Our nation cannot, in good conscience, commit men and women to battle, and reduce the meager, yet well-deserved, compensation for those who are wounded," said American Legion National Commander Ronald F. Conley.

Commander Conley added "Of all the citizens who benefit from mandatory federal funding, none are worthier than those who are disabled today because they risked all of their tomorrows fighting for freedom. This budget defies common sense. We'll fight it with all our might."

"The health care and benefits our veterans have earned are a powerful reminder that the price of war is ongoing, and that as a nation we have a commitment to ensure these costs are paid," said Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander in Chief Ray Sisk.

According to VFW C in C Sisk: "Reducing VA health care funding, even by the seemingly small one percent, will worsen many of VA's gravest problems. We cannot expect sick and disabled veterans to wait months for earned health care. Equally troubling is that further cuts in funding would cause VA to curb further enrollment, or to remove certain veterans from the health care system altogether. It is imperative that Congress fully fund the VA."

Bush's cuts in Veterans' support are "indefensible and callous"

"Cutting already under funded veterans' programs to offset the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous," added Edward R. Heath Sr., National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans who explained, "it is unconscionable to cut benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when we have thousands of our servicemembers in harm's way fighting terrorism around the world and when we are sending thousands more of our sons and daughters to fight a war against Iraq."

"Congress must rethink drastic cuts in benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when we have thousands of our servicemembers in harm's way fighting terrorism around the world and when we are sending thousands more of our sons and daughters to fight a war against Iraq," the veterans groups said in a letter to the congressional leadership.

Fortunately, the Veterans won the battle in Congress. As an American Legion press release dated March 25, 2003 explained, "Cuts in veterans benefits are off the table -- for now. Leaders of the nation’s three largest veterans organizations today praised members of Congress who fought alongside them to keep veterans’ health care, pensions and disability compensation off the chopping block." But for how long?

It took a mighty lobbying effort to reverse this shameless attack against our veterans. Why was such hard work needed to protect our veterans in time of war? Why would Bush even propose looting the VA budget - forcing our Vets to fight him while our forces are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"Concurrent Receipt" is "Concurrent Deceit"

Bush's double dealing against our Veterans goes deeper than this attempt to slash VA funding. According to my source, over 100 years ago Congress passed a law prohibiting retired military personnel from collecting disability pay along with their retirement pay.

This is unfair. Retired federal government workers may collect disability pay plus their retirement pensions in full. Civilians retired from private companies also receive their retirement pensions along with their disability pay. Veterans are more likely to become disabled, but "only the military is forbidden to collect both in what the government calls 'Concurrent Receipt."

The veteran reported, "Before the elections last fall there was a strong movement among retired military groups working toward getting rid of this selective law against retired veterans. The congressman and senators promised after the elections they would work on rescinding that law."

AWOL Bush threatens to veto fairness for our vets. Bush signaled he would support this while campaigning for Republicans. "Well, surprise! surprise! After the election the President said he would veto any legislation doing away with the law against 'Concurrent Receipt.'" Congress "turned to the veterans groups and said, 'Sorry our hands are tied by the president.'"

My source explains, "This has become known among veteran's groups as, 'Concurrent Deceit.'" We all know that Presidential vetoes can be overridden, if congress really wants a bill to become law." And of course Bush shouldn't veto or even threaten to veto fairness for our vets.

Ever optimistic, veterans can say, "Thankfully, a single congressman and a lone senator has reintroduced bills this session to do away with the 'Concurrent Receipt' law. It would mean $450 more a month for this disabled veteran." But the question remains: why would Bush betray our vets this way?

Pro-peace Demonstrators Support Our Troops
Can the Bush Occupation Make the Same Claim?

When the staggering budget deficit blows past $400 BILLION, there's little chance Bush will keep his word and let Congress repeal Concurrent Receipt. It's much more likely Bush again will try to loot the Veterans' Administration budget - along with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other funds held in trust for Americans.

Vets and others should keep an eye on the fine print of the final budget. Bush and the Republicans in Congress will likely try to sneak through unfair budget cuts in the dead of the night. In any case, what can we make of Bush's eagerness to back-stab our troops by shortchanging our veterans even as the next generation of American heroes risk all on the battlefield?

This is a tough question all veterans -- and all Americans who support our troops -- should ask before blindly casting their lot with this reckless, inept and corrupt Bush Occupation.

An unelected regime led by someone who skipped out on his oath to serve in the Texas Air National Guard, flunked a drug test, and now sends our troops to kill and die to profit his idle rich campaign contributors. Our brave men and women in uniform might well reconsider their support for an administration that clearly does not support them.

Links Proving Bush is NOT Supporting Our Troops or Veterans
(I am trying to find the author of this compilation to credit her or him.)

VETERANS FOR JUSTICE - Many Bush/GOP related links:
http://www.vetsforjustice.com/index.htm