Video: Iraq veterans against the surge; Update: “Give it a chance,” says … James Baker

posted at 4:47 pm on January 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

From the same lovely outfit that brought you Wes Clark’s notorious “Because of Iraq” ad comes this latest exercise in absolute moral authority. Your quote of the day: “If you support escalation, you don’t support the troops.”

We’ll see how big that “bipartisan majority in Congress” is when the anti-surge resolution finally comes to the floor. Meanwhile, are they so hard pressed to find vets willing to appear in these ads that they’re still using Joshua Lansdale?

Update: The Iraq Study Group, per the ad, opposed a surge of U.S. troops for purposes of combat operations. James Baker himself says it’s worth a shot. Publicly, at least.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

so no escalation… and we’re supposed to do what?

I wish just once someone would give an alternative (except for the cut-n-run option).

dalewalt on January 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM

‘Johnny Get Your Gun’….

Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM

You know, whatever happened to the concept of “be vewwy vewwy quiet, weah hunting wabbits”????
Why do we have to constantly broadcast our every move and idea to our enemies?
A this stage just let the troops get it done, and STFU about all the details already!

bbz123 on January 30, 2007 at 5:04 PM

As far as I am concerned, those vets can say whatever they want, whenever they want and I will shut the **** up while they speak.

csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM

As far as I am concerned, those vets can say whatever they want, whenever they want and I will shut the **** up while they speak.

csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Thats good, could you be so kind as to do the same for the rest of us as well, and take that POS lying dog Joshua Lansdale with you, please.

Viper1 on January 30, 2007 at 5:11 PM

I have yet to understand how reinforcements equate to escalation.

MikeG on January 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Thats good, could you be so kind as to do the same for the rest of us as well, and take that POS lying dog Joshua Lansdale with you, please.

Viper1 on January 30, 2007 at 5:11 PM

I cannot in good conscience support the troops when they are sacrificing for me and then turn my back on them when they don’t march in lockstep with my beliefs. I don’t see why that bothers you, but unless I can impress on you the honor in that, we will just have to disagree.

csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM

As a soldier of 35 years I thank them for their Service . . . but they’re still wrong.

rplat on January 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM

I once had a kid who worked for me on a ship who was virulently Christian… told me that evolution was untrue and god made dinosaur bones to fool us, to test our faith.

When I came back from Lebanon in 1983 I virulently hated Ronald Reagan. I felt he had sold us down the river….

I could go on and on with examples but my point?

Just goes to show that because you are a vet, it don’t make ya right.

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 5:51 PM

rplat on January 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM

As a soldier of 35 years I beleive you have that right/obligation to oppose them. Perhaps you vets have a unique understanding of their position that allows you to get past the emotionalism that wrenches at my gut.

I didn’t say I think they are correct. I just don’t feel comfortable criticizing a vet who sacrificed defending me when I don’t view their message as a threat. In my mind their voices of opposition are dwarfed by those troops who voice their support by re-enlisting in the middle of this war.

csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM

they say “join the troops, stop the escalation”

Play on words, play on troops, shame on you.

I wonder what the ‘still in service’ troops will say to this chickensh*t attack.

shooter on January 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM

By the way, setting aside the thousands of reasons we could list proving that the Democrats don’t give a sh** about anything but getting elected, they hate this country, etc. etc. How about just this… Why vote on, or even create, this non-binding resolution opposing the surge? Stick with me for a sec… If it’s non-binding and everyone knows it’s symbolic, what purpose does it serve? It will embolden the enemy and make the situation worse, which just follows suit for what the Dems have been doing since 6 months in to the war they realized they had a year until the 2004 election. So this symbolic resolution, I think any sane person would agree does nothing but hand another huge victory to the enemy, tells them they are winning, gives them more recruiting power, etc. etc. etc.

Make no mistake, the Dems don’t give a sh** about this country, the troops, anything. It’s all about power. And they’ll lose this war back in Washington if it helps get them in to office. I can always go right back to WMDs if necessary, but this non-binding resolution is the latest and largest example. (By going to back to WMDs I mean the fact that those who started calling Bush a liar in late 2003, which was what lead (eventually) to the current situation in Iraq, were the same Dems who made the WMD case for 13 years leading up to the war!).

This isn’t a game folks, and I don’t have a solution. But again, the Democratic Party is a shameful, disgustin, evil bunch that doesn’t deserve to live in this country. I would make exceptions for people like Lieberman, but he should be smart enough to leave that disgrace of a party.

RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM

I spent 22 years active duty between the Army and Navy. I’m no more or less qualified to speak about military or foreign policy issues than anyone here. I knew that the freedoms I was defending were even for those folks we saw marching in D.C. this weekend. It made me sick to think about it, but they were voicing political speech, which I think is what the 1st Ammendment was meant for, not so called “art.”

That said, I thank these folks for their service. Many gave much more than I ever will. But as was stated above, what is their alternative? Where do they propose we make our stand? I pray for all our wounded to be able to rehabilitate and lead as productive a life as possible. I also pray that this group is not successful in their goal of withdrawal.

TugboatPhil on January 30, 2007 at 6:11 PM

So, should the Republicans start running adds using veterans that support the surge? Somehow, I think that might be painted in a different light.

spmat on January 30, 2007 at 6:24 PM

TugboatPhil on January 30, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Nicely put.

Bradky on January 30, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Where is Wesley Clark?

Ouabam on January 30, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Where is Wesley Clark?

under a rock.

MikeG on January 30, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Support the troops in the essential struggle to defeat Islamofacism while it’s still a small enough problem to be able to defeat.

shaken on January 30, 2007 at 7:06 PM

The word “escalation” echoes back to LBJ’s day when the stupid democraps’ war plan was incrementalism. Send in 25,000. Then send 25,000 more, etc. until we ended up with 500,000 troops in Viet Nam. He was going to teach the enemy a lesson, force them to come to the table. He was “escalating” the conflict. The lesson learned was perfectly stated in the first Gulf War when Bush 41 built up to 500,000 over several months then pushed into Kuwait. Talk with the enemy while you build up the force. Then use the force if the talks fail. You don’t use force to teach anything to anyone, you use force to destroy the enemy as fast as you can. Period.

Bush 43 did not have the luxury of time nor the resource of 500,000 troops. Now these miserable, unhappy burn-outs have pulled out the old KGB playbook again and are throwing that word around to re-kindle their old, miserable, unhappy burn-out friends to hit the streets again and commit treason one more time. For the old times.

Zorro on January 30, 2007 at 7:47 PM

So, should the Republicans start running adds using veterans that support the surge? Somehow, I think that might be painted in a different light.

spmat on January 30, 2007 at 6:24 PM

No, then it would be called exploitation.

RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 7:57 PM

csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Good for you. Not sure why the Viper is taking your position as something offensive. I didn’t serve in our military and I feel like it mutes me, too, sometimes.

In reality, we all get to speak our minds, even on military issues, whether we served or not. But when the left trots out some anti-war vet and thinks they can silence support for Bush on this, I say great. Let’s let only active duty military have a vote on it. Fair’s fair.

Jaibones on January 30, 2007 at 8:20 PM

Romeo13…were you with 1/7?

Alden Pyle on January 30, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Where is Wesley Clark?

Ouabam on January 30, 2007 at 6:31 PM

He’s conteplating another run…but will come back with:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I dind’t come close enough the last time to run again in 2008, but I will dedicate every ounce of intelligence I have left toward the fooling of the electorate to think that my party is the one for security and the fight on the WoT, when in fact we are the weasels; just look at me.”

Entelechy on January 30, 2007 at 8:44 PM

cdseven,

There is a measure of honor in your sense that a person with service experience deserves your respect and silence while they speak. Those are gracious words. Add to that, Joshua has the same 1st Amendment working for him as anyone else in this nation.

I think you’re statement was misunderstood to suggest that you automatically feel persuaded by someone such as Joshua Lansdale. Others understood that you remain in disagreement with his position in spite of the respect you offered him due to his service.

It’s all good.

Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 8:45 PM

RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM

First off I’ll agree with you that the ad is unnecessary, and I’m not pleased with my party’s non-binding resolution crap either. It’s just showboating.
But let me tell you, I have as much love for my country as you do, regardless of my position on the war.
I did not agree with the President’s reasoning for going into Iraq but since we’re there I’m full tilt boogie in support. Do I agree with 20,000 troop reinforcements? No. It’s a band-aid and what we need is major surgery. I’m in favor of a much larger troop surge, somewhere around 50,000 for starters.

SouthernDem on January 30, 2007 at 8:48 PM

RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM

First off I’ll agree with you that the ad is unnecessary, and I’m not pleased with my party’s non-binding resolution crap either. It’s just showboating.
But let me tell you, I have as much love for my country as you do, regardless of my position on the war.
I did not agree with the President’s reasoning for going into Iraq but since we’re there I’m full tilt boogie in support. Do I agree with 20,000 troop reinforcements? No. It’s a band-aid and what we need is major surgery. I’m in favor of a much larger troop surge, somewhere around 50,000 for starters, but I’m not holding my breath.
I may be a minority in my party these days but there are still a number of us left who remember what it is to be a true Democrat.

SouthernDem on January 30, 2007 at 8:53 PM

‘Johnny Get Your Gun’….

Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Awesome book have you read it? The psycology majors are working overtime on the Dems strategy. What the hell did they do clone goebles?! I swear the twists and turns of the facts are f’n scarey. They have a whole parallel universe waiting for us! They sucked this kid into working for them. I wonder how much he earns for betraying his brothers. I mean its really a shame for his hand and I respect his sacrafice but I just think he has it wrong.

sonnyspats1 on January 30, 2007 at 9:48 PM

Woah woah woah. Watch that video again. That bald-headed guy is…

..Ah, yes. If I’d bothered to read the whole post, then everyone already knows who it is. And yes, I agree, wtf is he doing in another advert? Scraping the bottom of the barrel..

Reaps on January 30, 2007 at 10:28 PM

We can at least hope that this time the socialists used real veterans.

How about the hawkish veterans challenge the dove veterans to a countoff. I’ll give them a huge benefit of the doubt and say it would be a 50:1 ratio in favor of us winning now instead of bagging out.

But just to muddy the waters, I’m against escalation. Only because we should have sent enough to ensure quicker pacification in the first place. Let’s take the concept to absurd extremes. How safe and effective would 1 American soldier have been in Iraq? How safe and effective would the current number plus about 8% be? And how safe and effective would 25% above the current number, starting from day one, have been? I think all veterans and gamblers would agree, go big or stay home.

Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 10:43 PM

Most Dems are traitors, whether they served or not. Simple as that.

faraway on January 30, 2007 at 11:11 PM

Lets all just support an American victory.

Bush is not the enemy.

faraway on January 30, 2007 at 11:12 PM

Thanks to all for their understanding.

csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 11:27 PM

And I do understand that my original comments were easily mistaken as blind support.

csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 11:29 PM

On the other hand. “That was a great line” exclaims Dr. Richard Kimble.

Wade on January 31, 2007 at 12:22 AM

I don’t mind his right to express his opposition to any increase in troops. What I have a serious problem with is the fact that this guy or his leftist supporters want the only say.
I served in uniform in a combat zone.
Those on the left loudly proclaim anyone who supports the troops in Iraq who haven’t served are chickenhawks.
What the hell gives those who haven’t served the right to speak about it then?

I am damn tired of those on the left claiming anyone who has not served and supports keeping the F in VFW is a chickenhawk, while ignoring those who have served or are serving who also support the same mission.

91Veteran on January 31, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Where is Wesley Clark?

Ouabam on January 30, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Drinkin a 40 and doing body shots with OBL.

VikingGoneWild on January 31, 2007 at 3:59 PM

These guys are walking on the graves of their dead comrades. Without Victory, their comrades died in vain.

*I will admit that I did not serve. I contracted a deadly disease from my brother during his training to go to Kuwait for the invasion. He is now 80% disabled (being appealed for 100%) and I have spent the last 3 years trying to get my health up to standards to be accepted.

Tim Burton on February 1, 2007 at 2:32 AM