what a relief! Barton says 'Troop morale high in Afghanistan"

[w8liftinglady]

Thank God all my discussions and worries are for naught!
http://www.thedailylight.com/articles/2010/08/14/news/doc4c6772e15f9de285947971.txt

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton called his recent visit to Afghanistan both enlightening and encouraging during a phone interview with the Daily Light earlier this week.

The Congressman from Texas’ sixth district returned Monday evening from a two-day fact-finding visit to Afghanistan where he had an opportunity to meet with U.S. troops and military leaders leading the war on terror.

“Militarily, we’re in good shape, much better than what I thought,” Barton said. “I was very impressed with the morale of our troops and with what our military leaders are doing. We spent two days with the troops and they were all positive and upbeat. From a military perspective, I have complete confidence in our forces and their ability to carry out their mission.”

[Skittles]

1. what a repuke whore

could he stress even more he's speaking strictly "militarily"?

[Ken Burch]

2. Does he say WHICH troops have high morale?

n/t.

[jeanpalmer]

3. I wonder if he ever left Kabul

or military headquarters. He should have taken a trip to Marjah. Or gone out on a patrol with Afghan forces. Or visited the poppy fields.

[unhappycamper]

4. Here's an article from June 2010:

What to Do About Afghanistan?
Written by John F. McManus
Thursday, 24 June 2010 00:00

On June 7 of this year, our ongoing war in Afghanistan surpassed the Vietnam War as the longest war in American history. In his December 1, 2009 speech at West Point, President Obama followed the pattern set by several predecessors and employed the deceptive tactic of presenting false alternatives. He deftly and swiftly discounted terminating U.S. efforts in what was then already an eight-year-old war. He dwelt instead on what were, to him, the only alternatives worthy of consideration. Should the United States send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan? Or should the current force level be maintained? Of course, we know he has opted for sending an additional 30,000 troops.

Meanwhile, our troops are being killed and wounded by Afghanis who resent the presence of Americans in their land. Their nation’s U.S.-backed leader recently triumphed in an election widely deemed fraudulent. Not surprisingly, corruption flourishes in the Kabul-based government but support by our country continues. And the American people — especially those who grieve because of lost or wounded loved ones — wonder when the struggle in this faraway land will ever end.

Throughout all of the past eight years, support for this effort has been buttressed with claims that everyone must “support the troops.” Yes, once our troops have been committed to battle, our nation must support them. But does that mean that every political decision to deploy them must be supported? Wouldn’t bringing them home be the best way to show our support? This is the alternative that isn’t being considered. It’s time it was not only considered; it’s time it was adopted.

The U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan began in 2001. Initially aimed at capturing al-Qaeda’s chieftains, only a few were captured or killed. The mission then became a war against terrorism in general. When has any military force ever waged war against a tactic? Terrorism is a tactic. If fighting against a tactic had been the goal in World War II, our forces might have ended up opposing aviation. And they might still be at it.

A few years later, the Afghan war morphed into a campaign to eradicate opium production, another task not accomplished. Along the way, enormous amounts of financial aid have been supplied both to Afghanistan and to neighboring Pakistan, where al-Qaeda leaders are supposedly encamped. Soon, the war became a mission to impose “democracy” on a people who haven’t the faintest notion of what that is. It has lately become widened to protect Pakistan from terrorist infestation. The current dominant goal of our forces and the small contingents of troops from allied nations calls for creation of a centralized government in a nation where tribal rulers maintain centuries-old domination over their separate fiefdoms. Instituting Western-style government is the furthest thing from their minds. We are not alone in labeling all of this a confusing pattern of “mission creep.”



-0-

You should be able to pick a few points out of this article to rebut Barton's 'Happy Days' Op-Ed.

[JohnnyLib2]

5. If he happened to be my favorite congressman--I'd be appalled.

Clueless.

[w8liftinglady]

6. my 79th ltte....written 05/03/07(John Mccain saying the same thing about Iraq)

To the Editor,

John McCain says we aren’t reporting the good news, the successes of the “surge” in Iraq. As Mr. McCain took his multi-million dollar stroll down the “safe” streets of Baghdad, accompanied by soldiers, gunships and helicopters, six soldiers were killed by an IED in Kirkuk. Hundreds were killed and maimed by bombs in Tikrit, Ramadi, Taji. We lost 80 troops in March (twice as many, by the way, as the Iraqi Army lost).

Mr. McCain, please inform their families of the “good news” that their sacrifice has rendered. Six weeks after the story of Barracks 18 broke, the president finally manages to make time for these REAL heroes, with a half-hearted promise to make things right. A casual observation I’ve made over time — when the chips are down, pull out the wounded soldiers; the press is bad, pull out the wounded soldiers; need a rise in the polls? ... pull out the wounded soldier. Shame on these politician “patriots,” and their obvious exploitation of our troops.

Bring our troops home, gentlemen, let them begin healing from their trauma, and allow Iraq to evolve into three states, as it has been trying to do for centuries. Stop trying to play soldier with our troops.


I'll respond to this piece of "work",too.

[w8liftinglady]

7. and...sigh..you see what good speaking out does...but ya have to keep it up..