NYP: ABUSING AMERICA'S WAR DEAD--HOW POLS EXPLOIT IRAQ CASUALTIES

...With all-too-rare exceptions, our politicians, right or left, really don't give a damn about our troops... they really only value our troops as tools of partisan policies or for photo ops.

Between the incumbent president and his would-be replacements, only one has served in uniform or had a son or daughter serve in uniform?...

We've seen President Bush dressed up in a flight suit, grinning like Alfred E. Neuman among troops who desperately want to believe in their commander-in-chief. We've seen Sen. Hillary Clinton do drive-bys in Iraq- just long enough to make political statements, pose with the troops, then zip home....

I'm just damned angry. The right won't admit any mistakes in Iraq, while the left seeks to undercut progress there....

We also face, for the first time, national-level leaders who would rather lose a war than lose an election.

* From President Bush, a straightforward, no-excuses apology for his administration's arrogance and earlier mistakes in this war.

* From Sen. Clinton... a commitment to listen to our leading generals before making any decisions regarding troop withdrawals.

* From Sen. Obama... a pledge to give a fair hearing to military advice before surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq.

* From both parties in Congress, a return to the policy that, in wartime, politics stops at the water's edge.

Four thousand dead service members in Iraq? Does any reader of this column believe that Bush, Clinton or Obama has lost a single hour of sleep thinking about those troops and their families?

I suspect that pathetic can't-get-a-date-so-I'll-protest-the-war guy on the street corner down here in the DC suburbs felt a more-genuine concern than any of the above....

Letters to the Editor, March 28, 2008:

DON'T LUMP BUSH WITH HILL AND BAM
March 28, 2008 — THE ISSUE: Whether politicians truly care about the 4,000 troops who've died in Iraq.

To those of us cosseted comfortably in America, Ralph Peters offers a sophisticated view, informed by both military service and world travel, that is a refreshing change from the rubbish proffered by the mainstream media (”Abusing America's War Dead,” PostOpinion, March 25).

But while Peters is justified in his anger over the casualties in Iraq, he is wrong to infer from the manner in which President Bush applied military force in Iraq that Bush harbors the kind of disdain for the military displayed frequently by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and others.

Bush made mistakes, including, first and foremost, the inability to explain and sustain support for the war. Fine young Americans have died because of these mistakes.

Mistakes are not malice, however, and I cannot abide Peters’ assertion that Bush lacked concern for the welfare of our troops.

Chris Ohmes
Vienna, Va.

****
While some of what Peters says may be true, jumping on the bandwagon to bash the good men and women who serve in Congress is offensive.

A number of them have or have had family in Iraq.

Yes, there were mistakes made, and some of us weren't listened to in trying to prevent them, but do your homework.

Many of us who have worked on Capitol Hill have spent many sleepless nights trying to bring those tired, dusty and valiant troops home victorious.

Comments like Peters’ only help the cut-and-run congressmen.

Sue Kelly
Former Congresswoman
Katonah

****

Let's not forget that this isn't simply 4,000 of our citizens who have died in Iraq.

There are now tens of thousands of children who will never be born and hundreds of thousands of us who will never be able to enjoy and rejoice at what, years from now, could have been so much more of our American family.

Jim Burns
Valley Stream

****
Why do so many writers on the right insist on polishing their non-partisan bona fides by attacking their own?

That's exactly what Peters is doing in “Abusing America's War Dead.”

He has no basis for comparing Bush's attitude toward our war dead with that of Clinton or Obama.

First, Peters has his facts wrong regarding the lack of military service of the current president and the candidates.

Second, Clinton's contempt for soldiers has been well-documented.

To lump Bush in with these mountebanks is absurd.

I believe this president loses plenty of sleep over the men and women who've died in battle.

Paul DeSisto
Cedar Grove, NJ

****
Perhaps Peters should take a little time off. It appears that he is losing his grip on reality due to his animus toward the president and the long-gone Donald Rumsfeld.

To accuse the president of not losing sleep and never having served in the military is shameful.

This is a slam on all National Guard and Reserve troops who have served just as honorably as Peters.

Perhaps Peters should suit up and go back into service and use his rage to show us how to win the war, rather than take potshots from the sidelines as the Democrats do.

Molly Vail
Lexington, Mich.

****
We have reached our 4,000th death in Iraq since 2003, which translates into 800 deaths per year or 15 deaths per week.

Compare that to the 420,000 American deaths in World War II, which translated into 105,000 deaths per year or 2,019 deaths per week.

I say our brave armed forces have performed well under simultaneous enemy and Democratic fire.

Lee Anthony Nieves
Charlotte, NC

****

I appreciate Peters’ columns and his expertise in military affairs. However the question, “Does any reader of this column believe that Bush, Clinton or Obama has lost a single hour of sleep thinking about those troops and their families?” is way over the line.

To answer his question: Yes. I believe that the president has.

He has met with over 1,000 families who have lost loved ones.

By most accounts, the president is a sincere, Christian man who is greatly troubled by the decisions he has made.

There are hundreds of articles and pictures online that detail his meetings with grieving family members. He weeps with them, and he prays with them.

Michael Lagana
Gambrills, Md.

****

It is the politicians on the left who have made a mockery of this war in Iraq by keeping score of our dead for their own benefit to be re-elected. This situation is so obvious.

Richard Homer Bucco
Bloomfield, NJ

Peters has been like this since the war began. I like his stuff, mostly - I own two of his books - but he does tend to devolve into an "us vs. them" attitude when considering the military and their absolutely legitimate civilian bosses. Sticking up for the troops is an excellent thing, but pretending that you're the only one to do so isn't.

That said, I do agree with this:

From both parties in Congress, a return to the policy that, in wartime, politics stops at the water's edge.

That has always been a somewhat imperfect policy, but it has never in the history of the United States been so abused as it has been with respect to Iraq. The spectacle of Nancy Pelosi in a head scarf opening her own private negotiations with a head of state whose people were actively engaged in killing our troops ought to have been repellent to any honest American, especially with those whose concern seems to be "don't you dare question my patriotism." We are reminded of late of "Baghdad" Jim McDermott enjoying a Middle East junket on the money illegally extracted and diverted to an enemy intelligence service. We even see the disgusting attempt of Hillary Clinton to steal a little glory by pretending to be under fire, the same fire experienced by troops who she has openly held in contempt in the past. I would be a lot happier if Peters were to reserve his ire for them and not, in an attempt to appear even-handed, parcel it out to people such as Bush who do not deserve it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.