Page 1 of 1

Max Cleland speaks out against the war in Iraq

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:31 pm
by Arlos
For those who don't know who he is, he's an ex-senator, and a Vietnam vet who lost 3 limbs in combat action in that war. I dare anyone to claim he is some hippy peacenik, given what he went through and what he sacrificed.

(CNN) -- President Bush on Saturday said the United States is fighting "terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world," and a former U.S. senator who fought in the Vietnam War denounced the Iraq war effort, saying "its plan for victory is not working."

Bush delivered his remarks in his weekly radio address and former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia spoke in the weekly Democratic radio response.

Their words reflect the different priorities of Americans concerning the war in Iraq, which the United States launched more than two years ago, versus the conflict in Afghanistan, which began a month after al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

The president, noting that the four-year anniversary of 9/11 is approaching, said "since that day, we have taken the fight to the enemy," saying the country has upended "terror cells and their financial support networks" and have taken insurgents on "in foreign lands before they can attack us here at home."

"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy.

"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail," Bush said.

Cleland, who came home from Vietnam a triple amputee, said that the U.S. military must give the troops what they need to win or get out of Iraq.

"I learned in Vietnam that the best way to support our troops is to either give them the forces and equipment needed to win or bring them home so we can care for those who have borne the battle," he said. Critics say the administration has not properly equipped troops and underestimated the number that would be necessary to fight.
Bush itinerary

Next week, Bush said, he will visit troops in Idaho and veterans in Utah and thank them for their service.

The troops include National Guard members as well as the "men and women of the Mountain Home Air Force Base who played a leading role in the air campaign in Afghanistan after the September the 11th attacks."

He said he will address the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Salt Lake City.

At the end of August, he said, he said, he will be in San Diego "to commemorate the 60th anniversary of V-J Day, the day that ended World War II."

He said the tasks that "troops have given their lives for" must be completed.

"Like previous wars we have waged to protect our freedom, the war on terror requires great sacrifice from Americans. By their courage and sacrifices, today's soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen and Marines are taking their rightful place among the heroes of history, and the American people are thankful and proud."
Cleland: 'Miscalculations' rampant

"The "administration needs to step up the plate," Cleland said. "It's time to face the truth. It's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out."

He said the administration miscalculated the number of troops needed to fight, saying "we don't have the forces there to make it secure."

Bush, he said, sloughed off the advice the "top military brass who said that at least 500,000 troops were needed to secure Iraq. The president committed only one-fifth of that force to the war."

Currently, Cleland said, the military, including the National Guard and Reserves, is struggling because of this. Service members are returning for more tours and the casualties are growing, with almost 2,000 service members dead and more than 15,000 wounded, he said.

"The toll on the service men and women in a war where a distinct majority of the casualties are due to explosive devices is especially devastating," Cleland said, who noted that "I've seen the toll that war can take on our troops and on limbs on that battlefield."

In contrast, he made a common argument critics of Bush have raised in questioning the timing of the war. "Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cadre who did attack our country on September 11, 2001 are still on the loose," which was Cleland's one reference to the Afghan conflict.

Another miscalculation Bush made was that he declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1, 2003, Cleland said.

"This judgment was wrong. Major combat is not over. The cost has been extremely bloody for this nation."

He also criticized the administration's budget for veterans, arguing that "at least $3.5 billion more is needed. We should be expanding V.A. healthcare -- especially counseling for veterans and their families dealing with the emotional aftermath of war."


-Arlos

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:41 pm
by Harrison
He's a hippy.

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:04 pm
by Lyion
He's definitely a left wing partisan democrat. Big surprise he speaks out about the war. What's the source there, Arlos?

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:30 pm
by Tikker
Take your head out of your ass for a minute and read the article Lyion


You too Arlos


He's not actually against the war, he just wants more troops, more weapons, more armor, etc


He wants to either go in and win absolutely, or to stop wasting time and pull out

To me, it read like he'd rather go in and win

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:04 pm
by Lyion
lyion wrote:He's definitely a left wing partisan democrat. Big surprise he speaks out about the war. What's the source there, Arlos?


Where did I say he was for or against the war, Tik? I said he was a partisan democrat following the DNC marching orders.

Hillary has been railing for more troops. Kerry has, also. Others in the DNC are clamoring say we need a draft due to the administration mistakes. That is all politics.

The simple truth is the DNC and RNC are both playing politics with this issue and its total bullshit. Bush should spend more time listening to people like General Casey and less worrying about saying the wrong thing to the partisan idiots.

If Cleland was a respected moderate it'd be easier to take what he's saying serously, but he is a DNC person simply playing politics, and most of what he is saying is for political reasons, because he obviously ignored Tommy Franks who ran the war and said he was given exactly what he asked for.

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:40 pm
by Rust
Yeah, God forbid that sending adequate troops to do the job properly is anything but pure Democratic propaganda. Or pointing out the Bush people had no plan what to do in Iraq once they kicked Saddam out -- pure radical leftie agitprop. How dare Cleland point out Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech and his mistruth about major combat being over.... comfort to the enemy, pure and simple!

Thanks for clearing that up, Lyion.

--R.

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:38 pm
by Captain Insano
I think we should pull out and nuke the entire fucking place.


Can I be a democrat now?

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:47 pm
by Narrock
Max Cleland gets pizzowned:

THE SORROWFULLY PITIFUL MAX CLELAND

Looks like Max Cleland has really taken to his role as The Poodle's attack dog. Yesterday Sad Max had a telephone conference call with reporters during which he said that President Bush attacked Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein because "his daddy was a failed president." Cleland said that Bush wanted to be "Mr. Macho Man" and said that Bush "flat-out lied" when he asked the congress to authorize a war against Iraq.

Cleland's role as Kerry's dog washer is particularly troubling to myself and fellow Georgians who have known him so long. I don't think any of us realized the depth of the bitterness this man is able to generate over real and perceived misfortunes. I dare say that with each Cleland rant there are more and more Georgians who are thankful that he no longer represents this state in the U.S. Senate.

The Cleland story that the left is trying to portray to the rest of the nation is that evil, hate-filled Republicans in Georgia attacked his "patriotism" during the 2000 Senate Race. I was sitting right here doing talk radio in Georgia during that time ... and it just didn't happen. Cleland's patriotism wasn't attacked. What was attacked was his leach-like attachment to Tom Daschle. Daschle recognized that Cleland wasn't strong enough to stand up to Senate leadership. He quickly became little more than a yes-man to Senate Democrats ... a loyal foot soldier who could be counted on to toe the leadership line even when the leadership cause was at odds with the expressed desires or best interests of the Georgians whom Cleland represented.

After 9/11, when the congress was creating the Department of Homeland Security, Democrats wanted to make sure that their treasured government employee unions came away from the table stronger than ever. Republicans felt that in matters of national security the President ought to have the authority to dismiss or transfer key government personnel involved in homeland security matters. Democrats disagreed. They yanked on Cleland's leash and he stood fast against the Homeland Security bill. Georgia voters aren't particularly fond of government employee unions, and they saw Cleland kowtowing to the Democratic leadership, and they fired him.

Get over it, Max. Georgia voters saw you kissing union ass, and they didn't like it. You refused to stand up to your Democratic Party puppeteers, and the voters cut your strings for you. If you had worried as much about what the people of Georgia thought as you did about what Daschle and company wanted you might still be a U.S. Senator today. Now you rant about Bush trying to be "macho" and fighting this war against Saddam's terrorist aims because his "daddy was a failed president." Funny ... but we down here in Georgia don't seem to remember you saying anything about Clinton's war in Bosnia! That war over ethnic cleansing was quite OK with you, wasn't it Max? But let a Republican fight a war against a bloody butcher who has actually used WMDs to kill his own people ... and you get squeamish. Now you're reduced to being an attack lap dog for John Kerry.

Look .... this is a man who introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate that would have given law enforcement officials the ability to simply seize your property if they ever found you in a public place connected to interstate transportation, such as an airport, Interstate highway or bus station, with more than $10,000 cash on your person. Quite the defender of individual freedom, this Max Cleland. He worked hard to earn his defeat in Georgia. Now he's working just as hard to get some federal job hand-out from The Poodle.

How sad.


LOL

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:16 pm
by Langston
Where I might respect Cleland's sacrifices for his country during his military service, I've very little respect for the man as a politician. He uses those handicaps to engender sympathy and support for his stupidity.

No - I didn't read the article... I don't need to. I LIVE in Georgia and have seen this guy at work for years. He's a real winner.

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:05 am
by kaharthemad
Langston your spelling is off today. You spelled Weiner as winner...its okay Ill fix it.

Langston wrote:No - I didn't read the article... I don't need to. I LIVE in Georgia and have seen this guy at work for years. He's a real weiner.



yeah the guy is a nut monkey of the nth degree. I lived in Georgia for a while and I know the crap this dickcheese tried to pull. Im glad Georgia got enough testicular fortitude to kick his ass out of the government sector.

As for the post by Mindia it is from Neal Boortz.

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:43 am
by xaoshaen
Rust wrote:Yeah, God forbid that sending adequate troops to do the job properly is anything but pure Democratic propaganda. Or pointing out the Bush people had no plan what to do in Iraq once they kicked Saddam out -- pure radical leftie agitprop. How dare Cleland point out Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech and his mistruth about major combat being over.... comfort to the enemy, pure and simple!

Thanks for clearing that up, Lyion.

--R.


If only Cleland had actually made the case that the U.S. devoted insufficient resources to Iraq, he would have had an interesting case. As it stands, his argument is comparable to me demanding that Mindia stop beating his wife bloody every weekend. The vileness of the behavior is self-evident: simply assuming its existence and commencing with the moral outrage is nothing more than a propaganda ploy.

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:03 am
by Zanchief
xaoshaen wrote:The vileness of the behavior is self-evident: simply assuming its existence and commencing with the moral outrage is nothing more than a propaganda ploy.


I was unaware politicians did anything but that.

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:05 am
by xaoshaen
Zanchief wrote:
xaoshaen wrote:The vileness of the behavior is self-evident: simply assuming its existence and commencing with the moral outrage is nothing more than a propaganda ploy.


I was unaware politicians did anything but that.


True enough, but when their propaganda is presented here as something more substantial, its nature bears reiteration.

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:33 pm
by araby
As for the post by Mindia it is from Neal Boortz.


he was at B&N the other day for a book signing and all I had to see was what he looked like.

I can't buy the book until I get Taxes for Dummies.