Troops, families question Iraq strategy

“Most surveyed say Bush sent too few troops; relied too much on Guard

Saturday, October 16, 2004 Posted: 1:49 PM EDT (1749 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Members of the military and their families say the Bush administration underestimated the number of troops needed in Iraq and put too much pressure on inadequately trained National Guard and reserve forces, according to a poll released Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/military.poll2.ap/index.html”

“The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now.
<snip>
Sanchez, who was the senior commander on the ground in Iraq from the summer of 2003 until the summer of 2004, said in his letter that Army units in Iraq were "struggling just to maintain . . . relatively low readiness rates" on key combat systems, such as M-1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, anti-mortar radars and Black Hawk helicopters.
<snip>
He also protested in his letter, sent Dec. 4 to the number two officer in the Army, with copies to other senior officials, that his soldiers still needed protective inserts to upgrade 36,000 sets of body armor but that their delivery had been postponed twice in the month before he was writing. There were 131,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at the time.

In what appears to be a plea to top officials to spur the bureaucracy to respond more quickly, Sanchez concluded, "I cannot sustain readiness without Army-level intervention."
<snip>
His letter of concern has surfaced after repeated statements by President Bush that he is determined to ensure that U.S. troops fighting in Iraq have all that they need to execute their missions. "I have pledged, as has the secretary of defense, to give our troops everything that is necessary to complete their mission with the utmost safety," he said in May. Earlier this month in Manchester, N.H., he said, "When America puts our troops in combat, I believe they deserve the best training, the best equipment, the full support of our government."
<snip>

Full Story”

“Veteran support?
Wednesday, April 6, 2005

To the editor:

My wife and I, both veterans of the U.S. military, found out the truth about Republican support for veterans at Ann Coulter's lecture last Tuesday. After I, a former Marine infantry sergeant, asked Coulter how she defended her promotion of the war, based on lies, which has sent 1,500 of my brothers and sisters to their deaths and 100,000 Iraqis to their graves, she responded that, "you're even stupider than I thought." This received an abundance of applause from the party that claims to "support our troops."

At the same moment, several Republicans hurled obscenities at my wife, a Navy veteran, and one threatened her with physical violence, stating he would kick her in the head if she didn't "shut up," when she was asking Coulter a question. The Republican Party claims to "support the troops," but who qualifies as a "troop"? Is the "troop" label only legit when we agree with the Republican stance, even if that "troop" has served in uniform bravely and selflessly for four years?

This is the manner in which the Republican Party treats its veterans that disagree with them. They threaten them with violence and call them names like "stupid," "f-ing #&%!$," or "idiot," all of which were hurled at my wife and I at Coulter's talk, despite our service to this nation. Ask yourselves this question, Lawrence: Why do you think they need to attack free-thinking veterans?

Chris White,

Lawrence”

“LOL
Sounds like another internet fake letter from some Dem.”

“Sure it does.

Published in The Lawrence Journal-World”

“It's pretty typical of Coulter. She doesn't like to have her "views" questioned.”

“Letters to the Editor
Not exactly Hard News, LOL.
They print letters from people that see little green space men too.”

“So you're accusing a veteran of being a liar because you don't like what he is saying?

Typical.”

“LOL”