Sen Durbin should send these troops a card
Excerpts from a letter from Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu, U.S. Army (Ret.), mistakenly attributed Col. Wade F. Dennis, JTF GTMO, APO AE 09360 (he's the addressee your cards should be addressed too) posted at Democracy Project via Ratzinger Fan Club,
Instead of bullets and IEDs, troopers here duck noxious "cocktails" of the fab five: feces, urine, spit, semen, and vomit tossed into their faces. They don't receive Purple Hearts when an enemy detainee requests a comfort item then grabs the hand of the kind guard passing it to him and breaks the trooper's arm or wrist.
Do you want to guess who receives the Christmas and Holiday greetings here in Guantanamo? The terrorist detainees who are confined here to keep them from killing you and your families! Last year alone Guantanamo detainees received more than 14,000 cards, the vast majority from muddle-headed well-wishers and sympathizers. This year local authorities estimate the number may exceed 16,000! Some are addressed to the detainees by name or by their detainee number, available on the Pentagon website. Most are simply addressed to "Any Detainee at Guantanamo."
Like the other 40,000 or so pieces of detainee mail that transit the post office on the base the cards are distributed into the cells. The cards are passed out to the detainees by troopers who may themselves not have received any sort of greeting from home in a long time. Some of the troops here are wary about the way they are perceived by their friends and families at home. One officer said that "nobody in my family was in the military. None of my friends have the slightest clue of what we do here. They think I'm some kind of brutal jailor or something."
It's hard to blame the American public for being ignorant about real conditions here considering that their opinions are shaped in large part by politicians eager to score points against the president by trashing the soldiers at Guantanamo, or by a compliant media ready to believe and promulgate the worse without the trouble of fact-checking or balancing the story.
These troops have been called terrible names by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin and by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry from Massachusetts. On the House side Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha act as if the troops are the problem and not the terrorists. No wonder some reservists who have returned from tours in Guantanamo to the States are reluctant to tell their friends where they served.
52 comments:
Great post.
Just a question. Is there any way to get how many of the letters sent to detainees were sent from organizations like the Red Cross, Catholic Charities, assorted Christian Charities, peace activists, Muslim groups, etc.?
Also, I know when my brother in law was in Iraq (Ill. Reserves), the real culprit in many situations was independent contractors. His unit would do a months work of good will in a village, and mercs would show up one day, pointing guns in peoples faces, and ruin everything. They have no rules whatsoever, and I believe their total current number is upwards of 100 thousand total (they compromise the third largest fighting force behind the US and British). I rememember during the Abu Gharib situation, there was a panoramic pic of several of the people indicted, along with unidentified "contractors". Our military has strict rules on interragation - they would never want to lower standards of care should the situation be reversed.
Further, Murtha's comments were in regards to two things - a civil war, where we should not be involved, and the Haditha incident, where 24 civilians were killed.
You may have missed it in the paper a few days ago, but there were a number of charges pressed against some Marines, including multiple murder charges against one soldier who was suing Murtha for defamation.
America has set the standard for treatment of prisoners. I think it is fair groups, such as the CIA and other clandestine groups, use "further" methods to gain information. What sets us apart is we hold ourselves responsible for our misdeeds. We are better than them.
Best wishes to all our military, at home and overseas this holiday season. Be safe and be sure.
Clarification above - Not all the @ 100m contractors are soldiers. Many are in support roles - cooks, truck drivers, etc. - who aren't obligated to fight like US soldiers when the bullets start flying. But the mercs who fight are the third largest military presence.
Cheers.
Best to ask your questions of DoD 14th. What stunned me about this letter was you rarely see a serving Military Officer call out US Senators like this. Especially a full bird who usually is all geared up for that first star.
Col Wade must have his retirement papers filed to be writing a letter like this.
Get your facts straight.
Durbin said that abuse occurs at Gitmo.
He's right. It does.
He never made any blanket comment about all American troops.
For your next post, how about asking your President to send the troops some body armor? They like greetings, but they really like body armor which the Republicans have failed to provide.
By the way -- this was another negative post by Baar.
Put it in a card to Col Wade Skeeter. He wrote the letter.
As for negativity... I wonder what Durbin's office will be sending to SecDef Gates about getting called out by Col Wade? A US Senator isn't going to let that go unoticed.
Why would they get Christmas cards?
aren't they Muslim
LL,
Do you EVER get your fact straight?
Try reading a book or something.
The Democrats have consistently sought funding for body armor, and the Republicans have consistently refused it.
To all of the above commenters. I do not care what any US soldier has to say to any particular person because they have more than earned that right. I'm sick of the politics as usual garbage in regards to our military. God bless all of them and keep them safe.
Merry Christmas to all and you too.
LL,
Do some real research instead of just parroting what you hear on Fox.
What kind of body armor was provided in that bill?
They used better stuff in Vietnam than the Republican controlled Senate wanted to provide our troops.
What a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Durbin never sent any prisoners a christmas card, despite that implication in the letter. Durbin and Kerry didn't call the troops names.
Why doesn't George Bush send a letter of apology to the troops for lying to their faces about why he sent them into battle? That isn't exactly my idea of supporting the troops.
Lovie's Leather, this is an old post I put up, but since you are referencing a specific vote. Here is perhaps independent assessment of congress between 2000-2004. I say perhaps because they are new, and I don't know who is funding them.
The Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America have congressional ratings in which democrats across the board are fairing much better at supporting the troops.
Here is the list
Here is the methodology and their positions on every vote.
I was curious if this was a cover for some veterans who became green party peaceniks. So I went in and looked at the Kerry Amdt. which is the forced redeployment. The IAVA is against such an amendmend which makes this more credible to me.
Fun note. Just talked to my brother in law a few hours ago. He spoke to Rep. Shimkus in early '04 when he was in Iraq. They went into detail how they uparmormed their Humvees with sandbags and plywood, and how they had "borrowed" a generals armored truck for two and a half weeks (apparently, generals didn't like to leave their air conditioned areas often). Shimkus, who served in the military, dutily told my bro-in-law superiors, who dressed him and some other E-6's down for telling the damn truth. His general also got his second star, by playing the good trooper.
Then he spoke of the elections, when every available troop was called back to Baghdad to lock that city down for the purple-finger photo op. Unfortunately, they couldn't remain at the police post in al-Semaria (sp - sorry), where they were doing a good job "Iraqifying" the area - due to all armor being called back, and no confimation they would have air support. Guess what happened when they left? RPGS and a full on assault, killing and wounding many of the people at police post, and effectively ending the good will we had created. Why? Because we can't protect civilians. The saddest case was "Lenny", and Iraqi making $5 a day cleaning the station. He rode a bike w/a transistor radio rigged to operate when he rode, like the old-fashioned lights we had on our bikes as kids. A guy just trying to get ahead. When they found him, his eyes were drilled out, and he was shot dead. By the way, when you read about multiple bodies being found daily, this is what they look like.
All this over a nice meal of pork tenderloin, asparagus, mashed potatoes, wine, and good company.
Crash-Dev, I am trying to get him to speak out on this. He is apolitical, and I want him to get involved w/IAVA. I agree w/many of their postions - they aren't peaceniks, but serious about what the mission of our troops are and how best we can support them (note to all - yellow ribbon bumper stickers and shopping ain't it).
God bless you all tonight, and keep our troops in mind and the people they are protecting. Merry Christmas.
Sorry, forgot to ask - LL, could you post the military budget info or a link breaking it down? I know this gets tossed out there often, but I would like to see it displayed.
And also, congress maintains the purse strings and can approve/reject these initiatives with votes. I'd also like to see which congressmen/senators voted along w/these budget cuts.
Thanks again. Hope you and yours have a good Christmas.
Everyone is talking about Iraq and Afganistan here.
Col Wade is talking about Gitmo as the forgotten theater... a place where the terrorists get more Christmas Card than then the troops. He's asking we send some.
He's got a point.
Bill,
Re: Put it in a card to Col Wade Skeeter. He wrote the letter.
Can you check your story again. Active duty Col. Wade F. Dennis DID NOT WRITE THIS COLUMN/EMAIL. Following your advice on the above Obama post, I Googled Col. Wade, and saw various postings on this topic. Your link on the post directs you to the correct column, but the AUTHOR OF THE LETTER IS LT. COL. GORDON CUCULLU, U.S. Army (Ret.).
Ret. refers to Retired, and retired officers are free to comment on many topics, including many recent Generals in Iraq, like Batiste, who have called out the administration on the awful job they have been doing.
You are correct, Col. Dennis would likely never make a comment like this in public on record. Military code does not permit it. But Lt. Col. Cucullu is free to say anything he wants. I would assume your assumption that Sen. Durbin will do something negative to Col. Dennis is also not based on merit, either.
Unfortunately, Iraq and Afghanistan are also fronts on the global WOT, which is why they get dragged into this discussion. People are passionate about it, and want the best outcome. It is like all the posts about Obama, regardless of the topic, and Rezko keeps popping up. Until there is a resolution on it, some people are always going to correlate the two. Hell, some people believe Saddam and Osama co-conspired 9-11 together still, which is why we invaded Iraq.
Hope all had a wonderful Christmas.
Too funny.
Looks like NOBODY is reading the stuff Baar posts -- even Baar!
You really should print a retraction for slandering the good name and the service record of Col. Dennis.
Lovie's Leather said...
Skeeter, remind we again which president was is that cut the military budget in half???
9:56 PM
That is not responsive. To re-state the question: What sort of body armor, if any, was purchased pursuant to the the bill you mentioned?
Try doing some real research, LL.
Where is the slander in misattributing a solicition for Christmas cards for troops at Gitmo Skeeter?
The reality is the terrorists there seem to get more then the Americans guarding them.
It has nothing to do with body armour and all the other mumbo jumbo you're rambling about....
Send a soldier belated xmas card skeetr.
Skeeter,
Since you are SO smart, why don't you tell us what kind of armor was going to be provided by that bill, then cite your source to back it up, then cite your source where the NAY voters used that specific armor as justification for voting NO.
Get YOUR FACTS together then share them with us.
You accused an Army Officer of making a political statement.
That's defamation.
The other point would be clear if you had, for a change, actually read some stuff. The point was that the Democrats have done far more that than the Republicans for the safety of our troops.
People like you want to send the troops nice cards. The Democrats like me want to send them real body armor.
I admit I never served, but I suspect that if I was serving, I would far prefer some high quality body armor over a nice card.
Send Col wade a check with your card Skeeter.... scan it and I'll post it here for the world.
Send Col wade a check with your card Skeeter.... scan it and I'll post it here for the world.
Bill,
I've got a better idea. How about you apologize in writing to Col. Wade, so that he doesn't sue you.
Stop dragging the names of our military officers through the mud.
Still waiting for the citation of your "real body armor" claim, skeeter. Got your FACTS yet?
Bill,
What is the check for? Armor? Don't believe it is necessary in Guantanamo.
Unfortunately, the off-the-budget e
You're right about the defamation.
But it would clarify things. Right now, it seems like a uniformed officer is challenging elected officials. A retired officer, with or without a political agenda, frames the post entirely differently.
Thanks in advance.
Sorry about the last post. It should read
"Please update your post" would follow the defamation.
Also, strike the unfortunate line...lost my train of thought there...
Thanks again.
Skeeter,
We're still waiting for your FACTS...
I'm sorry, did somebody say something? All I hear is some anonymous grumbling.
I don't respond substantively to anonymous posts.
Skeeter,
Since you are SO smart, why don't you tell us what kind of armor was going to be provided by that bill, then cite your source to back it up, then cite your source where the NAY voters used that specific armor as justification for voting NO.
Get YOUR FACTS together then share them with us...
Still waiting for the citation of your "real body armor" claim, skeeter. Got your FACTS yet?
Vote #116, 108th Congress, First Session), would have added $1billion to the budget of the National Guard and Reserves for procurement of equipment – including body armor.
That was the ONLY bill presented that would have provided up to date body armor to the troops in Iraq.
Every single Republican Senator voted against that bill.
For more info:
http://www.ifilms.tv/votevetsweb/burns.html
Your turn, Raid.
Got anything?
"That was the ONLY bill presented that would have provided up to date body armor to the troops in Iraq. Every single Republican Senator voted against that bill."
Poor skeeter, so easily gullible. That claim and its subsequent ad was already revealed as a FRAUD.
Vote 116 made no mention of body armor, NOT ONE, just unspecified "National Guard and Reserve Equipment."
For more info:
http://www.factcheck.org/article438.html
"Do you every get your facts straight?"
"Do some real research".
"You really should print a retraction".
We all await your letter of apology for your slander and defamation against every single Republican Senator.
A little research is as bad as no research, Raid.
If you read the full piece, you would see that Sen. Landrieu made numerous remarks stating that the money was intended for body armor.
Just as No Child Left Behind makes no explicit reference to high schools, but clearly governs them, the bill in question clearly covers body armor.
I await your apology.
The googling has begun.
RAID, try this one:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609220012
It is on the third page if you google "factcheck body armor",
and this one:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8539.html
Also, re: slander - I don't think BB was trying to defame the Col. w/a misattributed quote. He has posted a correction and that should be it. Just like Skeeter wasn't libeling the senators (slander has origins in spoken words/signs, libel is written. Defamation is actually the preferred use when not specifying either type - wikipedia).
Folks, talk to some vets who served in Iraq. Ask them about the armor. Ask if they thought is was comfortable, useful, etc. Ask them about humvees and how long it took them to get the armor for them. Ask if they think more troops initally would have helped. You may not get a single answer of agreement, but it beats the hell out of reading about it between Google searches. Remember, the clock on Iraq started 9/12/01 - about 18 months before Op.Enduring Freedom. Gen. Zinni, CIC of CentCom, even broke out the poor preparation for this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
Thanks again for good discussion.
district 14,
MediaMatters does not dispute the facts that FactCheck cited in their report, they simply claim that a press release redefines the meaning of a bill despite how the bill was specifically written and debated in the Senate. It doesn't. The Carpetbagger provides no original analsysis, it just references the MediaMatters column.
Not to mention that MediaMatters is partisan, and FactCheck is not.
skeeter, I'm sorry that you are unable to discern a press release from a Senate bill and its debate, though I'm not surprised. You made a very specific claim that was proven FALSE. Though, that's also not surprising.
again...
"Do you every get your facts straight?"
"Do some real research".
"You really should print a retraction".
Thanks, Raid. Try the Dodd amendment linked in the article:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00376
and Dodd's floor statement:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S12351&dbname=2003_record
I don't believe it was for Landrieus request, but was for a subsequent spending bill.
Yes, Mediamatters is as partisan as the Media Research Center, or
other links people point to occasionally here. However, you raised a good point, and an example was offered.
Thanks again.
district 14,
I agree with you on that point, but that was not vote 116, which is what was specifically cited by skeeter and the misleading/fraudulent votevets ad.
I appreciate your citations, though. Skeeter should take a lesson from you.
Raid,
Nice tactic -- declare victory and go home.
Too bad Mr. Bush didn't follow your advice.
In any case, the point remains: The bill in question was clearly intended to provide body armor. That can't be denied by anyone but the most blind partisan.
No wonder you continue to deny it.
Skeeter,
You continue to defend your losing position even though it has been proven again and again to be wrong. You must be following Bush's advice.
The fact remains that the bill and its debate in the Senate contained no reference to body armor. READ the bill and the Senate transcripts, those are the FACTS.
again...
"Do you every get your facts straight?"
"Do some real research".
"You really should print a retraction".
Raid,
No Child Left Behind made no explicit reference to high schools, but it definitely applied to them. The bill in question had no explicit mention of body armor but it clearly was applicable.
The Senator made the intent clear. If you don't like it, too bad.
And do you really want anybody to believe that you read the debates?
Do some real research and then post.
The Senator never mentioned body armor in the bill or during her remarks during debate. I understand that is difficult for you to understand since you believe that "intent" is the same thing as factual event. YOU obviously haven't read the debates, the bill, nor anything else besides your favorite partisan hack websites.
You cited something as fact that was proven FALSE.
again...
"Do you every get your facts straight?"
"Do some real research".
"You really should print a retraction".
This is becoming boring, Raid.
Initially, why do you believe that Senator Sessions made his comments, unless the intent was to provide body armor? Why did he take such offense?
Further:
1. Does No Child Left Behind apply to high schools?
2. Are high schools mentioned in the bill?
There is a difference between "debate" and "repeating the same matters over and over and over." That's all you've dcne, Raid. If you have new facts, post them. You haven't. All you have done is say:
1. No mention in the bill; and
2. No mention in floor debate.
You've ignored the comments by the bill's sponsor made off the floor which show the intent of the bill.
And, of course, you've declared victory.
Unless you decide to add some new facts, I'm moving on, victory secure.
Your debate about NCLB is with yourself, though most of your discussions probably are.
I don't have to "debate" the issue because are you openly admit:
1. No mention in the bill; and
2. No mention in floor debate.
Intent after the fact is irrelevant.
Those are the FACTS, nothing else is required. If that bores you, that's your problem.
again...
"Do you every get your facts straight?"
"Do some real research".
"You really should print a retraction".
Declaring "victory" against you would be as meaningful as declaring victory against someone trying to argue that the world is flat.
Raid,
Please explain the comments by Senator Sessions regarding the bill.
As you said: "READ the bill and the Senate transcripts, those are the FACTS."
Explain his comments, and then tell me that the bill did not contemplate body armor.
Of course, the fact remains that Sen. Landrieu was very clear about the intent of the bill, which is why every GOP Senator, including Sessions, opposed it.
FACT: Senator Sessions did not write the bill. His opinions do not change the facts in regards to body armor, which you already stated:
1. No mention in the bill; and
2. No mention in floor debate.
Senators vote on bills, not press releases. Take a government class, then post.
again...
"Do you every get your facts straight?"
"Do some real research".
"You really should print a retraction".
No mention in the floor debate???
Come on. Look at what Sen. Sessions said and then tell me that. If he wasn't talking about body armor, what in the world was he talking about?
And how do you explain Sen. Brownback's taking such offense?
When is the last time you saw Republican Senators getting mad about spending more money on the military?
Do the floor debates matter or not? Or is it only the people who vote for the amendment that matter?
Do some research. Your line of argument is ridiculous.
"No mention in the floor debate???"
- Correct. You're finally starting to grasp simple English.
Fact: Body armor was not mentioned in the bill nor during the floor debate. The votevet ad was a proven FRAUD, and your accusation and citation were therefore FALSE.
Your denial of such basic factual information is ridiculous, bordering on delusional.
A press release does not equal nor redefine actual legislation. Your lack of understanding of the legislative process is quite astounding for someone who comments on it so often. Please enroll in a government class, posthaste.
again...
"Do you every get your facts straight?"
"Do some real research".
"You really should print a retraction".
Raid
You have yet to do any research.
You parroted, but clearly did not read, one article.
You did not read the post cited above which effectively demolishes the one article that you skimmed through.
Then you simply re-stated your position and declared victory while doing no research on your own.
Had you done research, you could have easily pointed to the "flaws" in my argument, i.e. that neither Sessions nor Brownback spoke a word in the debate. That was a complete fabrication on my part to determine if you had done any real research. Cochran did speak out against it though. Had you read the debate, as you claimed to, you would have known and would have pointed that out. Had you done so, I would have had some respect for you.
I don't have time for people too lazy to argue facts and who do nothing more than parrot simple articles.
Debate takes work, and you are not up to the task. Or at least that's what Sen. Sessions said. You could look it up.
But you won't. We both know that.
Poor skeeter.
I already read the all the articles, and the partisan hack site did nothing to discredit the analysis of FactCheck. A press release is not a bill. It’s that easy. Perhaps you need basic instruction in the process of creating and passing a bill. Would “Schoolhouse Rock” be too complicated for you?
You still need to work on your grasp of English, though. I never acknowledged that Sessions said anything specific about the bill, just that he did not write it, nor do his opinions about it alter the fact that body armor was never mentioned in the bill. That statement is still FACT. See how that works? FACTS are true in all situations.
FACT: Body armor was not mentioned in the bill.
FACT: Body armor was not mentioned in the debate.
FACT: Senators vote on bills, not press releases.
You accusation was FALSE, you citation was a FRAUD, and you are admittedly dishonest. I don’t need or seek your respect. It clearly isn’t worth much.
again...
"Do you every get your facts straight?"
"Do some real research".
"You really should print a retraction".
Raid,
You didn't contradict my claim that Sessions and Brownback made statements in the debate that indicated that the bill concerned body armor.
All the insults in the world will not change that.
You were too lazy to do research and as a result, you missed the easy one. You half read one article. That was the extent of your wit and learning.
I don't have any more time for lazy people.
By the way, if you want to argue with grown-ups, what, if anything, DID Sen. Cochran say about the bill?
You don't know the answer and won't. You are too lazy to do the research. That's why you vote Republican. They like your kind.
Skeeter,
A response to every statement you make is unnecessary, much like your unilateral debate about NCLB, because they are irrelevant. Assuming you can impose such requirements is a reflection of an oversized and undeserved ego.
Everything I have written is a proven FACT.
FACT: Body armor was not mentioned in the bill.
FACT: Body armor was not mentioned in the debate.
FACT: Senators vote on bills, not press releases.
I understand that you don't have "any more time" to come to grips with these FACTS, but please make time for that government class between your visits to partisan hack sites. A rudimentary understanding of the legislative process will greatly improve the credibility of your future comments.
Now you've lost me.
Is the debate on the amendment important or not?
If the debate is not important, then who cares what was said by Sen. Landrieu and other Democrats?
If the debate is important, then what is your response to the comments by Sen. Cochran?
Also -- one debate tip: The more you talk about classwork, the more obvious it is that you are still in the process of deciding where to pursue your undergraduate education.
Skeeter,
"Is the debate on the amendment important or not?"
Yes. A bill, it's amendments, and the floor debate determine what is being voted on.
Press releases do not.
Body armor was not mentioned in Landrieu's amendment.
Body armor was not mentioned BY ANY SENATOR during debate of Landrieu's amendment.
Landrieu's press release is not a substitute for Landrieu's amendment nor it's debate.
Since there was not a single citation of body armor during floor debate, any floor comments on other aspects of that amendment are irrelevant as your allegation and your citation was EXPLICITLY SPECIFIC to body armor.
Those are the FACTS.
Your allegation was FALSE.
Your citation was a proven FRAUD.
again...
"Do you every get your facts straight?"
"Do some real research".
"You really should print a retraction".
Denial of fact and resistance to further education are symptomatic of an immature mind.
For all your comments about your great learning, you have yet to display it.
You talk about "debate", but don't comment about my alleged debate comments Sens. Sessions and Brownback. Of course, the reason that you didn't comment on those debate comment was that you only read on article about the debate and never made the effort to determine if that one article was accurate.
You must have slept through class when they talked about "primary sources" and "secondary sources."
In this case, had you gone to the primary source you would have found Sen. Cochran's comments about body armor. But you didn't. Because you are lazy. It shows.
Read Sen. Cochran's DEBATE comments, and then fess up.
And by the way -- your premise is wrong anyway. Had the bill passed, courts would look to any comment by the bill's sponsor, whether on the floor or elsewhere.
Post a Comment