Poignant Letter From A Soldier

[Kiwon]

Well, I am offended.

How cynical, how jaded, how ass-backward do you have to be to take a letter from a soldier that ends, “Let's stop all the political nonsense, let's stop all the bickering, let's stop all the bad news and let's stand and fight! Isn't that what America is about anyway?” and then turn it into a political debate!

I gave no comment or personal opinion. I simply posted this man’s (not kid’s, he was a man) letter because, more than being impressed with his writing style and agreeing with his sentiments, I was touched by the fact that he won’t be writing any more letters ever again.

This man died last week defending you losers’ freedoms. He died (Do you understand the concept?). He died thousands of miles away from his home, from his family, from his friends. He died in a place he did not want to be in, yet felt he had to go to. He died defending his country in the hopes that his children and others will not have to go and fight the same battle.

You guys disgust me because you are the epitome of what Eddie Jeffers was talking about.

You are so divested in anything relating to America’s war against terrorism and Islamo-facism that simply YOU DON’T CARE! You don’t care about American soldiers dying, you don’t care about long-term stability in the Middle East, you don’t care about America’s place and influence in the world.

It’s just all one, big sophomoric joke, isn’t it?

This post was about Sgt. Eddie Jeffers who at age 23 had more class and courage than any critic on this board. He took action, he volunteered to defend his country while the vast majority of Americans do absolutely nothing and then complain about those who care and are active.

Yeah, maybe I should stop posting anything patriotic because it seems very few can appreciate what this man did and the fact that he died. His service and his sacrifice speak for itself and you self-centered morons don’t “get it.”

On the other hand, your ignorance won’t be a censor to me. I posted Eddie Jeffers’ letter because an articulate and wise beyond-his-years soldier died last week. He died, and his short life is worthy to be remembered and publicly honored. That’s why I posted his letter.

What’s dumber than rocks? Most of what you’ve posted here.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Let's stop all the political nonsense .

What bullshit. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

That letter is chock-full of political attacks. Fine. But then the writer can't claim to be above the fray.

I was only joking about you and Tyrone being dumb, I certainly don't think that at all. The letter you posted is highly politicized, you have to expect some blow-back when you go that route.

[Kiwon]

Let's stop all the political nonsense .

What bullshit. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

You actually question this man's credibility? I’m speechless….

Disagree with his opinions if you want, but he was speaking from Iraq and living the experience. So you disagree with his politics and therefore his life and death isn't worth noting? Why denigrate him? To what end? The man is dead.

God knows, man, do you have a heart?

jeffers221@bellsouth.net Eddie Jeffers' father's name is David.

Why don't you take one minute and write David Jeffers an email and thank him for raising a brave son who died defending your country?

[hoosier]

Let's stop all the political nonsense .

What bullshit. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

You actually question this man's credibility? I’m speechless….

I don't think it was the soldier's credibility that was being questioned, it was your sincerity. Posting something like that and then complaining about other people politicizing the issue--it reeks of hypocrisy.

[Joemailman]

It is, in my estimation, unrealistic to expect people to put politics aside in regard to this war. It was the President who first injected politics into this arena by insisting that the vote to authorize the war be held before the 2002 elections, thereby using that vote, which should not be political, as a political tool. The war issue became viciously political when Max Cleland, who left limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam, had his patriotism impugned because he voted against the war authorization.

Sgt. Jeffers gave his life in service to his country, and for that he deserves our respect and our gratitude. However, in his letter he asks us to continue to support the policies of a President who many of us believe is incapable of understanding how to bring this occupation to a successful conclusion. He is asking us to continue to throw good money after bad. Many of us believe that a change of course is needed in Iraq, and that to continue to support the policies of this President is not fair to the troops who are currently serving in Iraq. We are not bickerers, we are not oblivious to the threats posed by Islamic extremism. We are, and will continue to be this President's loyal opposition.

[mraynrand]

It is, in my estimation, unrealistic to expect people to put politics aside in regard to this war. It was the President who first injected politics into this arena by insisting that the vote to authorize the war be held before the 2002 elections, thereby using that vote, which should not be political, as a political tool. The war issue became viciously political when Max Cleland, who left limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam, had his patriotism impugned because he voted against the war authorization.

Sgt. Jeffers gave his life in service to his country, and for that he deserves our respect and our gratitude. However, in his letter he asks us to continue to support the policies of a President who many of us believe is incapable of understanding how to bring this occupation to a successful conclusion. He is asking us to continue to throw good money after bad. Many of us believe that a change of course is needed in Iraq, and that to continue to support the policies of this President is not fair to the troops who are currently serving in Iraq. We are not bickerers, we are not oblivious to the threats posed by Islamic extremism. We are, and will continue to be this President's loyal opposition.

1) Check your facts on Cleland.

2) Do any of you who oppose U.S. (Bush's) policy in Iraq ever consider that in the long therm, you might be wrong?

3) One thing that impresses me about our soldiers is that, although they are far from perfect as a group, they are indeed a great group of guys, and most Americans continually debate the wisdom of the war policy as we lose these guys. In other words, we value these guys so much, that we are debate changing course every time we suffer a single death. Many of those we are fighting are the polar opposite - they celebrate the death of the individual, especially if the person who died did so detonating children, women and other Iraqis in the name Allah (may he be praised).

[SkinBasket]

It is, in my estimation, unrealistic to expect people to put politics aside in regard to this war. It was the President who first injected politics into this arena by insisting that the vote to authorize the war be held before the 2002 elections, thereby using that vote, which should not be political, as a political tool.

You're right. It would have been much less political to let mid-term elections dictate the terms of going to war. How inconsiderate of the President.

[Joemailman]

It is, in my estimation, unrealistic to expect people to put politics aside in regard to this war. It was the President who first injected politics into this arena by insisting that the vote to authorize the war be held before the 2002 elections, thereby using that vote, which should not be political, as a political tool.

You're right. It would have been much less political to let mid-term elections dictate the terms of going to war. How inconsiderate of the President.

The President could have waited until after the election to ask for the authorization and still gotten it. If not, if he needs a party-line vote to get the authorization, then he has more persuading to do before taking the country to war.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You actually question this man's credibility?

He takes political swipes, then he (and you, implicitly) claim we should rally around his words, as if this is the one, true patriotic viewpoint. Disgusting.

Disagree with his opinions if you want, but he was speaking from Iraq and living the experience

I never disagreed with his opinions or politics. I never mentioned what I think about the war.

So you disagree with his politics and therefore his life and death isn't worth noting? Why denigrate him? God knows, man, do you have a heart?

I am not speaking to this man or his family. I am responding to a manipulative political document posted in an internet forum.

When Ann Coulter made a jab at the wives of the 911 victims, I admired her. Maybe she was an insensitive dick, but you know what, the organization she was challenging was using a horrible trajedy to score political points.

Using tragedy for politics rubs me the wrong way. This letter is in that vein.

[Harlan Huckleby]

and by the way:
I hope no hard feelings will last long from this rough discussion.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Let's stop all the political nonsense .

What bullshit. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

You actually question this man's credibility? I’m speechless….

Disagree with his opinions if you want, but he was speaking from Iraq and living the experience. So you disagree with his politics and therefore his life and death isn't worth noting? Why denigrate him? To what end? The man is dead.

God knows, man, do you have a heart?

jeffers221@bellsouth.net Eddie Jeffers' father's name is David.

Why don't you take one minute and write David Jeffers an email and thank him for raising a brave son who died defending your country?

Get serious. It is and was a political statement.

and, he wasn't defending my country. I don't recall any iraqi attacks on this soil. I don't recall them massing troops to attack us.

He was there nation building and furthering our control of oil.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1) Check your facts on Cleland.

2) Do any of you who oppose U.S. (Bush's) policy in Iraq ever consider that in the long therm, you might be wrong?

3) One thing that impresses me about our soldiers is that, although they are far from perfect as a group, they are indeed a great group of guys, and most Americans continually debate the wisdom of the war policy as we lose these guys. In other words, we value these guys so much, that we are debate changing course every time we suffer a single death. Many of those we are fighting are the polar opposite - they celebrate the death of the individual, especially if the person who died did so detonating children, women and other Iraqis in the name Allah (may he be praised).

Which facts should we be checking on Cleland?

Let's recall. Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss attacked him, "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

Cleland who lost both legs and an arm in the service of his country. Chambliss did not participate in Vietnam. He had a bad knee. Again joing the ranks of hawkish repubs like cheney and rush who NEVER served.

Cleland had voted for an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Treaty that eliminated a ban on citizens of terrorist nations being on U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. It was a majority vote, 56 to 44, and among those in support were Sen. Bill Frist, the FREAKIN chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee who HANDPICKED Chambliss.

But, where was Chamblis' outrage towards the MAJORITY and Repubs? 55 other senators seem equally reprehensible and guilty of oath-breaking, Chambliss said the majority was not "overwhelming," and that, although the aye-sayers merited the lash, Chambliss was letting them walk because "he is concerned only about how Sen. Cleland voted, which was contrary to the way Georgians would have voted."

Ok. So, let's move on to the tv ad.

"As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead.
"He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth."
"Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times."
"But the record proves, Max Cleland is just misleading."

What exactly was Cleland opposed to? Opposed to civil service protections for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before Bush did. Cleland originally co-sponsored the enabling legislation and eventually supported it, but as the bill moved through Congress, he cast a number of votes against it in hopes of getting a better bill.

Or, let's not forget right wing loon Ann Coulter who wrote that wrote that Cleland should not be referred to as a war hero, as he had lost his limbs in a routine non-combat misssion.

Rand, you are better than this.

[mraynrand]

1) Check your facts on Cleland.

2) Do any of you who oppose U.S. (Bush's) policy in Iraq ever consider that in the long therm, you might be wrong?

3) One thing that impresses me about our soldiers is that, although they are far from perfect as a group, they are indeed a great group of guys, and most Americans continually debate the wisdom of the war policy as we lose these guys. In other words, we value these guys so much, that we are debate changing course every time we suffer a single death. Many of those we are fighting are the polar opposite - they celebrate the death of the individual, especially if the person who died did so detonating children, women and other Iraqis in the name Allah (may he be praised).

Which facts should we be checking on Cleland?

Let's recall. Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss attacked him, "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

Cleland who lost both legs and an arm in the service of his country. Chambliss did not participate in Vietnam. He had a bad knee. Again joing the ranks of hawkish repubs like cheney and rush who NEVER served.

Cleland had voted for an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Treaty that eliminated a ban on citizens of terrorist nations being on U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. It was a majority vote, 56 to 44, and among those in support were Sen. Bill Frist, the FREAKIN chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee who HANDPICKED Chambliss.

But, where was Chamblis' outrage towards the MAJORITY and Repubs? 55 other senators seem equally reprehensible and guilty of oath-breaking, Chambliss said the majority was not "overwhelming," and that, although the aye-sayers merited the lash, Chambliss was letting them walk because "he is concerned only about how Sen. Cleland voted, which was contrary to the way Georgians would have voted."

Ok. So, let's move on to the tv ad.

"As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead.
"He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth."
"Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times."
"But the record proves, Max Cleland is just misleading."

What exactly was Cleland opposed to? Opposed to civil service protections for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before Bush did. Cleland originally co-sponsored the enabling legislation and eventually supported it, but as the bill moved through Congress, he cast a number of votes against it in hopes of getting a better bill.

Or, let's not forget right wing loon Ann Coulter who wrote that wrote that Cleland should not be referred to as a war hero, as he had lost his limbs in a routine non-combat misssion.

Rand, you are better than this.

Bigguns, sometimes you're just a blowhard. My statement was simple - check your facts. Battlefield vs. non-combat. There is a big distinction there and I didn't make it. I didn't say anything about commercials or Sexy Chamblis or Coulter. That's all your B.S. But people who drag out Cleland ought to know better than to say he was wounded 'on the battlefield.' You're better than that. Or maybe not.

[mraynrand]

and to the point of this thread - just as Cindy Sheehan doesn't have moral authority with respect to her political view of the war because she lost a son, so too do soldiers (wounded KIA or otherwise) not have extra authority over any other American to offer their political two cents about the war. Trotting out a soldier or a veteran to support your particular political point of view shouldn't gain you political points, but at least you should be able to make your point, and people should know that there are soldiers and veterans who support the war just as there are those that oppose it. Ask MSNBC if they agree with this statement.

Also, there is a huge distinction between asking a soldier about his political view on the war versus his view on the situation in Iraq. Despite likely bias (since the overwhelming percentage of soldiers support the mission), you'll get a better idea of what's going on in Iraq from a soldier or a Micheal Yon than you will from a 'reporter' hiding in his hotel getting info from 'insurgent' sources. But it's important to recognize the distinction between a political perspective, which everyone in entitled to, and an informed perspective, which some have and others don't, and biased viewpoints, which the mainstream media and the soldiers have.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1) Check your facts on Cleland.

2) Do any of you who oppose U.S. (Bush's) policy in Iraq ever consider that in the long therm, you might be wrong?

3) One thing that impresses me about our soldiers is that, although they are far from perfect as a group, they are indeed a great group of guys, and most Americans continually debate the wisdom of the war policy as we lose these guys. In other words, we value these guys so much, that we are debate changing course every time we suffer a single death. Many of those we are fighting are the polar opposite - they celebrate the death of the individual, especially if the person who died did so detonating children, women and other Iraqis in the name Allah (may he be praised).

Which facts should we be checking on Cleland?

Let's recall. Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss attacked him, "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

Cleland who lost both legs and an arm in the service of his country. Chambliss did not participate in Vietnam. He had a bad knee. Again joing the ranks of hawkish repubs like cheney and rush who NEVER served.

Cleland had voted for an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Treaty that eliminated a ban on citizens of terrorist nations being on U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. It was a majority vote, 56 to 44, and among those in support were Sen. Bill Frist, the FREAKIN chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee who HANDPICKED Chambliss.

But, where was Chamblis' outrage towards the MAJORITY and Repubs? 55 other senators seem equally reprehensible and guilty of oath-breaking, Chambliss said the majority was not "overwhelming," and that, although the aye-sayers merited the lash, Chambliss was letting them walk because "he is concerned only about how Sen. Cleland voted, which was contrary to the way Georgians would have voted."

Ok. So, let's move on to the tv ad.

"As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead.
"He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth."
"Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times."
"But the record proves, Max Cleland is just misleading."

What exactly was Cleland opposed to? Opposed to civil service protections for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before Bush did. Cleland originally co-sponsored the enabling legislation and eventually supported it, but as the bill moved through Congress, he cast a number of votes against it in hopes of getting a better bill.

Or, let's not forget right wing loon Ann Coulter who wrote that wrote that Cleland should not be referred to as a war hero, as he had lost his limbs in a routine non-combat misssion.

Rand, you are better than this.

Bigguns, sometimes you're just a blowhard. My statement was simple - check your facts. Battlefield vs. non-combat. There is a big distinction there and I didn't make it. I didn't say anything about commercials or Sexy Chamblis or Coulter. That's all your B.S. But people who drag out Cleland ought to know better than to say he was wounded 'on the battlefield.' You're better than that. Or maybe not.

Rand, you need to be able to discern when a simple mistake is being made. I this case your check your facts was misunderstood.

For the record, it is worth noting that Cleland was awarded a Silver Star "for gallantry in action" at the battle of Khe Sanh.

Furthermore, Cleland was on a mountaintop with his Signal team to set up a radio relay when he lost his legs and right arm to a grenade explosion. Granted, his own grenade...but, you and other's are really splitting hairs when it comes to the battlefield.

Would you be as harsh to this admin regarding their exploitation of Pat tillman. Is he a hero since he was killed by friendly fire?