About Me

Name: Saint Michael
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Book Excerpt - Interrogation of Morals

Broken Partisan Politics 
       I wasted a lot of time watching TV after I resumed my civilian life and the majority of the stories were in response to some political pundit on TV claiming that the work I had been engaged in was worthless and we should pull out today. The election of 2004 had just ended and presidential candidate John Kerry had made a theme in his campaign that this was “the wrong war at the wrong time”. I knew he had to have been looking at the same intelligence that I was while I was in Afghanistan and I didn’t understand how he came to that conclusion. He was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and yet he was claiming things in his campaign that I knew were blatantly false about the war in Iraq. Sentiment turned it from the War on Terror to the War in Iraq. The two fronts were becoming disconnected as the war began to politicize. I knew I had to get more involved.

      To be honest, I didn’t know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican when I decided to get involved. All throughout the Bosnia conflict I watched the Republicans play the same games that the Democrats were now playing. Threatening to cut off funding and “end this unjust war.” Many Republicans were notably outspoken regarding the bombing campaign and occupation of Kosovo. It would seem that the Democrats had raided the playbook in 2004 and were using the same tactics to undermine President Bush as he led us into conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of those conflicts had been voted on and overwhelmingly approved by Congress and now Congress was failing to support the troops. Rather than take responsibility for the war they blamed it on President Bush. 

      Obviously with perfect hindsight, many mistakes were made and there were many areas where improvement was necessary for us to be successful in Iraq. Those areas were recognized and adjustments were made. Our military knows how to react and adjust when necessary and made recommendations to our civilian leadership. It took some time to accept the failures but eventually the adjustments were made and the troops got what they needed. American soldiers can win wars if the politicians can stop being politicians and support the troops. 

      I started to attend meetings on both sides of the aisle. In my naïve little mind I thought I should run for Congress to change the government and clean it up. I was frustrated by the rhetoric and the never-ending blaming that goes back and forth between the parties. Isn’t the government set up to represent the people, not the political parties?

      The Democratic meetings I attended weren’t really very enjoyable. It truly was a group of bitter people getting together to complain about the “Republicans”. They didn’t offer any solutions to problems, only to defeat the other side. I sent an email to the commissioner of the congressional district I lived in and told him I was interested in exploring a run for Congress. He told me to show up at the next meeting and he would give me some information. When I showed up at the meeting I felt like I was ambushed because he threw me to the crowd in the room and told them to ask me whatever they wanted because I was a Congressional candidate. I was baffled. I had literally asked for information on how to become a candidate and that got turned into my being a candidate. 

      During the meeting I got grilled about everything from why we were fighting an unjust and immoral war to questions about the illegality of the Patriot Act. I responded as I thought appropriate and I soon realized that I was not a Democrat. The final straw was when one of the gentlemen asked for the district to pay his way down to a conference in Kansas City so he could learn how to put “spin” on information so they could compete with the Republicans. I asked the guys I shared the table with why they would need to do that. Isn’t the truth something that should be communicated without any spin? They wanted to learn how to deliberately misconstrue information for their purposes. I’m not naïve enough to think that spin doesn’t happen on both sides of the aisle but to have classes and educate the entire party how to spin rhetoric was more than I could handle.  I realize that every Democrat that reads this will counter with the tired old line that both sides use: “They did it first!” 

      I was extremely turned off by the disorganization, anger and the bickering that took place at the Democrat meeting. I decided I needed to check out the Republican side of the aisle as well. I sent an email to my State Representative and asked him how I could get involved with the Republican Party in my area. I included a short biography of my background. Being a recently returned veteran, small business owner, and family man I felt the information was extremely relevant. He responded very quickly with contact information for my local Basic Political Organization Unit (BPOU) and told me to contact his uncle. I promptly did so and attended the next meeting. 

      When I walked into the meeting I was greeted by a gentleman who introduced himself and it turns out he was the uncle of my State Representative. He immediately knew who I was and proceeded to introduce me to the rest of the people in the meeting. I found out that he was the Vice Chair of the BPOU and knowing him has become a great asset for me. I felt genuinely accepted right from the start. There is no bickering at the Republican meetings. Republicans know what they stand for and it’s easy for them to unite. I don’t always agree with the alienation of Republicans who stray from the strict party line but on the same note it keeps the party together and on the same page. The same cannot be said for the Democrats. They are all over the board with stances and I doubt they will ever come to a consensus. The lone exception being to dislike Republicans.

      If I had political aspirations I thought it would be a tough call for me to determine which party to align with. I clearly fall into the conservative Republican category but if you cross party lines and work with the Democrats across the aisle you get eaten by your own party for straying and accused of not having “values”. Democrats on the other hand have few real stances on any one issue and therefore it is easy to cross party lines to partner with the other side and actually get something accomplished. Is it better to toe the line as a staunch Republican or be billed as a “Moderate” Democrat and accomplish a lot more by working with the Republicans? 

      It took me a few years to come to a conclusion regarding the difference between being a Democrat and a Republican. I viewed them all as politicians. Today I can tell you honestly that I am an American, first and foremost. As I stood up for veterans and allowed my voice to be heard in support of my brethren who were still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, I had a revelation about where I stood and how I got there. I was standing up for something that I believed in. My moral compass had led me to this place. I want my elected officials to stand for what they believe in rather than what the party believes in. Each member of Congress should be voting their own conscience with each and every vote. They should never be voting strictly down the party line. That bears repeating. Politicians need to follow a moral compass and not a party line. I want people to know who I am and what I stand for. I am an American who believes in protecting our rights, freedoms and liberties just as my forefathers have for over two centuries. America should always come before the party. I am definitely conservative and fall in line with the right side of the political spectrum but I don’t want that to define me. I want people to know that I am an American.

      As of June 2008 the President’s approval rating was at 29%. Not even 1 out of 3 people think he is doing a good job. As much as this upsets me, he is only one man. Congress had an approval rating of 19%. That’s less than 1 out 5 people think Congress is doing a good job. 535 members in Congress and Americans only think 101 of them are doing a satisfactory job. How can this be? Shouldn’t we expect the opposite to be true? I want to see 4 out of 5 Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. In the current state of long term politicians and partisan politics I don’t see an end in sight. In order for that approval rating to rise, politicians need to have the interests of Americans in mind, not reelection. They need to work together to make decisions for America, not prevent each other from achieving their “agenda”. Collaboration on both sides of the aisle is what will earn the trust of American citizens because that’s when citizens will start to see results being produced. 

      Most important, they need to determine which direction their own personal moral compass points and follow it. It is easy to stand on the sidelines and point out mistakes without ever getting into the game. It’s another thing to experience the battle and be faced with making the difficult decisions. Following your moral compass becomes imperative. 

      A political battle is raging in America right now and the combatants have lost sight of what is important. They focus on the topic of the day for political gain, be it the high gas prices, war casualties, the housing market collapse or even the deficit. The Right is using soldiers to fight wars, which is our job. That is how we should be used.

      The Left is using soldiers for political gain. I am disgusted by the misinformation campaign regarding the American soldier. The left and the media have portrayed the American soldier as a bunch of raping, murdering, torturing, cold blooded killers. When they aren’t positioning us as the cruel heartless type they are trying to paint us as victims. All this when they should be supporting us so we can finish the job that Congress and the President sent us to do.

      Soldiers are neither. They are people trained to do a job and that job is to kill the enemy if necessary in order to protect the citizens of America. We are not victims of this war. We are selfless volunteers and as such we should be taken care of for our sacrifice. That does not make us victims and should not be spun as such. In a world where so many people feel they are “entitled” to things rather than having to work for them, I find it comforting that the ultimate selfless servants, our soldiers, are not rising up and claiming a stake in America. That’s because we understand that it takes the sacrifices that we are making, above all else, for the country to remain free.  

      The most important aspect, above all else, is preserving our freedom and liberties. Without them we won’t have the luxury of going to the mall or owning a home. If we lose sight of the foundation that America was built upon then we have lost already. Our forefathers recognized that we had an opportunity, let me say that again, an opportunity to establish something great. A country where everyone has the opportunity to be successful! It is important for our elected leadership to recognize and honor that concept. America offers opportunity and nothing more. It is up to each individual to take advantage of that opportunity.

      In the private sector when the leadership is performing poorly, they are quickly and decisively removed. In the government world of elected officials they are elected, or not, by the people, which is a slow and often unresponsive system. In the military the removal is even quicker. Leadership skills are necessary to survive in the military. Politicians know that the path to keeping their job is to spin everything they do as a positive. Only during scandals do career politicians get removed from office. So how do we make a change?

      I want this book to touch, move and inspire people to take a long hard look at themselves, what they do every day, and make changes that will benefit America. Gone are the days of the individual, because America is much bigger than one single person. I live in the United States of America. All the individuals make up the collective citizens of our great country. 

      My vision for America is to inspire as many military veterans as possible to become active and involved in our government. Our system of government was set up by the founding fathers for self-regulation and self-correction which are necessary to fight corruption. In America, a revolution does not need to take place with guns and riots, although we are guaranteed the right to bear arms in case our government does become oppressive or unresponsive. 

      The revolution in America can take place with the action of the people. Our government is meant to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". It only takes a small group of motivated people to create momentum and grow into a powerful force. That small group can vote themselves into the positions of the decision makers for either party (or better yet, both of them) by getting elected as delegates in the system. The delegates are the ones who choose the platform of the party and the candidates for the party. Not the people during elections, the delegates prior to the election. That’s where the real power in this country lies and that’s where the power can be grasped by Americans and taken back from the career politicians and their cronies who have corrupted our current system. Currently, all of their efforts are being spent raising money and trying to stay in office and creating political power through the use of public funds for what should be private ventures.

      Veterans are the one group in this country who know the true meaning of selfless service, courage, integrity, and patriotism. They have placed themselves in harm’s way and put their lives on the line for the freedom and liberty that America provides. There is nothing more noble than that. Veterans embody the courage and integrity that this country needs to remain the great country that our forefathers founded. 

      I believe that courage is the ability to confront wrongdoing even when the odds are against you. Courage is being afraid and still finding the ability to act. Courage is knowing that you may not come back, but you go anyway. Courage is the heart and soul of every Veteran who has laid down his or her life for freedom.

      Integrity is doing what you know is right. Integrity is keeping your commitments even when times get tough. Integrity is knowing when you have broken a commitment and having the moral fortitude to make a new commitment. Integrity belongs in the heart of every American. It should be the hallmark of our government leaders, but too often it is missing in action.

      Veterans understand selfless service more than any other segment of the population.  We understand what it means to put the greater good of the country ahead of your own well being. Politicians believe they are serving constituents but I don’t think many of them truly understand what that means. As a soldier I understand that America is bigger than any one person, including me. I believe that protecting and preserving America is more important than any one soldier’s life, including mine. Without America and all she stands for, that life will be lost anyway. Some things are worth sacrificing for and America is at the top of the list.

      Everyone has a moral compass but most people don’t realize it or know how or when to use it. A moral compass is the internal thought process that points us toward right or wrong. It can be formed and transformed many times in one’s life. As a person grows older that compass seems like it becomes more involved and more complex but in actuality it becomes simpler and easier to understand. Knowing how to determine when a situation or action is right or wrong becomes easy. Soldiers get tested on their moral compass every day when they are in a war zone. Having the integrity to follow your own moral compass takes courage. 

      Veterans can be the savior of this country. They have the discipline to correct themselves when they make a mistake. They keep each other in line and they know the price of failure. The proud and loyal veterans of this country have fought in wars since the very beginning of America. They know how to make the right decisions both morally and ethically. They know that making the wrong decision can cost people dearly. America has trusted its future to a group of career politicians. 

      The citizens can change that by using the system as it was designed and getting many more of our veterans into the system. By demonstrating the courage and integrity that I believed in while I fought to protect the country I love, I found my moral compass.

      Our future lies in the courage and integrity of our veterans.

§

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blogging and Elections

I apologize for not blogging more during this election season.  I was planning on lending my voice to the political discussions of the election season but due to personal circumstances I was unable to post hardly any material.
 
I have been working on my book "Interrogation of Morals" for the last 8-9 months and that has taken up the majority of my time.  The book is now about 99.9% ready to be printed but I am waiting for the Army to give it's blessing to me.  Once I have that blessing, look for a posting with information about where to buy it.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Presidential Election Choice - made easy

I'm going to simplify the election choice for people.  We have two Presidential tickets that include an experienced Senator and an inexperienced running mate.  Both tickets include a minority candidate.  Only one of the four people has executive experience in government.  The other 3 have congressional experience.
 
The major difference is the inexperienced candidate happens to be the Presidential candidate on one ticket and the VP candidate on the other.
 
If America is going to choose to have an experienced and an inexperienced pair of candidates running the country, I want the experienced person in the top spot and that only leaves one set of candidates.  Is it really that simple?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Audacity of Honor

Article from: Weekly Standard

Backing the mission in the worst of times has brought better political times to the candidates of Veterans for Freedom.

When John McCain first started saying he’d “rather lose an election than see the country lose a war,” it was a serious aside in a self-deprecating assessment of his own uncertain political future.

He’d chuckle and deliver his reworking of Chairman Mao’s line, “It’s always darkest before it’s totally black.” He was speaking of himself, but he could just as easily have meant Iraq, to which his future had become so inextricably linked.

In the darkest days for the Iraq mission, in 2006, a handful of Iraq and Afghanistan vets formed an organization designed to defend progress and urge patience to those in Washington who wanted the U.S. to abandon the field.

Since, then, instead of total blackness, the non-partisan Vets for Freedom and McCain have met an astonishing political dawn that has put them both in an unexpected position: on the offensive.

Vets for Freedom is endorsing 23 candidates for Congress this year, 17 of which are veterans of the current conflict, up from just three candidates endorsed in 2006.

Fifteen of those men were on Capitol Hill today, urging senators to sign onto Senate Resolution 636, “Recognizing the strategic success of the troop surge in Iraq and expressing gratitude to the members of the United States Armed Forces who made that success possible,” including Gen. David Petraeus.

The Hill visits came after the morning release of an ad hitting Barack Obama for his longtime refusal to acknowledge the surge’s success.

Obama told Fox News's Bill O’Reilly in a September interview that the surge “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams,” but the Democratic presidential candidate has not signed on to the resolution.

David Bellavia, co-founder of Vets for Freedom and a Medal of Honor nominee for his feats in Fallujah, visited Obama’s Senate office and was told the candidate may sign on to a Democrat-crafted alternative with reportedly weaker language (right after he was told VFF’s ads about Obama are “hateful”).

“It’s missing some important parts,” Bellavia said of the competing resolution, which hasn't been finalized. “Petraeus’s name and the surge working—the whole essence of what we were going for.”

These days, McCain’s oft-repeated line about losing elections sounds more like a rallying cry than a resignation, and with good reason. Many of the Vets for Freedom congressional candidates’ fortunes have risen along with those of the country where they fought.

But the electoral forecast isn’t exactly sunny. Of the 15 Vets for Freedom on hand today, only two are running in “toss-up” districts, as designated by the Cook Political Report. Duncan Hunter is running in the solidly Republican 52nd District of California. The rest are facing some pretty blue territory.

Steve Stivers, who is racing for the retiring Rep. Deborah Pryce’s seat in the toss-up 15th District of Ohio, said the Republican Party is trailing in registration, but the gap won’t necessarily translate into victory on Election Day.

“I don’t think the voters’ behavior has changed,” he said, blaming Democratic gains on the relatively dull Republican primary, which was decided before Ohio voters went to the polls.

Others facing more difficult fights said they're benefiting from the Palin effect on Republican enthusiasm and the absence of Hillary Clinton from the Democratic ticket.

Col. Thomas Manion, a career Marine who decided to run soon after his son was killed by sniper fire in Fallujah last year, is facing the only anti-war veteran of the current conflict who won a congressional race in 2006—Rep. Patrick Murphy.

“We didn’t have the kind of leadership we needed in Washington,” he said of his district. “My only regret is my son isn’t here to see that on the streets he fought and gave his life on, the Iraqi children play now.”

Manion said his polling shows he’s gained 10 points on his opponent since May. In a district that went 63-37 percent for Hillary in the Democratic primary, Murphy was an early and vocal Obama backer.

“They just don’t like the top of the ticket,” he said of voters.

Lee Zeldin, running in the heavily Democratic 1st District of New York, is counting on veteran turnout and Palin power to put him over the top in his bid to unseat six-year incumbent Tim Bishop.

“There’s no scientific way to measure it,” but women are especially energized by Palin, he said. “They’re all an inch taller when you mention her.”

For some of them, the politics of the war is personal in a way it isn’t for many candidates.

Will Breazeale is accompanied on the trail in North Carolina by his Iraqi interpreter, Benny Aldosakee.

Craig Williams, running in Pennsylvania’s 7th District, called out his opponent Joe Sestak, a veteran himself, for “offering up a bill of surrender when we were in our darkest hour.”

Manion’s faith in the surge comes not solely from a security briefing, but from a front-line report that began with the words, “Hey, Dad.”

And, that’s part of the VFF mission, said the group's executive director Pete Hegseth—to get people who truly understand the battle we’re facing and the cost of losing it into the halls of Congress.

They may not sweep their seats, but they’re much better positioned than anyone would have imagined two years ago, when a handful of anti-war candidates were the only veterans making headlines.

“That may have been the wave in 2006, but it’s not the case now,” Hegseth said.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Victory In Iraq Matters

Why Victory In Iraq Matters
by Pete Hegseth

Samarra, Iraq — The second most refreshing thing about this latest visit back to Iraq — aside from spending time with soldiers — is the respite from the never-ending drumbeat of election coverage. In my week with combat troops, I didn’t hear the names “Obama” or “McCain” once: the “who won the week?” nonsense that dominates cable news stateside doesn’t matter over here. Fighting America’s radical enemies wipes away the pettiness that impoverishes our domestic political debate — “who wins the war?” consumes those over here, not Paris Hilton or George Clooney.

What I’ve seen in Samarra, and what is happening throughout Iraq, is enough to make Americans of either party proud. After years of getting it wrong — or at best, only partly correct — in Iraq, today we are winning the war and setting the conditions for an enduring peace in that country, even in perpetual al Qaeda cesspools like Samarra. Faced with a determined enemy, hell-bent on bringing America to her knees in Mesopotamia, American military will, adaptability, and might are carrying the day.

Yet too many Americans, consumed with their daily lives or restricted by partisan blinders, see the progress and say: “Who cares? What does it matter? We should have never been there in the first place.” While I disagree with this position, I understand its origins. Americans feel betrayed by what many consider the suspect rationale for the war, have been frustrated by its early conduct, and remain wary of a war without end. These feelings don’t bother me, as they could change when victory — and therefore a drawdown — is achieved in Iraq.

What bothers me, however, is the self-aggrandizing notion that opposing the Iraq war then automatically devalues the important of the endeavor today. Today’s hardcore Iraq war detractors — politicians, pundits, and polemicists alike — all use the same lines of argument to smear the importance of the Iraq war at every turn. The surge was purely a tactical success to them, whereas Iraq overall has been a strategic blunder.

First, they claim, Iraq is not a central front in the global war on terror because al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq in 2003; second, Iraq is a distraction from the real war in Afghanistan; third, the presence of troops in Iraq — and anywhere in the Middle East — perpetuates their hatred for us, thereby creating more jihadists. While there are plenty of overarching reasons to dispute these claims, my latest trip to Samarra suggests these assertions are not just counter-factual, but dangerously divisive.

I challenge anyone to walk the streets of Fallujah, Baqubah, Samarra, or elsewhere in Iraq and tell the locals that their city — their neighborhood — has not been an al Qaeda battlefront. Every Samarran I spoke with — every single one — brought up “al Qaeda,” pronouncing the name with a guttural disdain distinct in Iraqi accents. Most have a family member who has been killed by al Qaeda’s indiscriminate tactics, and still more have no desire to live in their seventh-century fantasy world.

“But this isn’t al Qaeda central we’re talking about,” detractors might say. “These are local thugs acting under their banner.” Wrong. Al Qaeda central has been funneling foreign fighters — primarily Syrians and Saudis — to Samarra, and throughout Iraq, for years. In fact, a few months ago, a raid south of Samarra uncovered the primary administrative hub for al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). The bunker complex — piled with medical records, travel documents, and pay stubs — was where foreigners were sent before receiving their suicide assignments. Al Qaeda literature and videos littered the underground headquarters.


While the vast majority of the leadership and financing for AQI comes from outside Iraq, most of their foot soldiers in Samarra are indeed locals. Nonetheless, unlike Americans who wring our hands over ‘foreign versus local’ fighters, Samarrans I spoke with draw no such distinction — same ideology, same brand, same violent tactics. Al Qaeda made Iraq its central front in 2004, and Iraqis faced the consequences. Today, al Qaeda central wishes it had chosen more wisely.

As for the “distraction” argument, war detractors actually have it backwards — Iraq has actually proven to be a distraction for al Qaeda. Their choice to fight in Iraq was, in retrospect, a strategic blunder. (Although it wouldn’t have been, had we withdrawn as some proposed). Al Qaeda had little indigenous support there prior to 2003, and Iraq’s educated and largely secular population was not predisposed to radical Islam. As a result, al Qaeda’s defeat in places like Samarra has denied them terrain for decades to come; and has once again relegated them to the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda will indeed think twice next time they attempt to expand their power base.

America must re-commit to winning the war in Afghanistan as well — plain and simple. We need to kill Osama bin Laden and every last one of his henchmen. However — unlike Iraq — Afghanistan is not advantageous terrain for American warfighters, as al Qaeda benefits from widespread tribal support, safe haven in Pakistan, and bountiful organic funding sources. While I’m confident that General Petraeus will recalibrate U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, it will be a tough fight — requiring additional troops, time, and resources.

Lastly, war detractors continue to propagate the myth that the terrorists and insurgents are “anti-American antibodies” trying to keep their body politic healthy. The American presence in Iraq, they argue, is the cause of the sickness there. If we just leave, everything will get better. My experiences on the ground in Samarra — and the facts of the new counterinsurgency strategy — directly refute this. As we have surged into neighborhoods — to protect the Iraqi people, earning their trust, and benefiting from their help — violence has dropped, and locals have turned against the jihadists.

American troops are tolerated, even welcomed when they effectively provide security; but their presence is cursed when it does not accompany progress. Violence persists not because American troops are present, but when we are present and feckless. For years, al Qaeda exploited our inability to protect the Iraqi people, spreading rumors that our incompetence was actually part of a larger conspiracy to keep them suffering. The security structures American forces have helped build — of, with, and for the people — has changed this. One trip to Samarra would demonstrate this to any objective observer.

The world will continue to watch Iraq. Whether Americans like it or not, what ultimately happens on the streets of Samarra — militarily, politically, and economically — will reverberate through the Middle East and the world. Will our allies see a strong America that wins its wars and stands by its friends? Or will our enemies — namely Iran — be emboldened by perceived American weakness?

Osama bin Laden and his followers jumped at the chance to “bleed out” the Americans in Iraq, believing we didn’t have the stomach for a prolonged fight on two fronts. Thanks to the political courage of a few — and the military courage of many — American have proven bin Laden wrong. Their victory in Iraq would have emboldened al Qaeda to expand their ambitions; instead, their military and ideological defeat has sent the “faithful” back to Afghanistan with their tail between their legs. May we finish them there.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Partisan politics must yield to facts on ground

It was 10 years ago this month that I deployed with 13th Psychological Operations Battalion out of Arden Hills and headed off to Bosnia. The memory that sticks out the most was that of the political battle back home.

Watching CNN and listening to the Republicans threaten to cut off funding for the troops because President Clinton, my Commander in Chief, had taken action in Kosovo. I remember thinking to myself, this is a political game.

Here I am sitting in a combat zone and politicians are playing political games with the money. It is the soldiers heading into harm's way and not the politicians. At that point I was angry with the Republican Party for the partisan games they were playing.

Fast forward six years to 2004. I was watching CNN in Afghanistan and listening to the Democrats threaten to cut off funding for the troops because President Bush, my Commander in Chief, had taken action in Iraq.

Rest assured I came to the same conclusion. Politicians play political games, and the troops are caught in the middle. The troops on the ground deserve support from both sides.

My old reserve unit is the only one of its kind in the Armed Forces with the specific mission of Psychological Operations on Enemy Prisoners of War. Our mission in Bosnia was to influence the long-term feelings and beliefs of the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian people. We had to convince the three ethnic groups to live in peace and harmony. Sound familiar? Kurds, Shia and Sunni, maybe? We started with Bosnia and moved to Kosovo shortly thereafter, and a decade later we are rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's an odd feeling to be in foreign country wondering whether the people actually want you there. In the case of Bosnia, I learned quickly that what mattered was who you were talking to. The Bosnia Muslims loved having the Americans there to protect them. The Serbians, on the other hand, did not want us there. They had been the dominant power for many years and wanted to maintain that role. We were preventing that. My Serbian interpreter told us that when the Americans left they would begin killing Muslims again. With that mindset in the world it is no surprise that Muslims feel threatened. I learned a lot during my tour in Bosnia. I experienced the first elections in the country, and remember them well. It was amazing to see how happy the people were to finally have their voice in the form of a vote. The same was true for Iraq; nobody will forget the purple fingers. Our soldiers need to know the situation on the ground in order to survive.

In a time of war, Americans should expect Congress to place partisan politics aside and have the courage and integrity to do what is best for America and not the political party. I have watched the war debate under administrations and Congress run by both parties and have seen the same rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. As a veteran, I expect more from my elected officials. I expect the same courage and integrity from the politicians representing me that I experienced in the military.

It is election season, and I want Americans to take an interest in who they vote for in 2008. In 2006 we were losing the war to the Iraqi insurgents and al Qaida in Iraq, and the soldiers on the ground told us that. In 2008, we are winning in Iraq but the partisan politics of the season is going to blur that line. If you want the truth about Iraq, ask a veteran who has returned from Iraq within the last year. Soldiers have the courage and integrity to tell the truth, good or bad.

Our mission in Iraq is not about partisan politics. Our mission is not about the candidates. Our mission is to establish a secure, stable, free and democratic society in the heart of the Middle East, in Iraq, in support of the policy to win the Global War on Terror. To forge a strategic ally in the region. To take away terrorist support and safe haven. To defeat al Qaeda no matter where they are hiding. The surge has provided the security for the political and economic progress in Iraq, and Iraqis taking advantage of that opportunity. The progress was earned through the hard work and sacrifices of our soldiers, not our politicians. We are on the verge of victory in Iraq by most accounts of the men and women who served there during the surge. I encourage all candidates for elected office to take the partisan politics out of the war debate, listen to the soldiers and focus on finishing the job.

Jason Meszaros was a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve and deployed to Afghanistan in 2004. He is currently co-captain for the Minnesota Chapter of Vets for Freedom and has appeared in the group's recent advertisements "Finish the Job" and "Some in Washington." His e-mail address is saintmichael@charter.net.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sunni and Shiites United? Say it isn't so.

I found this article online and very similar but much shorter article buried on page 8 of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.  Reconciliation is one of the major sticking points the anti-war crowd throws around as a sign we are losing.    Why is this article buried deep in the back pages of the MSM?  Shouldn't this be worthy of front page news?  Isn't this a sign that we are actually winning the war?  Isn't this a sign that political progress is being made in Iraq?
 
So many questions that most people will never have an answer to because the media won't tell the whole story.

Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:11am EDT

By Waleed Ibrahim

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq’s main Sunni Arab bloc rejoined the Shi’ite-led government on Saturday in a breakthrough for national reconciliation after parliament approved its candidates for several vacant ministerial posts.

Getting the Accordance Front to return after it quit a year ago in a row over power sharing has been seen as key to healing divisions between majority Shi’ites and minority Sunni Arabs.

Sunni Arabs have little voice in the current cabinet, which is dominated by Shi’ites and ethnic Kurds.

“Today, parliament voted to accept our candidates … This means the Accordance Front has officially returned to the government,” a senior lawmaker in the bloc, Salim al-Jubouri, told Reuters after the vote.

“It is a real step forward for political reform.”

Jubouri, who is also the bloc’s spokesman, said the Front’s approved candidates would attend the next cabinet meeting.

Parliament questioned candidates for 10 vacant cabinet jobs, including five ministries and a deputy prime ministerial post that had previously been allocated to the Accordance Front.

The other portfolios were left largely vacant when separate Shi’ite and secular factions quit Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government last year. They will be filled by politicians from other parties.

Maliki had earlier approved the names for all the posts, which were not for any key security or economic positions.

Rafie al-Esawi from the Front was approved as one of Iraq’s two deputy prime ministers. Iraq’s other deputy prime minister is Barham Salih, a prominent Kurd.

The Front pulled out of Maliki’s cabinet in August last year, demanding a greater say in security policies as well as the release of mainly Sunni Arab detainees. Most of its cabinet seats were never filled at the time.

An amnesty law passed in February has begun the process of releasing many prisoners from the Sunni Arab community. Sunni Arabs form the bulk of inmates after security forces detained thousands in sweeps at the height of a Sunni Arab insurgency.

The Front has been on the verge of rejoining the government several times in the past, only for obstacles to suddenly emerge.

But government crackdowns against Shi’ite militias in the southern city of Basra in late March and then in Baghdad were welcomed by the Front and helped spur its return.

“After some dithering … (the Front) very quickly rallied around the prime minister, post Basra,” said a senior U.S. official in Baghdad who declined to be identified.

“There’s a new and more welcome spirit of unity.”

The political rapprochement has also been a factor in the warming of ties between Baghdad and Sunni Arab states.

Until recently, Arab capitals maintained only low-level ties with Baghdad partly because they believed of minority Sunni Arabs in Iraq were victims of sectarian policies.

(Reporting by Waleed Ibrahim, Writing by Tim Cocks, Editing by Dean Yates and Jon Boyle)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A sign we are winning!

For all the naysayers who don't believe that we can influence and change the culture and ideology of the Middle East.  Here's the proof.  I'm sure the skeptics will say this has nothing to do with the "Global War on Terror" or the "War in Iraq" but it clearly does.  President Bush was bold enough to take the unpopular stance and confront Islamic Extremism in the heart of the Middle East.  He went after the culprits of 9/11 and destroyed the breeding ground in Afghanistan.  He then destroyed another breeding ground in Iraq and subsequently we are building a democratic Islamic society in the heart of the Middle East.  During the last 7 years much has been done to combat Islamic extremism outside the parameters of those two conflicts.  There is a lot of work being done behind the scenes to influence and change the culture and ideology of the Middle East and educate them beyond the level of extremist.  This is a result of that effort.
 
Does this mean that President Bush is actually smarter than the media and the liberal left give him credit for?  We live in America, make up your own mind.  Enjoy your Freedom that the Veterans in this country have fought so hard to preserve. 

Saudi king calls for end to Islamic extremism

2008-06-04 11:34:36
By DONNA ABU-NASR Associated Press Writer


RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Islam must do away with the dangers of extremism and present the religion's positive message, Saudi King Abdullah said Wednesday as he opened a conference of Muslim figures aimed at launching a dialogue with Christians and Jews.

The three-day gathering in the holy city of Mecca seeks a unified Muslim voice ahead of the interfaith dialogue. In particular, Saudi Arabia hopes to promote reconciliation between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

"You have gathered today to tell the whole world that ... we are a voice of justice and values and humanity, that we are a voice of coexistence and a just and rational dialogue," Abdullah told the 500 Muslim delegates from 50 Muslim nations in his opening speech.

Abdullah walked into the conference hall Wednesday with powerful Iranian politician Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who later sat on the king's left on the stage, sending a message that the Sunni kingdom does not have a problem with moderate Shiites like him.

Saudi Arabia and mainly Shiite Iran are seen as top rivals for influence in the Middle East, standing on opposite sides of political divides in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia's official Wahhabi interpretation of Islam considers Shiites as infidels — and days ahead of Wednesday's gathering a number of hardline Wahhabi clerics issued a statement harshly condemning Shiites and Iran.

Abdullah announced in March that he wanted to sponsor an interfaith dialogue between the world's monotheistic religions — specifically including Jews. It was the first such initiative from a nation with no diplomatic ties to Israel and a ban on non-Muslim religious services and symbols.

He said Wednesday that the Islamic world faces difficult challenges from the extremism of some Muslims, whose aggressions "target the magnanimity, fairness and lofty aims of Islam."

"That's why (the conference) invitation was extended — to face the challenges of isolation, ignorance and narrow horizons, so that the world can absorb the good message of Islam," he said.

Rafsanjani praised Abdullah, saying, "Our brothers in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia ... have presented a great message to all humanity in the world."

"Before we speak with other religions, we must speak among ourselves and reach an understanding on a particular Islamic path," he said, calling for greater understanding between Sunnis and Shiites.

"We should support each other ... not weaken each other or sully each other's reputation," he said. "As a Muslim and a Shiite and an expert in Islamic issues ... I tell you that there are many things in common (between us) and there's no need to look at differences."

Participants say they hope the gathering will culminate in an agreement on a global Islamic charter on dialogue with Christians and Jews. They expect Saudi Arabia will launch its formal call for an interfaith dialogue at the conference's close or soon after.

Abdullah's message, which has been welcomed by Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders, is significant.

The Saudi monarch is the custodian of Islam's two holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina, a position that lends his words special importance and influence. Abdullah said Saudi Arabia's top clerics have given him their approval — crucial backing in a society that expects decisions taken by its rulers to adhere to Islam's tenets.

It remains unclear who will participate in the second phase of the initiative, in particular whether Israeli religious leaders would be invited. The kingdom and all other Arab nations except Egypt and Jordan do not have diplomatic relations with Israel and generally shun unofficial contacts.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anti-War Mis-information

 
Wes Davey is a former PSYOP soldier from MN who since returning from Iraq has begun to get a lot of recognition from the media for his anti-war stances.  Here's his latest.  http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/18023774.html
 
Wes Davey is responding with the standard rhetoric of the anti-war crowd rather than actually listening to the message from the soldiers who have recently returned and seen the progress first hand. I believe that Mr. Davey served in Iraq in 2003 before he retired in 2005. That was before it got bad in 2006 and before the progress made in 2007. Vets for Freedom has numerous members in MN who served in Iraq during 2006 and 2007 that can give a straight up assessment of the situation and progress. The Iraq Vets Against the War web site has only 6 members listed from MN. Vets For Freedom had nearly 50 travel to Washington DC earlier this month with a message about the progress.

“How long and at what cost are we willing to endure in Iraq in pursuit of a vague notion of success?”

As long as it takes!!! What price will we pay if we lose? I don’t want to find that out. I’d rather pay the price to win.

“What does victory in Iraq mean?”

Victory in Iraq is defined as a stable, democratic country in the heart of the Middle East. 

The question is can we provide the security for the Iraqi government to establish itself politically on top of the political gains (we did establish a Parliament, elect a President, turn over Provisional Authority, etc) made early in the war and propagate down to the local levels. The answer is yes. 

Are the Iraqi people willing to step up and take care of themselves? Again, the answer is yes. Ask any Vet who has returned in the last 6-9 months and they can tell you how many Iraqi’s are standing on street corners guarding their own people and communities.  As everyone in MN knows, we had 2600 National Guard troops return in 2007. Those troops entered the war at the worst of times and can attest to the changes and progress that was made by the time they left 16 months later. The spike in violence in Basra is another glowing example of Iraqis taking care of their own. Yes, there were issues (I know someone will cite the Iraqi Army defectors) but the mission was successful because Iraqis handled the fight on the ground, alone

Victory in Iraq means a country that no longer supports terrorism. An Iraq that doesn’t pay the families of suicide bombers. An Iraq that doesn’t have terrorist training camps. Victory is an Iraq that is not a State Sponsor of Terrorism. 

“Stay the Course”

The military on the ground has changed course numerous times from adapting from the threat of WMD (more than just President Bush and the Republicans thought Iraq had them and chose to send us to war) to the threat of IED’s and yet again to the Surge strategy that is working very effectively. 

Yes, there are significant measurable numbers to cite here. Like a 70 percent decline in attacks since June; a 90 percent drop in sectarian violence, and a tremendous surge of some 200,000 Iraqis joining their own security forces in the past fifteen months.

“How do we get rid of tens of thousands of Terrorists”

That happens through the long term changing from an oppressive dictatorship into a democratic society. I would hope that a PSYOP (37F) soldier would understand the long term objective and planning to change a society takes years and sometimes generations.  Well beyond when the fighting stops.

It happens by helping them build a society that allows the young men and women to go to school and learn Reading, Writing and Arithmetic rather than learning the fundamentals of terrorism.  It happens by helping them build an infrastructure so people can have electricity and water. It happens through building a society with free markets where people can work for what they want and enjoy it when they get it. 

It happens by taking away the breeding ground for terrorism. Yes, Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism just like Afghanistan prior to our invasion regardless of the Al Qaeda affiliation or Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is well documented that Iraq had no connection to 9/11 but had significant connections to terrorism. 

Lower-ranking officers and enlisted soldiers are leaving the military in droves because of repetitive rotations to war zones, and recruiting increasing numbers of high-school dropouts and criminals is hardly the best way to replace the soldiers who have left the Army.”

Interesting argument with no supporting numbers, just commenting that “droves” of soldiers are leaving the military. 

Here are the facts from the Army web site (2006 was the latest numbers).  Interesting that at the worst time in the war and after more than 3 years in Iraq the Army met retention and recruiting goals.

http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/

Army Announces Retention, Recruiting Numbers for FY 2006

Retention

The Army announced that the active-duty Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve exceeded Fiscal Year 2006 retention goals for the year.

• The active-duty Army closed the fiscal year at 105 percent of its retention mission. The goal was to re-enlist 64,200 Soldiers and 67,410 Soldiers actually reenlisted.
• The Army Reserve closed out fiscal year 2006 at 103 percent of its retention mission, with 18,243 Soldiers reenlisting. The goal was to retain 17,712 Soldiers.
• The Army National Guard finished 2006 at 118 percent. The Guard reenlisted 41,152 Soldiers, surpassing its goal by 6,277.

The second argument is that we are replacing soldiers with dropouts and criminals. I suspect this is a way to discredit the men and women serving in uniform. I left my MBA program to serve in Afghanistan by the way. 

On the new Recruitment side we have these numbers.

Recruitment

More than 175,000 qualified men and women have answered the Call to Duty and enlisted in the Army in FY06, 32,000 more than FY 05.

• The active Army recruited 80,635 active Soldiers—101% of the 80,000 mission.
o Most enlistees since 1997.
o This exceeds the FY05 accomplishment (73,373) by 7K
o FY07 mission is again 80,000
• USAREC recruited 25,378 Army Reserve Soldiers—99.5% of 25,500 mission.
o This exceeded the FY05 accomplishment (19,400) by almost 6K.
o USAREC also recruited more than 300 Interpreter/Translators (09L), native heritage speakers into the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) that did not count toward their 25,500 USAR mission.
o FY07 mission is 26,500, 1K larger than this year
• The Army National Guard recruited 69,042 Soldiers—98.6% of 70,000 mission
o Most enlistees since 1992
o Exceeds the FY05 accomplishment (50,219) by 18.8K
o FY07 mission is again 70,000

Active End Strength of approx 505,000 is up 12K from FY05 ES of 492,728, the highest endstrength since 1995. Reserve End Strength of approx 190,000 is 1K more than the FY05 endstrength of 189,005. Army National Guard End Strength of approx 346,000 is up 13K from FY05 endstrength of 333,177, the highest endstrength since Dec. 2003.

“Both Vets For Freedom and Iraq Veterans Against the War are concerned about what will happen to Iraqi citizens when the American military leaves Iraq”

Mr. Davey makes the statement that Iraq Vets Against the War are concerned about what will happen to Iraqis if we leave today (speculation is that thousands of Iraqis will die) and still he advocates for that strategy. He’s concerned about killing terrorists earlier in his article to “get rid of” them (i.e. speculating we will need to kill thousands more terrorists) and claims that is not morally acceptable. Yet he is advocating letting thousands of Iraqis die by pulling out today. I’d rather we keep killing terrorists and give the Iraqi people a chance. If I have to make a moral choice about killing people I will choose to support the people who want a free society NOT the people who kill innocent men, women and children.

The soldiers that I speak with think the fight is worth winning and we have shown that we can win it. All we ask now is for the American public, the President and most important, Congress to LET US WIN.

I am a proud member of Vets For Freedom and I support our mission and I believe we can win. Let Us Win.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Soldiers are Bush Cronies"

I hear this argument all the time.  This is a blog post to Katherine Kersten article today and my response to that post.

“tiny litess says:
March 26th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Trident they are just part of the Bush propaganda machine.
 
Don’t you see that!
Don’t you see that!
Don’t you see that!
Don’t you see that!
Don’t you see that!
Don’t you see that!”

Tiny,
As one of the Local Vets who rode the bus yesterday, I would like to respond to your comments.  Labeling us as part of the "Bush propaganda machine” is the easy way to try and discredit us rather than engage in a rational discussion with one of us or even listen to what we have to say for that matter. 

If you did talk with one of us you might find out that there are many members of VFF who support Pres. Bush and many who DO NOT.  Our focus has nothing to do with the administration.  It has to do with the war and our ability to accomplish our mission.

Our intent is to present what we saw when we were over there and the situation on the ground today.  By hearing both of those perspectives, people can make up there own mind regarding whether or not we are making progress.  We can show actual tangible progress on both a military and political aspect in Iraq.  Those two factors are not mutually exclusive; they are closely tied together along with an economic piece that determines progress and ultimately victory.

From the soldier’s perspective, it doesn't matter how we got there.  That debate has long lost it’s relevance in how to get out of Iraq.  From a Historical viewpoint, have the discussion all day long but in regards to the current mission in Iraq, it has no bearing.  WE ARE ALREADY COMMITTED and the current situation is what is relevant.  The relevance of 05-06 as compared to the progress of 07-08 is what we are talking about.  Progress has been made militarily, economically and politically.  That’s coming from the soldiers who have been there, not the politicians in Washington DC. 

If you want the political viewpoint, read the quotes and listen to the sound bites of your favorite Congressman.  If you want the truth, listen to the Vets who have lived it!

The bottom line, as soldiers, we are carrying this burden.  We know how to win this war and we have proved that over the last year.   Let us do our job.

Tags: Vets   Iraq  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vets On The Hill

Vets On The Hill
April 7-8, Washington, DC

All expense paid trip (airfare/hotel) for Vets who want to go to D.C. and speak with the Minnesota Congressional Delegation.

MN Vets Contact Michael Baumann:
mickb9@aol.com

Sign up here:
http://vetsforfreedom.org/heroestour/voth_signup.aspx

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CPT Bill Johnson

This is a response I received to my Mission Impossible email.  I would like to thank CPT Johnson for his service and wish him well in his recovery. 



Jason,

I am an Iraq vet and I got your email.  I am healing
from combat injuries at Ft. Carson, but I'll be
medically boarded out soon.  By the way, I'm also a
McCain supporter.  He's a strong choice and a good
man.  I feel he stood up to support us over there when
almost no one else did.  And you know what happened,
we worked hard and "the surge" worked.  He bet all his
chips on us and it paid off in spades for all of us!

God bless you and I wish you the best of luck with
this effort.  By the way, the McCain veterans chair
called me and his volunteers chair emailed me the
other day to make sure I'm doing OK.  I definitely
haven't received that letter of support from any other
candidate's staff.  McCain will continue to support us
and he'll continue to do so and, as you know, the
troops will be proud to serve under him and he'll
continue to do so!

By the way, I like your email ID.  I carried a St.
Michael medallion with me wherever I went in Iraq.
Also, the Archbishop of the Army came out to Ft.
Carson and met us WTU soldiers the other day.  It was
nice to meet him.

God Bless,
Bill

Bill Johnson
CPT, MS, USAR
B Co., WTU, Ft. Carson, CO

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Courage and Integrity

Veterans need to get in political battle

By NICK COLEMAN, Star Tribune


Last update: January 23, 2008 - 9:48 PM


After Jason Meszaros returned from combat in Afghanistan, he felt he could handle just about any of life's smaller difficulties.


He even thought he could handle a political caucus.


That may not sound like much of a challenge, but participating in the give-and-take of local politics and standing up for your beliefs in front of your neighbors can be daunting to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- especially when polls show that Iraq is one of the biggest issues (if not much discussed these days) in the presidential campaign.


"A lot of veterans say, 'That's not my place,'" said Meszaros, a computer software team manager and former Army Reserve captain who served in Afghanistan in 2004-05. "They say, 'My place was to go over there and do my duty, and I've done that.' But I'm asking them to step forward and go beyond that."

Meszaros, who lives in St. Michael with his wife, Karen, and infant daughter, Samantha, is leading a home-computer effort to get veterans to shed their reluctance to speak out and attend precinct caucuses on Feb. 5.


He supports the war and plans to caucus with Republicans as a backer of Sen. John McCain. But

Meszaros says he doesn't care whether veterans go to a Republican, DFL or Independence Party caucus.  He just wants them to share their experiences and opinions, and make themselves heard when the grassroots get to speak.


"I want to see veterans on both sides of the war issue come out to their caucuses," said Meszaros. Most veterans, he thinks, support the war. But he respects those who think differently, and credits First District Congressman Tim Walz, a Democrat and former National Guard soldier who has opposed the war, for being willing to raise the issue when he ran for office in 2006.

"I hope veterans will step forward and continue their service by having the courage and integrity to say what they saw over there -- whether it was positive or negative," Meszaros said. "Then, people will have the real story, not just the sound bites that the politicians throw at each other."

Meszaros wasn't sure if he was a Republican or a Democrat when he got back from Afghanistan, and he attended political debates on both sides of the divide until settling on the Republicans. But he was shocked when he attended his first GOP caucus in St. Michael and found that not enough people had showed up to fill out the slate of delegates his precinct was supposed to elect. He attributes that to the reluctance of average citizens -- including veterans -- to choose sides in a partisan atmosphere.

"A lot of veterans don't want to be associated with the far right or the far left," he said. "So they say, 'I'm an independent.' But at election time, everyone has to choose between Red or Blue. You have to choose one or the other. That's why I don't I think we will move forward in this country until we can get the mainstream involved. "

Meszaros and I are poles apart on the war in Iraq, but I share his concern for veterans' issues, including adequate funding for medical care. And he and I agree fundamentally on this (in his words): "There are a lot of soldiers overseas, still fighting a war. Let's not forget them."


Meszaros' efforts have been recently backed by groups such as Vets For Freedom, a group that includes prominent war supporters such as Sen. Joe Lieberman. But Meszaros began his effort in the homespun hope of getting all veteran viewpoints represented on Feb. 5. He began with simple chain-letter e-mails urging veterans to pass the word to others. (For more information, contact Meszaros at
saintmichael@charter.net).


The effort quickly picked up speed (one veteran wrote 850 people) as more and more veterans stumbled on an ancient truth: "History," one pointed out, "belongs to those who show up."

With Minnesota's souped-up early caucuses part of the Tsunami Tuesday voting that may select the presidential candidates for November, a lot of new faces are expected to caucus on Feb. 5.


Many will be attending for the first time, and many may feel out of place, or wonder if they belong there because they may not subscribe to all the tenets of the partisan faiths. But they don't have to.

They just have to be willing to stand up, and serve their country. For some -- those who recently were in uniform -- that should be easy.

Because they already have.


Nick Coleman •
ncoleman@startribune.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mission Impossible

From: Saint Michael [mailto:saintmichael@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:22 PM
To: meszaros@charter.net
Cc: saintmichael@charter.net
Subject: Mission Impossible
 
When I started to write down my vision, I wasn't certain of my intentions.  I had always felt that as a soldier it was my duty to serve and not get involved.  As I wrote this, I began to realize that as a soldier I was already involved.  I had taken an oath to defend the country and I needed to take a stand.  My intentions became clear to me.  I wanted to inspire other soldiers to take a stand for what we believe in and enact change.  My intention is for veterans to get involved at home to influence the direction of the country we are willing to die for.  My intention is to inspire veterans to attend the caucus on Feb 5th. 
 
With that latest polls still showing that the war is the #1 issue for the 2008 election, it only reinforced my conclusion.  The war is not a partisan issue, the war is an American issue and I want the Americans who sacrifice for that issue to be involved in the decisions on that issue.  We need to have a voice in who is elected to represent us!!!
 
I chose the email address of saintmichael@charter.net for 2 reasons.  I live in the city of St Michael, MN and Saint Michael is the patron saint of Paratroopers.  What better name to represent veterans.
 
This is meant to be a chain email.  I need it to be forwarded to as many people as possible in the next month.  Please keep it going until Feb 5 and please attend your precinct caucus.  The only way we can implement change is to spread the word and get involved by getting elected as delegates. 
 
Sincerely,
 
Jason Meszaros
U.S. Army Veteran - Afghanistan
St Michael, MN
  
My Vision: Courage and Integrity in Government.
As Veterans, whether a soldier, sailor, airmen or marine, we lead from the front in the GWOT everyday.  It is time for Veterans to lead from the front in the Transformation of America.  It is time for our leadership, experience, courage and integrity to influence the direction of America.

What does the Caucus really mean to a Veteran?
The caucus is where Americans truly have a voice.  The caucus is the process in the system to choose the candidate and choose the stance the party takes on an issue, such as the Global War on Terror. What you won't hear on TV or from candidates and what most people do not know is that ANYONE can attend the caucus.  Any group (Veterans) can attend the caucus.  Anyone can be elected as a delegate.  The delegates are the ones who get to choose the platforms of the parties and more importantly, the delegates CHOOSE the candidates.  We need Veterans, Family, Friends, and Supporters of Veterans to get elected as delegates.  That will give Veterans the voice to truly influence the direction of the country.  I believe veterans have earned the right to have a voice.

Why am I telling you this?
I want to inspire Veterans to attend the MN caucuses.  I want Veterans to come together as a group and be represented in the political parties that run this country.   I want Veterans in MN to commit to attending the caucuses on Feb 5.

Why should I care?
Veterans have the leadership, experience, courage and integrity necessary to run this country.  The only way to get our voice truly heard is to get involved in the system and that will lead us to transform the system. There is no doubt that people do not trust most politicians in today's America. By providing an influx of Veterans into the system we can create the possibility of courage and integrity in American Government. People can trust Veterans who already know how to serve.

How do we transform the system?
Attend the caucus on Feb 5. This is a non partisan movement. If you are a Democrat attend the Democratic Caucus.  If you are a Republican then attend the Republican Caucus.  Either way Veterans need to have a greater influence on this country from both sides of the aisle.

How do I know where my caucus is located?
MN SOS web site can tell you where your precinct is located?  You can also call the Major Political parties for information on the caucus locations.
Republican Party: http://www.mngop.com/pf/
Democratic, Farmer, Labor Party: http://www.dfl.org/
Independence Party: http://www.mnip.org/

What else can I do to make a difference?
Forward this email on to as many Veterans, Family, Friends, and Supporters of Veterans as possible. Spread the word to as many people as possible.  We have 1 month to inspire as many people as we can to attend MN Caucuses on Feb 5.

Why Mission Impossible?
It may seem impossible to think that we can significantly influence the course of America.  The transformation begins in 1 month with MN Precinct Caucuses.  The commitment to attend is small but the impact is incredible.  Imagine the impact that 10,000+ Veterans surging into the MN political system can do to enact change.

How do I get more info?
Check out Vets For Freedom http://vetsforfreedom.org/news/blogitem.aspx?id=310
Send an email with your question to: saintmichael@charter.net 

What should I do if I am committed to attending?
Step 1. Identify your caucus location.
Step 2. Sign up on the VFF site and send me an email letting me know you will attend and the location of your caucus.
Step 3. Show up on Feb 5. It is that easy to make a difference!!!

Saint Michael
Holy Scripture describes St. Michael as "one of the chief princes," and leader of the forces of heaven in their triumph over the powers of hell.  He has been honored and invoked as patron and protector by the Church.  St. Michael is the patron of grocers, mariners, paratroopers, police and sickness.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Politics, Politics, Politics

"Aware of the trouble Iraqi progress could mean for Democrats at home — House Whip James Clyburn recently said if the surge were successful, it would be "a real problem for us" — a revised set of talking points is being worked up by Democrats that declares the escalation of troops in Iraq has not been successful despite White House claims otherwise."

How is this supporting the troops? 

If the surge is successful, how is that a problem?

How is this not making the war political?

A set of talking points about a declaration that says the troops have failed before the mission is even completed.  That decision being based on reports that the mission is succeeding.  Does it get any more politically motivated than that? 


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »