A day in the life of an American Soldier. The personal passages of everything from family life to war.

Fox News Interview

American Soldier says,

I was interviewed by Fox News yesterday about the closed door sessions that transpired earlier this week. Certain questions asked were:

“Do I think that the troops feel bad that the senate now doubts the case for war?”

“Do I think the probe into the case for war is over due?”

“Do I think it’s owed to the family’s who have lost loved ones to have a probe?”

Well the call lasted for about 45 minutes. I told the reporter a lot of things that have affected me personally about this war, how I feel about it coming from a citizen-soldier. However I kept telling the reporter that really the troops on ground don’t give a flying leap about what the hell the senate is doing. In war, you are there to survive and you care for you brothers in arms. I said to her at one point that no soldier is going to run to the head shrink and cry because the senate can’t make up their mind about the war. Or even if they doubt the war, it doesn’t really affect the outcome of what we (soldiers) do on ground. The senate should focus on giving our military a higher pay raise then the measly 3% hike. They should ensure we have better equipment, no soldier should ever have to buy his/her stuff.

I told her that I think the senate has way too much time on their hands to be bickering about what the case for war was or wasn’t. I said at one point that I’m wondering if the senate is trying to impeach our president because some facts in the case for war were never proven. What the senate should be focusing on is where we are at right now. All the strides, leaps and bounds of where we have brought Iraq to now. Who gives a crap if we didn’t find WMD’s or Yellow Cake? Part of the case for war was the fact that we were going to free Iraqi’s of oppression and you dam well better believe we did that. We have empowered the Iraqi’s to a point where they are writing their own constitution, they are mending their country, they are progressing. We are serving a purpose and that is the important thing. A city councilman wrote to me the other day and in a response about how I feel when a person asks me about why we are in Iraq, he said this. “Why are we in Iraq, they had nothing to do with 9/11″, my reply is: “Why did we fight Hitler in WW2? He had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.”

I hope the Fox News reporter writes this story in good taste. I emphasize this before I got off the phone. She said she would so we’ll see. The story should post in the next few days.

In closing my feeling about the war is this. We are there now; we will be there for a long time. I am a soldier who is of sane mind and I have volunteered in the past to go fight this war. I wouldn’t put my life on the line for something that I felt was not just. I do it for two reasons. The most important thing is to be there for other soldiers. The other is to be a part of the war that is fighting terrorism. Never do I want to see another 9/11!

Blackfive was also interviewed.

44 Responses to “Fox News Interview”

  1. unknownchum Says:

    Well said- I’m referring some friends to this post. I especially like the comparison to Pearl Harbor!

  2. FL Mom Says:

    Thanks. For everything. V for Victory!

  3. suek Says:

    I’ll watch if I can…and speak up about whether there’s a “slant” or not. The questions you posted - at least the manner in which they’re asked - indicate a bias, or at least they invite you to complain about the war. It seems to me that Fox News has shifted it’s views over the last six months - reports about the war used to be unfailingly positive…lately, they seem negative. Maybe not as negative as the big 3, but negative. I was interested to note that they had a different retired military General on yesterday who was strident about his dissatisfaction with the way the war was being handled. Questions asked were softball - but I admit that they usually allow military retirees to have their say unchallenged.
    I’ll certainly be disappointed if they join the other channels in their view of the war and the administration. One can only watch so much of CSI…!

  4. fstarssblink182 Says:

    let me know if the interview gets posted somewhere, i go to school 4 nights a week and miss all of the news!!

  5. Chelle Says:

    very well said, and I hope that it’s offered up to the rest of us as you intended it to be. i’m trackbacking.. ;)

  6. Igor Says:

    Well, the Pearl Harbor comparison was eloquent, succinct, and hit the point right on the head. :!:

    Next time some lefty comes up with the lame-o satement about what So-damn-insane had to do with 9/11, I’ll quote you!

    You don’t mind if I use it, do you??


  7. American Soldier Says:

    You can quote the site. The person who said it may not want all the attention.

  8. Jim Says:

    With all due respect (and much is due), while the comparison between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is evocative, I think it misses the mark.

    In case we forget, in WWII a country which was allied with Germany attacked us. Having signed an agreement with Japan within 4 days of Pearl Harbor, Germany (apparently at the request of Japan) declared war on the U.S. So why did we attack Germany, to oversimplify it, because they declared war on us. Despite the myriad contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda, I am unaware of anything approaching a mutual aid or mutual defense compact.

  9. American Soldier Says:


    You are accurate in your statement, but I think the statement is quite linear in comparison and observation towards Germany and Japan.

    Iraq was bound to happen. After 9/11 we were not going to continue to have Saddam run around and just kill on the whim. However, I can’t give you my case for the war. I just know that we are making a helluva difference there. So if you can get past the fact that we didn’t find WMD’s, we did free many from oppression and took out a mad man that can only be compared to a street thug that happened to own a country.

  10. Don Says:

    Jim, US airmen and sailors were performing combat missions in the North Atlantic against Germany well in advance of Pearl Harbor. Your legalistic distinction between the Iraq war and WW2 is false on its face.

  11. Pouncer Says:

    Six months after Pearl Harbor the US launched Operation Torch, invading … Port Lyautry, Morrocco — north of Casablanca.

    Uhm. Why? Did Morocco bomb Hawaii?

    The allies assumed the oppressed peoples of the region, in particular the French-speaking colonialists, would welcome the
    US as liberators. This turned out to be a vain hope. The French — the Vichy French, but French all the same — opposed the Brits and US in this invasion. By this I don’t mean they postured and made speeches. The French sailed ships of war against the US Navy attempting to sink our own ships.

    They failed…

    The US (and British…) invasion succeeded and by Thanksgiving 1942 the allies were enjoying a Thanksgiving dinner in occupied Morocco. (Complete with “Plastic Turkey”, no doubt.)

    The US victory in this first battle did not, surprisingly, cause the Fascists to re-think the whole notion of war with the US. The war continued to drag on for years. But each battle brought US forces closer to Berlin and Tokyo and left more and more territory “liberated”.

    Tehran and Riyahd and Damascus might bear that history in mind …

  12. Jim Says:

    American Soldier,

    I agree that the U.S. is making a helluva difference there largely for the reasons you mentioned. I only wish that those reasons had been more prominently used in the run up to war. If they had been, I suspect the support for current activities would be stronger.


    What I said was admittedly oversimplified, not sure that it is “false on its face”. However, I think that trying to compare us attacking Iraq as a result of 9/11 to us attacking Germany as a result of pearl harbor is more oversimplified and false on its face.

  13. Papaw John Says:

    Hey Y’all

    Thought it would be worth making a few comments about the business of ‘fighting Hitler when Japan attacked PearlHarbor….

    First, as already said, it was HITLER that declared war on US. There was enough political muscle left in the Isolationist camp to make the FDR admin worry that declaring war on Germany was going to be a problem even after 12/07/1941. So they were relieved that the Nazis solved their problem.

    Second, the principle US war effort was directed at Europe throughout the War. Probably the ‘Greatest Generation’ at the time would have voted to make the Japanese our ‘main’ enemy–but they never got the chance to vote. Hitler was FDR’s obsession even before 1941–he’d arranged financial support for Britian (Lend Lease) and provided ’surplus’ warships to them in the ‘39-’40 time frame. That leads us to…

    Third, altho we’re proud to live in a democracy, the President has always had power to take us to war and conduct war pretty much on his own. Jefferson fought an undeclared war with the NorthAfrican pirate-kings in (you should check these dates–I think it was his first term) 1800-02.

    So Dubya, who apparently wanted a reason to kick Saddaam’s butt even before 9/11, was in the American tradition when he took us to war pretty much on his own. And EVERYBODY thought that there were WMDs there. But whether he should have to accept the responsiblility for the mistake–ah there’s the rub. If BillClinton had lead us to war on false intelligence, well–where would the Right Wing be now? Maybe still on the ceiling?

    And sending our Army to war with wretched, 2nd rate planning (remember the ‘assumption’ that we could go thru Turkey?) (is it true that by the time the Marines got to Baghdad, they were down to ONE MRE/MAN/DAY?)–has he assumed responsibility for that?

    Fire the bastards.

    Papaw John

  14. dick Says:


    The reasons that American Soldier mentioned were made prior to the war. All you have to do is read the reasons for the war in the legislation that authorized the war. The reasons are there. The problem is that the MSM decides what it will publicize and what it will not publicize. Unless you want the government to grab them by the throat and make them publicize what the government wants, then the choices are up to the media and we all know how fair and unbiased they are toward this administration.

  15. big dirigible Says:

    The press and the Congress are still showing their lack of comprehension and, more importantly, imagination. The problem with Iraqi WMDs was not what Saddam H. had two years ago. The problem was what he would have in the future if allowed to follow the path he was clearly intent on following.

    After the ‘91 war, Saddam H. was allowed to go about much of his sinister business for a dozen years. If you wait long enough, a villain like that will eventually be able to get whatever weapons he wants. All it takes is time and money. He was sitting on one of the world’s great oil reserves, so had plenty of money. So all he needed was time. Should he have been allowed it? And if he didn’t live long enough, there were those two odious sons, probably even worse than their dad.

    Congress doesn’t get it, the press doesn’t get it. Dumb old George got it, though - recall that he said he wasn’t going to wait until the problem became imminent. Maybe George isn’t so dumb after all - or at least, not as dumb as the press and the Congress.

    What Saddam had or didn’t have was (and is) not important. What he was going to have, if we were stupid enough to give him the time, now that WAS important.

  16. amr Says:

    big dirigible is correct. Even more evidence of the problem with getting correct info from the MSM is that they said that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat when he said he wasn’t going to wait until it became an imminent threat. They couldn’t even watch the speech or video and get it correct. To this day I believe the misquoting was intentional, since it went on for so long. I am not against honest debate, but I am going bonkers listening to the same MSM and Left lies repeated seemingly forever in this Google information age.

  17. Maggie45 Says:

    Ditto to Big Dirigible and Amr…..and to American Soldier……THANK YOU THANK YOU!!

  18. Lawk Salih Says:

    Very informative.

    Lawk Salihh


  19. Jim Says:

    I agree with what someone said back in June 2003:

    “There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. . . . The third one by itself . . . is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.”

  20. Jimmy Jack Says:

    The Dems are reaching for any possible reason to try to impeach W. IMHO they are making themselves look foolish.

    Here are some of my thoughts about the WMDs:

    1. Saddam had plenty of time to a) Bury them. b) Ship them to Syria. c) Destroy them.
    2. If he had no chemical/biological weapons why were chemical suits for soldiers and massive doses of atropine found stashed in various parts of Iraq during the invasion? Why did some of the deserting Iraqi soldiers tell the U.S. troops that they had been ordered to fire chemical war heads at the invading U.S. Army?
    3. If Saddam had no WMDs why didn’t he just come clean, open up his country to the inspectors, and prove the case to the world? If he had, he would be sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. The French oil company, Total, would be drilling new wells and upgrading his infrastructure. He would have twice as many palaces and country villas as he had before. Most of all, his sons would be alive and he wouldn’t be sitting in a courtroom accused of mass murder. Why did he make the choices he did? Was it possible that he really did have or wanted to have WMDs?
    4. Does anyone believe that, had they wanted to, the DOD could have sneaked some chem/bio weapons into Iraq and then pointed to that as evidence of Saddam’s WMDs. Certainly any administration that is purportedly as morally bankrupt as the Bush administration would have done that. I guess they are just too inept to do such a sly, dishonest thing.

    To really understand why we are in Iraq you need to read THE PENTAGON’S NEW MAP, which lays out the case for bringing democratic ideas to the Middle East. War is a grim way to do it, but it became necessary after 9/11. If the Muslim countries are ever to become participants in the modern world they need to adopt representative government and let their women become members of society. Iraq and Afghanistan are the first steps along this difficult and lengthy path.

  21. opit Says:

    If you were to send men out w/o recce you’d be a rash fool. Poor prep for war includes lack of supply and focus on the wrong objectives. Any other “leftie” ideas you don’t get ? And is regular force movement the best way to deal with stealth and suicides ? With all due respect, the criticism of fighting the current engagement instead of the last one still should hold.

  22. Donna Says:

    I will watch for the interview. Hope they do a good job reporting! I totally agree with you about the war. You guys liberated a people who were too afraid to go outside almost!! You are to be comended for such bravery!! :smile:

  23. Christine Says:

    According to the inspection reports, not all of the sites were ever available to be inspected. There were periods of time when the inspectors were not even allowed to go in. In addition, Saddam would never fully comply with what was required as far as reports. As far as moving any WMD out of the country, the following paragraph spells out the path. In addition, some names will be very familiar.

    This was a bizarre alliance in Ansar al-Islam’s territory, comprising Al-Zarqawi with his fanatic hatred of Shiites, the hardliners of the Shiite Islamic revolution, former Ba’th secret service officers, and the internationalists of the Holy War. The alliance manages to survive the course of time and continues to work to date. “Al-Zarqawi is using Saddam Husayn’s secret service structures today,” a high-ranking officer of the Jordanian GID says. “He knows them from the past.” Both Jordanian and Western intelligence services watch Al-Zarqawi’s followers traveling via Tehran to Iraq, mainly from and through Europe, to fight the crusaders in the Holy War. It is no one-way traffic. Fighters, equipment, and weapons are smuggled out of Iraq into Europe. When German investigators arrested Lokman M. in Munich in 2003, they found out that he had established a virtual travel agency for trips to Iraq and back. “This is a rat line of which we only know that it exists,” a German BND officer groans.

    Saddam’s compliance was required or else the very real possibility of war was on the table. The fact that the UN did not want this to happen was explained just recently in the report on the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.

  24. Jack is Back! Says:

    Where can you start regarding the Democrats in congress. Except for a handful (probably an overstatement) none of them give a rat’s ass about our national security - true national security - not some average policy that appears to be in our best interest. They are appeasers, peace monkey supporters and vice versa, touchy-feely, mamby-pamby, girlie men and butchy-girls. Name one thing they have ever done as a party to show undying support for the troops and their mission. You can not be against the war, or feel you were duped AND support the troops. I went through this a war ago - we saw through it then and you can see through it again today. They would put the troops at further risk just to advantage their political party and their goals.

  25. susan Says:

    I would have mentioned my justification for the Iraq War given in The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 as reasons for removing Saddam. Come to think of it, I would have also mentioned the opinions given by the editors at the NY Times between 1998-2000 who insisted that Saddam need to be removed as Saddam was a real threat to the free world.

    That said, didn’t Clinton throw a few bombs Saddam’s way? He did make the attempt though futile as that was.

    Funny that Jefferson’s 1803 War was mentioned. Wasn’t he the Prsident that built the Navy in order to stop the Barbary Coasts MUJAHADEAN (like you know Islam’s slave trade of anglosaxon Christians)

  26. R3 Says:

    Hey AS,

    I assume the ‘City Councilman’ you were referring to was me and my Hitler/Pearl Harbor analogy. Those who try to make the point of Germany declaring war and being an ally of Japan miss the point. As I said in my email to you, it is in response to those who claim the ONLY justification for war in following an actual attack. My analogy illustrates the speciousness of that argument.

    There are a myriad of reasons to go to war - response to an attack (Afghanistan), response to other hostilities/declaration of war (Germany), self defense/protection (Iraq). We can (and should) always debate the legitimacy of each reason, but there are different reasons and that is the basis for my analogy.

    And no, I don’t mind the attention.

  27. American Soldier Says:

    The floor is yours buddy! :beer:

  28. CJ Says:

    AS–Thank you for voluteering to keep the rest of us safe and free!!! You have my forever gratitude!!!

  29. Greg austin Says:

    i really enjoyed reading your post . Its so hard to get a proper perspective from the media back here . Screw there polls and bullshit spin from the safty of there new york city news rooms. I hope you won’t mind if i pass your post on to some others to let them get the story from the ground not from the likes of the nytimes and cbs . Stay safe , and come back home safe and sound and i’ll pray for your and the troops safe return . Thank you for all you do .

  30. American Soldier Says:

    Pass it along to anyone you like. I appreciate it.

  31. Land Warrior Says:

    Having spent a year of my life liberating the world of Islamic Jihadist I feel justified to put my two cents worth in here. We all know that the majority of the military and many of the redblooded American types were more than ready to go take care of the thorn in our side (Saddam) on a moments notice. Many of us felt that we could have and should have pressed the fight back in 91, but realizing the need to preserve the coalition at that time was of paramount importance to keep Israel from nukeing someone.

    When the opportunity presented itself after 9/11 it was just a matter of time before it was going to happen. As soon as I saw my chance I volunteer I was there with bells on. I had a score to settle, but I also knew that we were going to change the lives of so many people that I had to be part of it.

    The single incident that sticks out in my mind is the day a young mother and haer small daughter felt safe enough to push their way through a group of adolescent and 20 something Iraqi men to hand me a single flower. The power of that statement justified all I had seen and done to that point and carried me through many days of hardship throught the deployment.

    One doesn’t have to go to the battlefield to win this war, but everyone has the responsibilty to help in some way. When someone tries to de-rail, subvert or actually take up arms against his or her nations war effort then that is called being a traitor. Lending aid and comfort to this enemy is not just done on the battlefield, it is done on the internet, broadcast television and throught print.

    Being an “activist” is one thing, but a traitor should be tried and if found guilty, sentence to death. From Congress on down to the lowest level, all should be treated equally. If your words, acts or actions cause an adverse event against those fighting the battles you should be charged as a traitor.

    I call the woman and little girl in Iraq activists. I made a difference just by being there. I sleep well at night regarless of the other visions I carry with me because of that little girl and her mother.

  32. Huntress Says:

    Land Warrior……

    “Lending aid and comfort to this enemy is not just done on the battlefield, it is done on the internet, broadcast television and throught print.” Absofuckinglutely Right!!


    Susan “Come to think of it, I would have also mentioned the opinions given by the editors at the NY Times between 1998-2000 who insisted that Saddam need to be removed as Saddam was a real threat to the free world.”

    Not only did the Times take that position, in Feb 2000 The Boston Globe featured an Op -Ed entitled Iraq’S Growing Threat.

    You can read the entire Op-Ed on my blog (10/16) Collective Memory Loss and Synaptic Misfires, but let me share the highlights to better educate leftwing Bush Bashing liberals as to which position the democrats really held when it came to Saddam and what needed to be done in Iraq:

    “Saddam Hussein’s continuing defiance of United Nations resolutions mandating inspection and dismantling of his weapons of mass destruction represents the most flagrant and protracted failure of President Clinton’s foreign policy.”

    “In seven years, Clinton has tried to ignore, obscure, and misrepresent the threat from Saddam. Clinton’s so-called containment policy has done nothing more than deter Saddam from invading his neighbors again.But that policy has not obliged the Iraqi despot to honor the UN’s disarmament resolutions,has not protected the Iraqi people from the dictator’s killers and tortures, and has not defended Americans against terrorists who may be acting with the veiled and deniable support of a vengeful Saddam.”

    “Saddam must be forced to permit weapons inspections or be removed from power. The failure to contain him should be a central issue in the current presidential campaign”


    Oh how quick the “left” forgets!

    Land Warrior & American Soldier….Thank you for your service and your sacrifice. I am forever grateful!

  33. Veteran Says:

    What I don’t understand is why we haven’t made any real effort to get Osama Bin Laden. Our President said he was our real enemy, remember”You can run but you can’t hide.” And I’ve heard a lot of talk but I have’t seen any real evidence the Sadam had any weapons of mass destruction. There are a lot of tyrants in this world who treat their people badly, look at the people in Sudan. Our neighbor’s daughter is in Iraq, and we pray for her and all the rest of the troops there. As a soldeir you don’t have a choice, you volunteer, but you can’t unvolunteer. You have to go where they send you, we all had to do that, and fight who they tell you to fight. I hope you all make it home safely. Watch you back and cover your buddies.

  34. Land Warrior Says:

    Veteran-What would you say constitutes a “real effort”? Super secret Squirrel types have been there since before direct action teams, ground pounders climbing in and out of caves daily, ELINT elements monitoring every nat fart that imminates from the region. What is your plan?
    As for WMD. They are still there, or in Syria, or maybe even in the Sudan. If Sudanese jihadists can infiltrate INTO Iraq then what the hell makes anyone think that a 55 gallon drum of enough nerve agent to take out a large metropolitan city can be smuggled out through friendly borders? Whe a single pin prick of a substance can lill a single person it would not take much more to knock out a larger group.

  35. Wilson Kolb Says:

    Being an “activist” is one thing, but a traitor should be tried and if found guilty, sentence to death. From Congress on down to the lowest level, all should be treated equally. If your words, acts or actions cause an adverse event against those fighting the battles you should be charged as a traitor.


    Would this include someone who reveals the name of an undercover CIA agent during wartime?

  36. American Soldier Says:

    Would make for an interesting case. However I think in that situation death is too easy. I also think that is stooping to a level of barbaric proportions.

  37. Huntress Says:

    Surely you cannot be refering to Valerie P. who by NO stretch of the imagination qualifies as a “covert CIA agent.

    If she is sooooo covert…why did she appear in a photo spread in Vanity Fair with her hubby.

    Libby lied to the grandjury but He is NOT being indicted for revealing Valerie’s name…but only for denying that he did.
    It was already determined that Valerie P. didn’t fit the requirment for being deemed a “a covert agent”.

    But hey…I’ll tell you what…. we can charge him( since it won’t stick) after the following are all charged and right convicted:
    Jane Fonda
    The owners of NY TIMES, CNN, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE BOSTON GLOBE, oh hell the entire MSM elites should be charged with treason and conspiring to AID and ABETT KNOWN TERRORISTS. No wonder Al Zarquawi keeps renewing his online subscription.
    CODE PINK - who have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to KNOWN terrorist organizations.
    A.N.S.W.E.R they have a fuck of alot to ANSWER too!!
    SEAN PENN - for his continuous support of Mullahs who have made it clear the want to kill the “infidels” ( that would be US!!) and have once again asked for the complete destruction of Isreal.

  38. Wilson Kolb Says:

    Would make for an interesting case. However I think in that situation death is too easy. I also think that is stooping to a level of barbaric proportions.


    Are you aware that George W. Bush’s deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, is widely accused of blowing the cover of an undercover CIA agent, and that Vice President Cheney might have been in on it as well? If these charges can be proven, should Rove and Cheney be executed or, as Republicans, should they be exempted from the law?

  39. American Soldier Says:


    Quit trying to lead an answer, write your fucking point!

  40. Land Warrior Says:

    American Soldier, that is how to re-frame the question. How else can you debate a point when you are on the defensive?

    1) If (and that is a big if) Val was a covert agent, was she involved in issues concerning the current situation in Iraq and Afganistan or other area involved in the GWT?

    2) If she was involved, to what extent was the blowing of her cover directly tied to the operational conduct of ground warfare?

    3) Did blowing her cover result in harm or death coming to American forces engaged in active ground combat?

    If the answers to these questions lead one to see that there was direct involvemnt then yes, there should be hell to pay for whomever actually committed the action. For those who may have been involved in secondary actions not directly related to the harm or death, the no, death would not be warranted.

    Now, apply these same questions to those in the MSM, the other “activists” groups and the individuals that spew the anti-war(Bush) hatred.

  41. Veteran Says:

    Boy, some of you guys have a lot of time to spend on your computers. I’m retired and I can’t get on as much as I’ed like. Land Warrior, I appreciate your serving your country. I served 3 years overseas, and I didn’t give a damn what the media stateside said and neither did anybody else that I knew of. I worked in Air rescue and I did the best job I could. These special secret squirrel types you speak, would that be special ops? It would seem their plan hasn’t worked. Osama is still there. Would you say we have 130,000 troops in Iraq? If we had sent 130,000 troops into Afghanistan we would have had a lot better chance to get him, and all of his leaders. Wouldn’t you like to have seen him hanging from a high tree when you were over there? As far as WMD in Iraq, we had flyovers 24 hours a day, satellites covering the whole country, for 10 YEARS. Remember Powell going to the UN and telling about that truck being loaded and they didn’t know what was on it? Don’t you think they tracked that truck to where it was going and watched it being unloaded? They could have taken out the truck with 1 rocket, or the building it was unloaded at. All they had to say is that we thought our planes were fired on, and returned fire. Who cares what they say. People say that Sadam sent the weapons out to some other country, with us watching from the sky. If Sadam had those weapons, you can bet your but that he would have used them against the US ARMY and the US MARINES!!! Right now there is a lot of politics going on here in this country. They’ve got to get those Iraq elections done in Dec. and then start bringing the troops home. If we don’t get most of the troops home by election time here next November, a whole lot of the leadership in our congress and the white house are going to look bad. So lets get the Iraqi troops out there and start doing their job, and start bringing our guys home.

  42. julie Says:

    You got my vote..Godd Luck

  43. » New Blog Says:

    […] 7;s called American Soldier and written by a man who goes by the same name. I found this entry very poignant: I told her that I think the senate has way too much time on their hands to be bickering a […]

  44. Bob Says:

    While I can’t say I agree 100% I pretty much like how you say it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

TrackBack To This Entry (Right-Click and Copy Shortcut)