Senator Joe Biden's flawed reasoning for continued funding of the war.

God bless Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) presidential candidate and the most trusted Senator when it comes to Foreign Relations. This morning on Meet The Press, he articulated his position as to why he won't cut off the funds for the war even though he believes there is no hope of the current strategy in Iraq working. His rationale is this, as long as there is a single soldier left in Iraq, he won't cut off the funds because the funding is paying for special armored vehicles that can stand the I.E.D. explosions which have killed or injured thousand of our troops. These vehicles cost Billions of dollars and he wants to make sure they are made.

Here's what's flawed in the Senator's position. Let's look at recent data. Since August 1st, there were 100 deaths of our soldiers. 50% of the deaths were caused by I.E.D.'s. The next single cause of the deaths was because of Hostile fire at 24% and helicopter crashes accounted for about 20%.

So the best we could do using Senator Biden's reasoning would be to save 50% of the deaths. This is very good indeed if we could pull it off in the next 6-9 months. But the vehicles are still being built and may not be in theater far beyond a year from now. But what about the other 50% your reasoning can't save? Theses new vehicles will not save lives for soldiers walking around on missions in Iraq from such things as hostile fire, small arms fire and snipers. So the best we can do is not good enough, Senator Biden.

By voting to cut off the funding, you are assuring that eventually the troops will start to come home, safe with their families and recovering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (P.T.S.D.), which by the way doesn't physically deform or injure the body, but instead ravages the mind, not only of the soldier, but of their families as well because they must live with their loved ones mental damage for years to come. Those vehicles can’t do a thing for P.T.S.D. You see Senator, the only thing that can be done to honor the troops and their sacrifice, is to admit the truth of the situation and bring them home. Anything else, is truly cowardice and I respect you but think your reasoning can't stand the rigor of a logical analysis without crumbling. Senator, changing your view here could help change the course of this war. Many listen to you and could follow your recommendations. If you believe these vehicles are necessary anyway, just fund the vehicles but strip away everything else and vote to bring the troops home.

Congress passes War funding against wishes of the people they serve.

In the face of greater than 70% of an American public that wants the war to be over and the troops to come home, Congress passed the revised $120 billion spending bill on Thursday, providing $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. My poll results back where the American people are. Here's the results of this poll I asked my readers:

Should the Congress

1. Give Bush all the funds requested? 0%

2. Include non-binding benchmarks? 0%

3. Include restrictions on the funds? 50%

4. Cut off the funds? 14%

5. Vote to stop the war? 36%

U.S. Fatalities in Iraq: An overview

Above is a chart (double click on it for easier viewing) of all US Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan from June 2003 to May month to date, 2007. As you can see the chart is not flat nor heading down but instead is going up significantly. Many say you can't tell on a monthly basis whether things are getting better for our military in Iraq. But I think the data is clear from taking a longer view of 4 years. This is the real "surge" not mentioned by President Bush.

I post this today because the Senate is poised to pass the War Funding bill without any date for ending the hostilities and bringing our troops home. The Bill, if passed, will be funding more of our soldiers dying. As we approach Memorial Day weekend, let's have the courage as a country to make the tough decision to bring the troops home. If it were your son or daughter there, wouldn't you want someone to vote to bring them home?

Senator Biden reconsider your planned vote on Funding the War!

As many of you know I have supported Senator Biden for President on this Blog. However, today, because of his announced plan to vote for the "compromise", I have contacted him and told him that, if he does support the Bill, I will not support him for President. It is important for our next President to be willing to change their minds when they are wrong. I hope the good Senator does listen to his conscience AND the will of the American people and vote against the Bill. If he votes for the Bill I will not support him for President and look for another candidate. I agree with Keith Olbermann of MSNBC’s Countdown, when he said this evening that tomorrow will be a seminal moment in choosing our Presidential candidates for 2008. We all will be watching!

Supporting the troops - Dare we?

I have never been in battle, nor do I wish to be. But many brave young men and women have freely made that choice. They now serve our country in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places around the world. They don't complain, they serve honorably because they want to defend all of us and keep our country strong. They rightfully allow us the freedom to have the debate about the war, whether we disagree with it being chosen as a course of action by our President, or whether we support the action taken. I have pondered the question as to what does it mean to truly support our troops who are in harms way.

Many worry that the funding of our troops before Congress will hamstring this President and the General's ability to conduct the war. Other's worry that the war is lost and the best thing that can be done is to stand up and refuse the funding, as a means to stopping the war. In the meantime, our troops are there, many on several tours of duty, not able to get home to see their families as was expected because we don't have enough troop replacements. Many argue that the Military is either broken or in serious condition and on its way to be broken. I have a client Executive who had served in the military and was there during the initial invasion of Iraq. He thought he would be home for another year with his wife and very young children, but he received orders he must go back in the next month or two, cutting short his tour home by a year.

There is little talk in the Congress or in the Administration of shared sacrifice. many of us go on our daily routines without even thinking about the war except when we see the news or hear from a neighbor that a relative was wounded, lost a limb or was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. We hear a lot about the benefits of an all volunteer military and that they wouldn't want it any other way. Well I think it is time to truly consider what it means to support the troops and their families and the country. The time may have come to reconsider instituting a DRAFT or National Service required of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 28 for a minimum period of 2 years and a maximum of 4 years. Many of my age group joined the Peace Corps. They gave the world a better impression of America than any wars could create.

None of the politicians, with the exception of Rep. Charlie Rangle D-NY, has even given the topic serious consideration. Rangel argues that until there is shared sacrifice, we will not be in alignment as to what we should do as a country. He has a good point. There are fewer that 10% of the Congress and Senate members son's and daughters serving in the military. Neither the President, nor the Vice President, ever really served in battle, and yet they took us into war. It seems that Presidents who have not served in battle, are the ones always staring wars. Maybe it's time we have another General run for President. Those Senators currently running for President or who had considered running for President have strong opinions about the war. Senator McCain has called for many more troops in Iraq in the past several years than anyone else. Senator Kerry (D) wants the troops to come home as does Senator Chuck Hagel (R). Both served their country in Vietnam. Maybe there is something to picking a President who at least has served in wartime and in battle. If I remember correctly, even General Wesley Clark, who ran for President in 2004, was against this war.

I think it's time to debate the need for a DRAFT. It isn't as though we have people standing in line to volunteer to join the military. many feel it is political suicide to even discuss the topic. That is why we non-politicians must raise our voices on this topic and that time is now. Adding more troops to the military is truly SUPPORTING THE TROOPS.

This is not the first time I have written on this topic and you can read what I previously wrote by clicking here, but at this time of the "surge", it is worth serious discussion again.

I add this below as it reminds us of the human costs to this war. This was published in January 2007:

"Divorce rates among Army officers dropped a whopping 61 percent last year following a 2004 spike that sent shudders through the service. In 2004, 3,325 Army officers divorced, but that number dropped to 1,292 in 2005, Army officials said. Divorces also were down slightly among enlisted members, from 7,152 in 2004 to 7,075 last year.

Army spokesman Martha Rudd said percentages tell the story more clearly, particularly in the officer corps. In 2004, 6 percent of married officers divorced. In 2005, the figure dropped by more than half: 2.3 percent of married officers divorced.

Army Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Pete Frederich, family ministries officer for the Army Chief of Chaplains, said there's no concrete explanation for why divorce rates climbed in 2004 or why they dropped last year. "There are many, many anecdotal reasons," he said, noting that every marriage and every divorce is different. But most likely, the stress of multiple deployments and an increased operational tempo throughout the Army played their part in the 2004 increase, Frederich acknowledged."

Funding the Iraq War- Mini poll

A new Mini poll has been posted regarding the Funding of the war in Iraq. The question is, Should the Congress:

1) Give Bush all the funds requested
2) Include non-binding benchmarks
3) Include restrictions on funds
4) Cut off the funds
5) Vote to stop the war

The former mini poll asked the following question:

As we approach the 4th Anniversary of the Iraq War, which of these 2008 political candidates do you see as mature and informed on Iraq, and has good ideas, as to how to resolve this conflict?

Results of the Poll showed the following % of the vote:

Senator Joe Biden the winner with 22%
Senator Barack Obama next with 19%
Al Gore with 15%
None of the others with 11%

All the other candidates were in the single digits.

The results of "Staying the Course" in Iraq

As you can see by the chart, there has been an average of about 80 service member deaths PER MONTH since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. This infers that for every month we "Stay the Course" in Iraq, we will add another 80 names to the list.

The President has seen fit to continue to "ponder" his choices even after receiving the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group report on December 6th. He has spent more time thinking about this than he did for their initial planning of the war and the invasion itself. Mr. President, you saw fit to take a "working" vacation in Crawford, TX. I know you listen to God more than anyone else but God sent you a message to leave Crawford when he sent a Tornado your way, Mr. President, but you didn't get moving on this problem then and returned back to Crawford. Mr. President, the troops deserve better from you, their families deserve better from you and the country deserves better from you. Get moving fast and change the course in Iraq by announcing our withdrawal!