Turncoat! How dare he?

Sorry for the long text, but found this buried in the comments section at the following link:

Richard L. Stouder said:
I am a life long conservative and Republican and a second generation veteran after serving for 30 years in the U.S. Army. I supported President Bush’s reelection by activism via an extensive email network, writing and submitting numerous editorials to the local newspaper, and making small contributions to the campaign. I also was a small contributor to the RNC and other conservative efforts. Although I did not agree with President Bush on many issues, I firmly believed that he was clearly the best man to continue to lead our country in time of war.

Because of my monetary support of the campaign I now am on more conservative mailing lists that I care to throw away and keep getting calls asking for more money. I like to take a few minutes to outline why I shall not send another penny until some of the below issues are addressed.

Accountability, or more accurately the lack thereof has been a signature of the Bush Administration. Let’s start with September 11, 2001. This was a huge intelligence and counterintelligence failure. I don’t care how you coat it with politics and political correctness, it was a failure. And who was held accountable? At the very least President Bush should have fired the Director of Central Intelligence and the FBI Director. Instead the President passes out Medals of Freedom. There is no way to change the facts, their organizations failed – but no accountability.

Then we have Norman Mineta, the Secretary of Politically Correct Transportation. Good ole’ Norm, was shocked that airlines were profiling passengers for security reasons. So while the airlines and ALL Americans have figured out that it was really Arab males from the ages of 18-30 that were using airplanes as people-laden bombs, the Secretary of Transportation issued edicts against profiling and instead we ordinary AMERICANS are the ones being body-searched at the airports. And are we really safer? I don’t think so. He should have been fired but we’ve even kept him on in the second Bush Administration -again, no accountability.

The whole justification given by the Bush Administration for attacking Iraq and removing Saddam was weapons of mass destruction (WMD). While I fully believe that Saddam should have been removed and totally supported attacking into Iraq, but for a completely different set of reasons than the WMD argument. The Bush Administration instead hung the whole reason for the war almost totally on WMD. I know that the intelligence assessment from the U.S. and every other credible Western Intelligence Agency was the Saddam had WMD. As a senior war planner and operations officer I had spent years reading about the WMD in Iraq. Alas all the intelligence agencies were wrong. In the U.S., the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) was particularly wrong in almost every aspect of their assessment. Another intelligence failure and who was held accountable?

Then as to the war in Iraq, there was a war plan for attacking Iraq. I know this because I spent seven of my last nine years in the Army writing and refining that plan. The military had a plan and it called for a specific number of troops. There even was a plan for Phase IV, Post Conflict Operations because I was responsible for planning it. But these plans didn’t fit into Donald Rumsfeld’s agenda. See, before 9/11 he was drawing up his Defense Transformation plans which would reduce the Army to maybe as few as five divisions while relying on the technology of air delivered precision munitions. According to Rumsfeld we would not need the Army since we would have the technical superiority from the air. So along comes the requirement to remove Saddam. CENTCOM had a plan, but seven Army divisions and two Marine divisions did not fit Rumsfeld’s Transformation strategy; way too many ground troops. So the Axis of Arrogance, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith tell CENTCOM to trash the plans as they are outdated and come up with an innovative plan; read that as less ground troops. Well the war to oust Saddam was won by the blood, sweat and tears of Soldiers and Marines on the ground.

Post conflict problems arose immediately when we didn’t have enough troops to provide for security of the Iraqi people, nor for our lines of communication. Then along comes the “insurgency.” Our Pentagon-based hubris and total ignorance of the culture of Iraq caused us to be surprised again and we’ve played catch-up ever since. Since the fall of Baghdad we’ve been in the reactive vice proactive mode. The fundamental problem in Iraq has been lack of adequate ground troops. The fundamental Iraq problem in the Pentagon has been the continued employment of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith (I know latter two are gone or leaving). The war in Iraq has not gone well and is not going well now. Who has been held accountable? This is not what I voted for.

After the ground troops “won the war” by defeating the Iraqi Republican Guard, liberated Baghdad, and captured Saddam Hussein, the U.S. was surprised again. All of a sudden there was this pesky insurgency. The U.S. intelligence apparatus failed to predict this deadly turn of events which still are taking the daily deadly toll of U.S. and Iraqi casualties. This was another intelligence failure. There was another failure and it resided squarely with the Axis of Arrogance. The Axis, in complete ignorance of Iraqi history, culture, politics and the complexity of the Middle East, thought that after the fall of Saddam, the Iraqi people would immediately start waving American flags and ask directions to the nearest polling place so that they could install democracy into their country. This was a huge failure of American policy, and when combined with another colossal failure, Paul Bremmer disbanding the Iraqi Army, we have this mess we’re in today. Where is the accountability? This is not the type of Commander in Chief leadership that I voted for.

Republicans are supposed to have a philosophical underpinning for small government. Yet during the first four years The Bush Administration, supported by the Rupulican majority in both houses, managed to create the largest increase in the size of government since Franklin Roosevelt. We have managed to take the biggest Fraud, Waste and Abuse Bureaucracy in the U.S. Government (Medicare) and make it bigger, give it more money to waste and create further abuse of the concept of bureaucracy. When this drug benefit program was foisted on the American people we were told it would be costly. Not three months after the bill was passed the costs increased by another third and the cost continue to grow. Were the original costs just an accounting failure or were they understated deliberately? Our country cannot afford to squander the tens of billions that will be spent on this program and managed by the incompetent Medicare bureaucracy. Republicans were elected into the majority because they were going to reduce the needless bureaucracy, like the Department of Education, but we’ve not eliminated one element of bureaucracy. This is not what I voted for.

Recently the National Transportation Bill was passed by both houses of Congress with support by the Republicans and signed by President Bush. Bush threatened to veto the bill if it exceeded a monetary threshold. Congress, with our party in the majority, passed the largest Transportation Bill in history. Is there nothing worth vetoing? Does Bush have no guts to take on this pork-hungry Republican Congress? THE REPUBLICAN ARE PROVING THEMSELVES NO BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRATS THAT RULED CONGRESS FOR DECADES. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY NOT LIKE THE DEMOCRATS, THE DEMOCRATS MAY NOT HAVE ANY SOLUTIONS, BUT AMERICANS ARE NOT SEEING ANY POSTIVE CHANGES AND THEY MAY DECIDE THAT A CHANGE IS IN ORDER. 2006 COULD BE A SAD YEAR FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WITH 2008 BEING EVER SADDER.

The President’s policy on illegal immigration is unacceptable. Bush just doesn’t get it!! It was not acceptable during his first term and it is a festering sore that is growing everyday while the President still is steadfast in his wrong view on illegal immigration. Bush’s policy is just politics, and on this issue, he is out of touch with mainstream Conservatism. Plain and simple, he is pandering to Hispanics. While the Bush Administration is not enforcing the current immigration laws, he wants to open the immigration door to a country that flaunts its illegal immigration into the U.S. Bush, with the defacto support of the Republicans, has had a policy of amnestry for his tenure and that has been in his simply not enforcing current immigration laws. The problem is so big that concerned citizens have taken to being watchdogs of the borders. Our own government cannot protect the ranchers in Arizona from the hoards of illegal immigrant locusts that are a nightly occurrence, so citizens are forming to do the U.S. government’s job. The Arizona operation was such a success that more are planned. Is the President concerned with the protection of our borders from illegal entry? The 9/11 Commission, whom I am loath to agree with, recognized the problems of our borders and recommended that the U.S. Border Patrol be increased by 2000 agents a year. The President’s last budget called for ~210. Let’s see, the President doesn’t make it a priority of his government to enforce current immigration law, has proposed amnesty for all illegals and instead of really addressing the manpower of the Border Patrol, he asks for 10% of the requirement. Illegal Immigration is a threat to national security. When is the Bush Administration going to get it? If terrorists strike the U.S. and they are traced back to crossing our borders with the hoards of other illegals, the Bush Legacy will be sealed. Protecting our borders is a monumental job given the fact of geography, but President Bush and his policies are counter to the protection we should have. This is not what I voted for.

President Bush also supports the U.S. signing the so-called Law of the Sea Treaty. This treaty would not only give up U.S. sovereignty, it would give it up to the United Nations. This was a bad treaty in the eighties, it was bad in the nineties and it is bad NOW. It was drawn up by internationalists who continue with a dream of one world government and a family of nations serving that world body. Their dream is that all countries are equal in the eyes of this world government, where the military, economic, political and cultural power of the United States would be brought on par with all the Third World countries. Of course the internationalists view the United Nations as today’s world governing body and with passing of agreements like the Law of the Sea Treaty, it moves closer and closer to a true world government. As recent scandals have proven, the United Nations is the most corrupt, inefficient and anti-American organization on earth. The Oil for Food scandal is the largest financial scandal in the history of man. The Law of the Sea Treaty is bad for the United States; it bad for any country with a positive cash flow. President Reagan saw this treaty for what it was and rejected it. Now President Bush and members of the Republican Senate are supporting this vile treaty. I know, it was rewritten but it is still fundamentally flawed and bad for the United States of America. This is not what I voted for.

The American people were tired of the Democrats ruling the Congress of the United States and have elected Conservatives into the majority. Americans were tired of the big government, welfare state, anti-military, anti-family, internationalist, multiculturalist mantra of the Democrats who had ruled the Congress for decades. Americans believed in the tenants of the “Contract for America.” Americans believed that the Republican Party would right the wrongs in America and take America into the future. However for the last ten plus years that Conservatives have been in the majority, they don’t appear to be comfortable in the skins of the majority. We elected you to reduce big government, make our military strong, and facilitate an economy where business can practice American capitalism, support family values and to keep America as the leader of the world. You have proved that politicians are politicians, whether Republican or Democrat. I am sadly disappointed. This is not what I voted for.

Another example of Republicans not acting like the majority is regarding Federal and Supreme Court judgeships. Democrats are defending the right of those that lost the last election to prevent those who won the right of governing. This issue is an example where Americans elected Republicans into the majority to nominate and support judges who adjudicate using the U.S. Constitution as their guidebook not the liberal judges who are increasing usurping the Constitution via political, cultural and international viewpoints. But the Republican response was threatening to enact the “Constitutional Option” or the “Nuclear Option” since last year. Then it was “next week” after “next week” and “we’re really gonna do it next week.” Democrats are in opposition to the will of the American people. Stop acting like you’re afraid of being called bad names by Democrats and the liberal media. Act like you are representing the majority of the United States and bowl over the Democrats. The Democrats are whining about “minority rights,” was there a discussion about “minority rights” when the Democrats were in the majority? You can bet if the positions were reversed the Democrats would not have had the timidity of the Republicans. And the fiasco with the McCain Mutiny is a disgrace to the Majority Party and symptomatic of the poor, timid leadership by the Republican Party. In the Army we had a saying “If you’re in charge, act like you’re in charge.” The Republican Party needs to act like it is the majority party and stop running from fights with the Democratic Party. This is not what I voted for.

I know this will never be read by anyone of import, but I feel better to have written it. That said, no more money from me until Conservatives take actions to address these issues. And if you think I’m in the minority with these view, you’re wrong. There is not one Conservative that I have contact with that disagrees with the major points addressed here. If the Republican Party wants to stay in the majority and beat Hillary Clinton in 2008, then there has to be a change in direction for the Bush Administration and the actions of the Republican Senate and House. The only saving grace for Republicans is the Democrats themselves. The American people are tired of their nastiness and welfare- state dogma. There has been ten years of patience to allow the Republicans to address the ills foisted by the rule of the Clintons and the Democrat majority. That patience is wearing thin.

Richard L. Stouder
192 Whippoorwill Dr
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Awaiting incoming from neo_com. :)
Aunty Stella said:
Couldn't be arrsed to read it all.

Is the general jist of it that he supported Bush and then realised that he was a war mongering, lying, dictatorial, oil grabbing, greedy, idiotic, war dodging coward?

If so, fair play to the guy.
Nope, he just seems to believe that Shrub isn't quite as much of a right-wing loony as he would like ( 8O ).
Actually, I kindof agree with the guy. I'm not sure I agree with his concept (I've seen propounded by some other Republicans) that "Because we control both houses, it is our moral obligation to railroad over the opposition", but otherwise, he doesn't seem that far off the rails at all.



Book Reviewer
....So, how do I line myself up for a job as an intern with Hillary then :lol:

This feller is from Tenessee, near the big US Nuclear research facility where the Manhattan Project took off. He's ex forces, who resents the HELL out of being body searched when he gets on a plane and is a believer in self-reliance over state aid.

In other words, Bush's home constituency, from a God-fearing state ( who if I recall are not convinced that Evolution should be taught in public schools on their turf).....and pretty representative of Middle America conservatives.

If the Republicans have lost people like this, no WAY are they being returned in two years time.

I cannot see the US Govt keeping boots on the ground in Iraq in the run-up to an election - I predict they will have withdrawn all but SF back into Kuwait and Turkey by Christmas 2007......

( let's just hope our people aren't left holding the baby......shoulder to shoulder guys!)

Le Chevre
Does it make me a neo com if I believe lawabiding citizens should not be subject to the possibilty of phone taps etc that have not been authorised by a court.

...'So while the airlines and ALL Americans have figured out that it was really Arab males from the ages of 18-30 that were using airplanes as people-laden bombs, the Secretary of Transportation issued edicts against profiling and instead we ordinary AMERICANS are the ones being body-searched at the airports.'

Does it make me a neo com if I thinkg that all personnel should be searched while getting onto a plane.....you'll forgive me but wild rampaging teenagers with guns also need stopping not just terrorists who a predominantly of an arab appprearance. There are a large number of afro-carribean muslims in the world so I take that this group is also unliklely to be a terrorist? All is not obvious.

However while I don't approve of people taking the law into thier own hands and trying to control immigration themseleves I do believe that this is a fair criticism of the gov't as is the failure to cut bureuacracy.

I am generally of a liberal persuasion adn so have no objection to the failure of the republicans to use fully thier mandate tin support of the conservative agenda, but can see that it must really frustrate those who voted for just such an agenda.


Book Reviewer
hansvonhealing said:
woody said:
Are there any neo cons here ?
Think 'NEO_CON' has been retired by his handlers - think T6 will be next....
WTF? Adjust Bacofoil chapeau, mon vieux.........both Neo and his mate T-6 sing from their own songsheets

( even if the nameblock at the bottom goes: RUMSFELD, D pp The President' )

Lee Shaver
However while I don't approve of people taking the law into thier own hands and trying to control immigration themseleves

They're not. They're just calling Border Patrol on them.

If the Republicans have lost people like this, no WAY are they being returned in two years time.

Don't underestimate the American political system's ability to give you a choice between bad and worse: If the Democrats put up a very polarising candidate of the Pelosi vein, expect people to vote for the other guy. Even Hillary, widely being touted as a 08 contender, is acknowledged as being polarised. Much voting is 'who do you hate least'


Similar threads

Latest Threads