• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Jackie O’Brien of Lakewood writes:

Our military men and women are walking the dangerous streets and roads of Iraq daily! Several have come home to Colorado recently, they weren’t walking.
Yet, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Speaker of the House, could not walk the safe halls of Congress to attend General David Patraeous’s hearing regarding the strategies and funding needs for the Iraq war. She did, however, have time to recently fly half way around the world to meet the leaders of a terrorist county, our enemies.
Then there was Harry Reid stepping up to declare that the war is “lost.” If the war is lost, Harry, who won? Your friends?
Precious time has been wasted by the Democrats’ grandstanding as they prepared a bill they knew would be vetoed by the President. Now, they are embracing a tactic they are fond of calling “SLOW BLEED.” You understand SLOW BLEED - political stonewalling, no more funds, no supplies, no ammunition, no armor and no armored vehicles for our troops serving in Iraq; placing them in even greater danger.
SLOW BLEED, doesn’t that sound like a terrorist treatment; like a slow sawing off of an infidel’s head with a dull knife? SLOW BLEED, is this what our troops deserve? SLOW BLEED, is that what passes for leadership today?
In the event of a terrorist attack, Pelosi, ranking public servants and their families are among the highest priorities for the best protection by those same uniformed military men and women. Today, the children of their countrymen, the youngsters who fill those military uniforms are subject to SLOW BLEED tactics by Democrats! Obviously, they believe SLOW BLEED is good enough for our children.
The security and safety of our country depends on the strength of our volunteer military, NOT the scrawny shoulders of Pelosi and Reed! How vile to turn their backs on our military! Whose children will choose to serve in the future if this is deemed acceptable treatment? SLOW BLEED isn’t good enough for our families! Let your Senators and Representatives hear that loud and clear - take care of our kids or send your own! Give us a clean bill! Fund our troops!

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Jackie,

Try to be more concise.

Also: Why do you hate America?

Jackie, Pelosi did not meet with Patraeous, true. However, she did request an extensive interview with him because she was not able to make the first meeting (this is a fairly common occurrence among representatives, who often have scheduling conflicts). Secondly, it is also true that Pelosi met with the Syrian whatever-he-is, but it was days after a group of Republican lawmakers met with him, and a few weeks before Condi Rice met with him ... These parts were probably omitted from the right wing talk shows from which you obviously get your news.

Most of your letter is just hateful invective, so it really can't be debated without resorting to more hateful invective. However, I find it interesting that you blame the Democratic Congress for the troops not having adequate body armor, armored vehicles, etc. Have you been paying attention the last four years? Do you remember when Donald Rumsfield did a photo op with the troops and one troop had the guts to go off the script and ask Rumsfield why they didn't have adequate armor, and he essentially said 'stop whining' (admittedly, I'm paraphrasing)?

When that happened, did you write a similar letter to the newspaper complaining how Republicans didn't "support the troops"?

I don`t think many letter writers ever read these posts. some times I think the RMN makes them up to set us off. I would like to have that job. Hell I would do it for free.

Jackie, another "Hate America First" Republicant

dems.don't want this war but they do want to lose this war.It's more important to them to win a election base on lies.Using our troops as human sacrifice is accepted,collateral loses.

dems.don't want this war but they do want to lose this war.It's more important to them to win a election base on lies.Using our troops as human sacrifice is accepted,collateral loses.

And keith keeps forgetting that this war was lost before it started. Winning an election based on lies is much worse than winning an election based on fear. But for some reason keith thinks that it was the dems that got us into this war, and didn't provide the troops with adequate body armor. When bush says that he can afford to lose however many troops it takes, then it's not collateral loss.

Criminal in chief Bush said this "war" would be passed on to future presidents. Now that sounds like SLOW BLEED to me.

I only have one question:

How many funerals have Bush and Cheney attended for the soldier's that we have lost in Iraq?

Wait -- I'll answer that.

ZERO.

clinton went to many funerals, but what difference does that make? clinton had nothing to do with 9/11.

SIMPLE EXPLANATION for Keith and O'Brien

When the Syrians came down like a wolf on the fold,
Ahab of Israel sharpened his sword,
And soon the Jordon was running with blood.
Why did they kill? They killed for the Lord.

When Mohammed ran off to Medina, he swore
He would roar back to Mecca, this time with a horde
Of warriors thirsting for infidel gore.
And why would they kill? They'd kill for the Lord.

When the Pope's Inquisition put thousands in chains
Where their bodies were broken and branded and gored,
The innocent perished in horrible pain.
Why did they kill? Why, they killed for the Lord.

When Puritans filled all New England with dread
To persecute women whose thoughts they abhorred,
They strung up the "witches" untill they were dead.
Why did they kill them? They killed for the Lord.

Now our President says that God gives him the word:
Send infidels off to their blazing reward! So now the Euphrates is running with blood,
And our born-again Prez says We kill for the Lord.

And there you have it, Jackie O'Brien
Your "Shrub" from TexasThought he was a lion. Me, RG your friendly deicide

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly