Dead Troops Remembered By President Who Had Them Killed

Read more about Memorial Day from Huffington Post bloggers.

Yes, that's a harsh headline for this piece.

But I'll ask you to forgive me because, as a Veteran, there isn't a day on the calendar that causes my hatred -- and I do indeed mean hatred -- of George W. Bush to bubble over the top more than Memorial Day.

"On Memorial Day, we honor the heroes who have laid down their lives in the cause of freedom, resolve that they will forever be remembered by a grateful Nation, and pray that our country may always prove worthy of the sacrifices they have made," reads Bush's official Memorial Day proclamation, issued by the White House on Thursday.

The Chickenhawk-in Chief says a lot of things that make this Vet's blood boil but stuff like saying that he prays "...that our country may always prove worthy of the sacrifices they have made" is almost vomit inducing.

This statement comes from the same man who himself began dishonoring the sacrifices of all Veterans in such huge ways in March of 2003, when he invaded Iraq behind a veil of lies and deceit and started spilling barrels of military and civilian blood to start a war with a country that posed no threat whatsoever to our national security. These stirring words of remembrance come from an administration that began with a stolen election in 2000, which goes entirely against what I was taught way back when I was in the U.S. Navy, which was that part of the "way of life" we were protecting was symbolized by the ability of all of our citizens to have their votes counted.

"These courageous and selfless warriors have stepped forward to protect the Nation they love, fight for America's highest ideals, and show millions that a future of liberty is possible," continues Bush's proclamation. "Americans are grateful to all those who have put on our Nation's uniform and to their families, and we will always remember their service and sacrifice for our freedoms."

The words Bush puts forth are true -- it's him being the one to say them that I find so sickening and personally offensive.

It is positively nauseating to have George W. Bush ever talk to us about "America's highest ideals" when his administration has started a bloody war for no reason, imprisoned those suspected of being "terrorists" without trial or benefit of legal counsel, tortured prisoners in America's name and done everything but grab the original U.S. Constitution from the National Archives and run it through a paper shredder.

I also don't believe for one minute that the majority of the planet now holds our country in such extreme contempt because we're right and they don't understand our "highest ideals." This Veteran will go to his grave believing that the years 2000 through 2008 were a dark time in our history when much of what I believed when I served in uniform was made invalid and debased.

According to the Defense Department, we have now lost 4,082 men and women in Bush's war of choice in Iraq and we should not allow the man who sent them needlessly to their deaths to lead our nation today in mourning their loss. Make no mistake about it, George W. Bush is as responsible for the deaths of those men and women as if he himself had fired the bullet or set the IEDs that ended their lives.

And before the right-wing hate mail starts flowing in my direct I'll admit that, yes, you are probably right that if Bush said nothing today I might notice that as well. But here's the thing with so many of us Vets: Memorial Day is not an abstraction to us. Too many of us knew personally and can remember the faces of a few whose untimely deaths we mark today. Some of us actually even saw them killed in battle.

So, we do indeed take Memorial Day very personally and I for one would rather that Bush say nothing at all than to issue hypocritical pronouncements and give an insincere, flowery speech in honor of our war dead when he is personally responsible for the most recent we mourn today.

Even a garden-variety murderer would be unlikely to make an appearance when the victim's family is observing the anniversary of a loved one's death.

The least Bush can do is stay in the White House today, keep his lying mouth shut and understand deep in his craven soul that the next day the Congress should declare a national holiday is January 20, 2009, the day he leaves office and his days of dishonoring our war dead are forever done.

Read more about Memorial Day from Huffington Post bloggers.

Comments

[KevMorris]

This is a beautiful example of why Democrats cannot win in the long term. The party has too many in it, judging from all the comments as well as the author of the piece, that are fueled by hate and anti-Americanism.

Most of us don't do hate, and do not respond positively to it.

[billmire]

Bush is just the mouthpiece. It's not just his fault. His VP, our Congress and the MSM are equally to blame. So are the vast majority of Americans who care more about who's up on American Idol, NASCAR, the NFL, their Nintendo or Dancing with the Stars than what's going on in Washington and the rest of the world.

This could end by Sept. if enough of us (200,000+) would show up the next timeCongress in session like some unknown patriot did at the last McCain speech and chant "Endless War."

The vast majority of Americans just don't care because they have no stake in this war. No draft, no rationing, few immediate relatives killed or wounded, and two many TV channels so they don't get a daily dose of the carnage.

[Redrover666]

God Bless you! I have been saying this for months.
However, most of these patriots have no time for writing a congressman or protesting, just bashing Bush.

[maizie]

Oh. my. god. Bravo, bravo, bravo. If I were in the same city as you, I would pick you up and carry you on my shoulders through the streets of downtown.

Everyone reading your post should print it, cut it out and paste it in every room of your house. Not until we get mad enough will we take care of this sick little prick we call a president.

Thank you so much for this post.

[darcy]

You spoke what was in my mind, maizie.

[rbenjamin]

This is precisely the kind of rage that is building in mainstream America. It's been suppressed way too long. It's time to hold Bush and his cronies accountable for the war, the economy and the flagrant disregard for rule of law.

[onelife1]

Great headline;

[dkm]

Geo. Bush has a reptutation for accidentally saying appropriate things, but definitely not on purpose. His recent speech was a good example. According to the account in the Washington Post, he made a tribute to those who had been killed and then said that political leaders should follow their example. I can think of a couple political leaders that would do the world a big favor by following their example, but they are notable for avoiding circumstances where that might be possible. Five deferments including getting his wife pregnant to obtain a deferment characterizes one politician and pulling strings to get into the party wing of the Texas Air National Guard and then going AWOL characterizes another.

[reelcobra]

Thanks to headlines and articles like this, Americans get a good look at the ugliness of the hard left.

This kind of hatred must be viewed to be understood.

So I say BRAVO!

Keep reminding us that you exist and want the White House!

[rbenjamin]

We exist,and we will get the White House. Those who have betrayed the public trust should be very afraid. You won't be able to burn and shred fast enough!

[ynot4tony2]

Again, I ask you anti-war Bush haters the following...

Do we also hold accountable for "killing" soldiers the Democrats on the intelligence committee, those who saw the raw intelligence data before the President was briefed? Those who had a responsibility to raise their voices of the intelligence was cherry-picked or misrepresented? Or is killing soldiers okay, as long as it's done by people who verbally attack our soldiers as well?

Do we also hold accountable for "killing" soldiers the Clinton administration and its cabinet, who had a hard-line policy against Iraq and regularly claimed Saddam was supporting terrorism and stock-piling nuclear weapons? And the Democrats who supproted such claims at the time? Or is killing soldiers okay, as long as it's done by people who also kill unborn babies?

Do we also hold accountable for "killing" soldiers the intelligence agencies of many European nations, several of whom just happened to oppose the war in Iraq? Or is killing soldiers okay, as long as it's done by people who verbally attack the United states?

Geiger, you're a jack@$$. Adjustable morals is every bit as bad as having no morals at all. And if you're going to whine about the 2000 election, why not take Al Gore to task for his valiant efforts to exclude the military vote? Let me guess, excluding the military vote is okay, as long as the military vote continues to be strongly Republican.

[elbzee]

The Bush administration has dealt effectively with dissenters. They lose their jobs or are set upon by Rovian trolls. Why in God's name do you think anyone should hold accountable as you say, "intelligence agencies of many European nations, several of whom just happened to oppose the war in Iraq"? Pretty twisted logic there buddy. Sorry, but this one's Bush's & Cheney's. He should have hung his head and begged for forgiveness from the world for the crimes he's committed.

[CommonSenseRules]

I could not have said it better myself. As someone who has family members who serve, I could not disagree more with Geiger's poisonous remarks.

[Nooneyouknow]

Lies, lies, and more lies. The "intelligence committee" (House or Senate, please) got the raw information? http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm. Not so much.
Name some Dems in Congress who actually "verbally attack" our soldiers, along with quotes. Clinton never claimed Saddam had nukes; he claimed, rightfully, that Saddam was trying to develop them. Name a single European intelligence agency who backed up Bushco's claims about Saddam; not even the Brits believed them. Please give some evidence of Dems "verbally attacking" the U.S. Gore tried to exclude the "military vote"? Facts please.
ynot4tony2, adjustable facts are every bit as bad as no facts at all, and you have no facts. I could take apart the wingnut claims made below too, but I don't have the time. It's easier to point out that if a wingnut says it, it's probably false, twisted, or misconstrued. Keep in mind: Wingnuts twist the truth to fit their beliefs.

[K-Dog76]

Nooneyouknow:
"Name some Dems in Congress who actually "verbally attack" our soldiers "
John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." . A US Marine is suing Murtha for libel

"Name a single European intelligence agency who backed up Bushco's claims about Saddam"
Bundesnachrichten- dienst, or BND Germany http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.ackerman.html

"Clinton never claimed Saddam had nukes": semantics here is Clintons qoute:
" Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin072103.asp

"Please give some evidence of Dems "verbally attacking" the U.S."
"Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries, like Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America."
John Kerry

Gore tried to exclude the absentee ballots in FL that were from overseas military personel:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200012/ai_n8928412
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/election19.htm

SO there ARE some FACTS to refute your own "wingnut" claims.

[SCurry713]

Well said sir. As a vet myself I am continually sickened by this morally bankrupt sot playing Army.

[funwithwarcrimes]

Great headline. Thank you for saying it so eloquently. Jan 20 as a national holiday. I LIKE it. Blessings for you.

[BRFC]

Great idea, blame the police chief or mayor and not the murderers who actually did the killing. After all their freedom fighters not suicidal death cult terrorists seek martyrdom.
btw, loved the part about W being a chickenhawk as reported from a Navy guy. Unless Mr Geiger saw more combat than Mr Bush...it rings not of sarcasm, but of hypocrisy. Oh, and thank you for your service Mr Geiger.
I do believe this article was one of the best pieces of leftist propaganda I've seen in a while though, and so my hat tips to you. After all, you hit every single Bush-is-Satan conspiracy theory except 3:
-Bush caused Global Warming
-Bush deliberately sent Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to New Orleans to kill Black people
-and Bush fired people for political reasons (as if it's unique to his administration)
note: I deliberately leave out the Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame conspiracy theory only because I'm tired of hearing that Rove's been indicted as opposed to DepSec Armitage.
Wake up and smell your propaganda Mr Geiger. You're a tool for a Party that does nothing but lie to get more political power, and they even admit it
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/05/26/video-dems-admit-they-lied-about-iraq-to-seize-congress/

[elbzee]

Hell, brfc, MY DOG’S SEEN MORE COMBAT THAN MR. BUSH...And he’s never been in the military! The man was AWOL and derelict. He's a coward & psychopath. NO, I don't blame him for global warning (although his refusal to open his eyes lost an opportunity). Nor do I blame him for Katrina. I blame the Army Corps of Engineers and corrupt New Orleans government. Of course, Bush’s lack of leadership did result in needless deaths there. (Are you sensing a trend here?). . And good ol Rove doesn't need me pointing out his domestic partisan espionage, he's pretty well exposed at this point.

Sounds like you need a dose of your own medicine, BRFC, wake up and smell your own propaganda.

[dkm]

As a matter of fact we would blame the police chief if, for no other reason than he likes to show off his authority, he sends a bunch of innocent bystanders into what was a calm situation with the sole intention of causing trouble. It would show a lack of competence far surpassing that necessary for his removal.

I have a cat who has seen more combat than Bush. Playing one game of football is more combat than bush has seen in his whole life.

For some right wingnut to parrot all the talking points emanating out of Karl Rove's wastepaper can is a bit much, don't you think?

[JohnRohan]

As an officer in the US Army and a veteran of the current war, I do NOT agree with this piece, and your headline is absolutely disgusting. It might as well have been written by Al-Qaeda itself.
Nowhere in your bio does it state when you served or whether it was during wartime, but have you stopped to consider this: that, following your logic, your headline could have applied to Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, or for that matter, any wartime president in US history?
Here's the real problem with it: Terrorists, Al-Qaeda, Mahdi Militia, criminals, Taliban, and many others, are the ones who actually killed our troops - troops who all volunteered to serve. The fact that you don't even write two words mentioning any of these shows me that you are a unreasoning hyper-leftist who hates his own country far more than he hates those who have attacked it.
Sorry, Mr. Geiger - you do NOT speak for all of us. Not by a long shot. I also take Memorial Day personally, and think it's time to put partisan screeds aside. Your bio says you work for the Democratic Party (big surprise). You might have added that as a disclaimer.
Have a nice day.

[elbzee]

I find a few things lacking, John. The position you've expressed does not touch the REASON you and so many other volunteer soldiers had to be sent there. Or, is it that you believe that we're at war with Iraq because of what they did to us on 9/11? If that's the case, I accept your post as you've obviously been mislead. If it's not, then I'm more concerned about the psychological well being of our military. Secondly, what are screeds?

[Nooneyouknow]

John, you seem to have missed the point: No American soldiers or civilians, or nearly 500,000 Iraqis, give or take a few hundred thousand, would have died if Bush hadn't illegally invaded Iraq and supported his war crimes with lies. Lies to the American people, lies to Congress, lies to the American military, and lies to the rest of the world.
As for the troops volunteering to serve, that's a sleazy excuse. The troops volunteered to protect the U.S., to fight the good fight, to get back at the people who caused 9/11 (Actually the Saudis, the ISI, and some others a little too close to home). Did any of them volunteer for an illegal invasion of country that wasn't a threat in order to take its oil? It's hard to believe an officer in the U.S. military would believe the troops sold their lives for the profits of oil companies and war profiteers, including Bush and Cheney themselves.

[JohnRohan]

No one ever said we were going into Iraq because of 9/11, so that's a straw man argument.

If Bush went into Iraq for personal profit or to steal the oil, then I might understand this article a little better. But that never happened, despite plenty of conspiracy theories to the contrary.

Additionally, no one here is saying anything about Afghanistan. We we lied there too? Do you all think that the CIA caused 9/11?

[K-Dog76]

elbzee, maybe it was Sadaam's payments to the families of suicide bombers or rewards he posted for killing Americans, or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis Hussein killed himself (if you hate violence in Darfur, you should hate Sadaam, if you hate China for Tibet, you should hate Sadaam)
Screed = 1 a: a lengthy discourse b: an informal piece of writing (as a personal letter) c: a ranting piece of writing

[feo]

I see your sorry and raise you another sorry: You can't get killed in Iraq unless you're in Iraq. All blame for this disgusting mess goes directly to Geo Bush.

[JohnRohan]

Once again, you can insert any country into that statement. Unless you condemn all former presidents in the same manner, you are being a tad hypocritical.

[K-Dog76]

feo, good job attacking a vet and calling him a coward. " You can't get killed in Iraq unless you're in Iraq. "

you don't have to agree with someone but you don't have to attack that person, who is particularly moved by Memorial Day for a REASON.

[dkm]

Speaking of faulty logic, let's examine the statement that Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman were responsible for sending troops to get killed in an unnecessary and unprovoked war. Seems to me that Lincoln didn't send in the troops until after Fort Sumter, and if I'm not mistaken, the Lusitania and other acts of aggression had something to do with Wilson entering WWI. Then I believe there was an event at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii that you may have forgotten about that induced Roosevelt to enter WWII. The Korean conflict is somewhat dicier but even there, Truman did have some aggression to respond to. None of these are in anyway similar to the invasion of Iraq that had been planned starting the second day of his presidency and to which the "intelligence was being fixed" in order to justify an invasion.

I have to wonder at someone who gets all huffy about someone else defending their family and country against an invader. Does he REALLY expect that the Afghans and the Iraqis are just going to let us bomb their cities and villages, wipe out their wedding parties, kill their kids at checkpoints, and not fight back!!?? What do you expect them to do?? Are you projecting your own reactions onto them?

[Joeseo]

The bastard belongs in jail.

[funwithwarcrimes]

Indeed he does. So if you need a little poetic justice until the real justice arrives, stop on over and see us sometime. ;-)

[lenski]

Have we earned the sacrifices of our veterans? Are we being the nation that our veterans (and those currently serving) are buying with their blood, sweat and tears?

I am very uncomfortable with the apparent answers to these questions, particularly since March 20 2003.

[deadcustodian]

Bob, Thank you.