Jubal: Become Army Strong

Uncle Sam says...

On Monday, in the discussion between Matt Cunningham and Dan Chmielewski about King George Stops Funding for Troops, Dan offered an interesting challenge to Matt/Jubal…

         You’re still a relatively young man in good health who obviously supports this president and this war. Do what hundreds of other solidiers have done. Put your life on hold and go enlist. Ask to be assigned a unit going to Iraq. Support this war and this president all you want.

So Matt/Jubal, since you seem to support this debacle in Iraq so much; since you seem to believe that this war is really about terrorism and not an occupation; since you support this fools errand in Iraq; since you support this President and his stubborn insistence that there is something over there that can be won, other than oil and no-bid contracts for his friends; why don’t you put your butt where your mouth is, step up to the plate, and become part of King George’s noble cause. 

I’m sure there is some man or woman on a stop-gap extension of their contract, or third or fourth deployment, willing to trade places with you.  The time is now Matt/Jubal, for you to step out from behind the safety of your computer keyboard and be strong for your country and your belief in your King (uh, I mean President).

Now is the time Jubal. It is time to be…

Army Strong


  30 comments for “Jubal: Become Army Strong

  1. Dan Chmielewski
    May 3, 2007 at 6:55 am

    Don’t forget to send this to Michelle Malkin too; I think Ann Coulter is too old.

  2. May 3, 2007 at 8:25 am

    I’ve gone from supporting the war to being against it (like John Kerry!) but I never supported this notion that if you’re for the war, you have to enlist. Seems childish, and more of a debating tactic than a real point.


  3. Dan Chmielewski
    May 3, 2007 at 8:52 am

    ME — the vast majority of causalties of our armed forces in Iraq come from Blue States. And there is a growing level of army personnel in Iraq now against the war. The New York Times had a story on this recently. And yeah, its a debating tactic., If you support this war, then support it. If you don’t, do what you can to stop it.

  4. Jim Bieber
    May 3, 2007 at 8:54 am

    Matt’s for WAR

    Dan is for PEACE

    I can’ t post a clever graphic of Dan holding a starving child.

    “Your adventures are only just beginning.

    Older Americans contribute tremendously to Peace Corps programs all over the globe. No single group has more to offer in terms of experience, maturity, and demonstrated ability.

    Many older Volunteers find their age to be an asset while serving overseas. You will have the opportunity to share a lifetime of work and wisdom with people of developing nations who respect and appreciate age. And because there’s no upper age limit to serve, it’s never too late—Volunteers who are well into their eighties have served and continue to serve.”

    Here are the basics to help you get started.


    I will host a goodbye party at the Disneyland Hotel (Union operated) for Dan as he fullfills his claim that he’s truly for peaceful solutions.

    Please send me a postcard when you get to Mauritania.

  5. May 3, 2007 at 9:28 am

    For some reason, liberals like Chris and Dan think this is their ultimate argument trump card: “If you support the war, then why don’t you enlist.” Actually, it’s a sign of their inability to muster a decent argument for cutting-and-running other than dismissing my reasons for advocating victory in Iraq as “toeing the party line” (that’s less intellectually taxing than actually mounting an argument).

    It’s an idiotic and childish retort, Chris.

    I’m not going to volunteer for the Army for obvious reasons: 1) combat is for young men, for obvious reasons. 2) I’m the sole support for for my wife and four children.

    Jim made the same point I was going to. I assume you support the Peace Corps. Then by all means put your money where your mouth is and sign up to give vaccinations in Niger for two years.

    As a liberal, I’m sure you are against poverty. Then liquidate your assets and give it to some poor family that needs your wealth (whatever it may be) more than you. Or use your vacation money to send a disadvantaged inner city youth on a vacation. He or she needs it more than either of you.

    Let’s debate the war in Iraq, by all means. But first grow up and debate like adults, not intellectually-stunted adolescents

  6. May 3, 2007 at 9:31 am

    Mission Accomplished
    My point, was that Matt/Jubal’s claims that sending the President legislation that funded the troops was not supportive of the troops is a bunch of BS. I agree that suggesting that Matt enlist is a debating tactic. But given his historic support of King George’s rhetoric the suggestion is valid. He seems to have no problem sending peple to their deaths in the failed occupaton of Iraq. It is reasonable that he be asked and encouraged to put his life where his mouth is.


    There are plenty of domestic poverty programs that meed help too. We have 37 million Americans living in poverty in our own country. With a small percentage of the money spent on King George’s desert adventure, we could fund food health care and education for those Americans.

  7. May 3, 2007 at 9:37 am


    I don’t think middle aged GOP bloggers are going to last long in Iraq. We need to send in the terminator robots! Or maybe we can send Rosie O’Donnell – she is out of work again, isn’t she? I know if I saw her coming I would run for the hills!

    On a serious note, we never should have attacked Iraq. But if we pull out, I fear for the entire Middle East. Yet, we appear to be mired in a bad situation. Maybe we ought to pass out handguns to all the Iraqis and clear out. Let them sort it out on their own…last man standing gets to be the King of Baghdad…

  8. RHackett
    May 3, 2007 at 9:53 am

    Matt. Chris has a valid point. Your claims on family hardship are not a counter. If you were a reserve you could easily be getting deployed. Thanks to the sailors and soldiers Act your debt obligations are waived during your leave.

    If you enlist, your family will be provided the same housing and medical care that is porvided to all military personnel. Your counters of supporting poverty by liquidating all assets is not valid since it only cause one more person to sink into that level.

  9. May 3, 2007 at 9:58 am


    Four years ago President Bush said “My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle for Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

    Exactly at what point does an invasion force get to leave after victory. The President said we won. Why th F&#k are more than 140,000 of our troops still there. The theory that once we leave all hell will break loose is probably correct. If that is true, then our only reason for being there is to give the Iraqi’s additional targets to shoot at.

    There are only two options left now that we won the war. 1) Get out; or 2) Stay there forever.

    Matt, you say that you are too old to enlist and that you are the only support for your family. I’m sure the thousands of soldiers, who are also the sole support for their families and the hundreds who are older than you who have been involuntarily reactivated, understand your pain.

  10. May 3, 2007 at 10:03 am

    But given his historic support of King George’s rhetoric the suggestion is valid.

    Really, Chrius? Can you actually cite a single example of me quoting Bush or “supporting his rhetoric.”

    He seems to have no problem sending peple to their deaths in the failed occupaton of Iraq.

    And you know that how?

    My point, was that Matt/Jubal’s claims that sending the President legislation that funded the troops was not supportive of the troops is a bunch of BS.

    Again — where did I say that? What I argued is the Democratic Congress is playing a political game with this funding bill. They’re trying to score points by sending the Prez a bill they know he’s going to veto and then wailing that Bush “is against supporting the troops” — a talking point you loyally parrot on this blog.

    I further argued that the Dems are free to play these games, but they shouldn’t pretend that it doesn’t give heart to and improve the morale of the Iraqi terrorists our military is fighting. The bad guys see a direct correlation between their level of violence and the Democratic Congress’s ratcheting up of its demands for withdrawal — which is precisely what the Iraqi terrorists want. You may be willing to accept that as the price of withdrawal, just but don’t pretend you’re not giving our enemies in Iraq what they want.

  11. Jim Bieber
    May 3, 2007 at 10:08 am


    You can put your life where your mouth is…

    “Domestic Vacancy Announcements”

    “There are a wide variety of activities going on at the Peace Corps domestically. ”

    “We have 37 million living in poverty… ” what do you mean poverty? Tijuana Poverty? Malawi Poverty? Only having one TV or Car in America is what qualifies as Poverty.


    But reguardless NOW you can Officially support the war against poverty in the US by enlisting in the Peace Corps, ANYTHING less and you’re a Hypocrite. Right?????

  12. May 3, 2007 at 10:11 am

    Who are we at war with? By that I mean what country? Why hasn’t there been a war declaration from Congress? Instead of giving President Bush an open ended war resolution, what the Congress should have done is follow the Constitution and grant letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If we pull out now, who’s to say the Middle East would be worse off. It can’t get much worse than it already is. Vote for Ron Paul for President!

  13. May 3, 2007 at 10:14 am

    There are only two options left now that we won the war. 1) Get out; or 2) Stay there forever.

    Chris, maybe you can start your own blog — “The Liberal Straw Man.”

    Your point is a false dichotomy. We don’t need to stay in Iraq forever. We need to continue building up Iraqi forces to the point where they can shoulder more and more responsibility for internal security and we can draw down our forces at the same time. It’s not victory in the traditional notion of a vanquished enemy ordering its armies to stand down and sign an instrument of surrender. It’s a more gradual process, but it’s been done before and can be done again.

    I think this Administration has made plenty of mistakes in conducting the War in Iraq, and history will make its own judgment in time. And I agree with Dan’s point in another comment on another post that the first rules of holes is to stop digging. I happen to think the “surge” is a step in the direction of getting out of the hole, as is the process of building up Iraqi security forces, which doesn’t go as quickly as anyone would like.

    But sometimes I think anti-war libs like you and Dan want to spend your time arguing about how you fell into the hole rather than figuring a way out. And when you do come up with a way out, it boils down to a variation of cut-and-run.

    You and Dan want out of Iraq. I want out of Iraq. The difference is you two, it seems to me, want to get out at any cost, including defeat.

  14. May 3, 2007 at 10:21 am

    Matt. Chris has a valid point. Your claims on family hardship are not a counter. If you were. a reserve you could easily be getting deployed. Thanks to the sailors and soldiers Act your debt obligations are waived during your leave.

    If you enlist, your family will be provided the same housing and medical care that is provided to all military personnel. Your counters of supporting poverty by liquidating all assets is not valid since it only cause one more person to sink into that level.


    No, Chris does not have a valid point. It’s a debate tactic, as he admits,m and a childish one at that. He (and presumably now you) employ it in an attempt to shut someone up rather than engage them in an argument. I’d love to see liberals like you and Chris apply it to yourselves whenever you advocate a liberal policy, but I don’t have the rest of my life to wait around for that to happen.

  15. Rhackett
    May 3, 2007 at 10:47 am

    Matt. First of all I do contribute to causes for those less fortunate than myself.

    Secondly. I agree with the poster SandBox on your blog. Why should I be sympathetic to the Iraqi people when their parliament is discussing a two month vacation while US soldiers are being killed every day? Our soldiers should be the ones getting a vacation while letting the Iraqis get a taste of what to expect when we leave.

  16. Dan Chmielewski
    May 3, 2007 at 11:19 am

    Actually Matt, I’m the one who argued it was a debate tactic, not Chris. And challenging us find you quotes on how you parrot the administration’s own talking points is the same as what you’re accusing us of doing.

    So what is the plan to get our of Iraq. The old saw about when the Iraqi’s stand up we’ll stand down? I think we’re way behind of goals this administration set forth for that.

    Cut and run from what? A Civil War between Shia and Sunni? The president didn’t know the difference between the two until after the invasion of Iraq. The surge will only bring a surge in more sectarian violence.

    As for the Dems effing with the President on the War Funding Measure, its not like Republicans have questioned our patriotism regularly for not supporting the president on everything he’s proposed since 9/11 hit from privatizing Social Security to eroding personal liberties with the Patriot Act or Domestic Surveillance.

    The Republican punditocracy and Republican Congress established the rules of the game since 9/11. Any disset is unpatriotic. Murtha and Durbin were savaged by the right wing noise machine for opposition to the war, rendition, Abu Ghrahib and Gitmo. If the Republicans don’t like the way the game is played today, perhaps they should have considered that they wouldn’t always be in the majority.

    Every day that passes without change in Iraq makes my party and my POV stronger and yours weaker. Ronald Reagan was a popular president because of his optimism and enthusiasm for America. Today, all your side has to peddle is fear and negative labeling (cut-and-running defeatocrats…and yes, you don’t use that language personally but your side does).

  17. May 3, 2007 at 11:42 am


    You aked me to cite one example of you spouting the Bush administration rhetoric. I didn.t have to look very far. I found it in your first comment on this thread.


  18. May 3, 2007 at 11:57 am


    Since you cannot possibly have any Idea how much I have done in my lifetime in support of people in need I will forgive your assumption that I have done nothing.

    I have personally dedicated thousands of hours and thousands of dollars in personal resources in support of people living with HIV/AIDS and the homeless over the past 25 years. Even though I have lived with HIV disease for 20 years now, I have continued to maintain my efforts to help people even less fortunate than myself. To put it bluntly, I have put my time and money where my mouth is. In many cases I have done so to my own detriment.

    So thank you for the information, hopefully it will inspire others to become more involve in helping their communities.

    Imagine what we could accomplish in our own country if we spent half a trillion dollars fighting poverty in the United States and the word.

  19. Jim Bieber
    May 3, 2007 at 1:10 pm


    Good for you. But let’s not get into a tit-for-tat on who’s more generous in giving to the poor with me listing my donations.

    I can assure you that our comparative giving ratio fallows the national trends on which Americans are more giving and compassionate to the poor based on party affiliation and ideology.

    A clear example on compassion –

    In one of the largest sums ever donated to charity by a U.S. public official, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne gave away nearly $7 million last year to help the poor and to medical research.

    According to income tax information released by the White House on Friday, the Cheneys’ adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006.

    In 1997 for instance, Al and Tipper Gore contributed just $353 to charity, a sum that raised eyebrows even in friendly media circles.

    The Los Angeles Times noted, for instance, that the Gores’ slender donation “caused some bewilderment in philanthropic circles because of the vice president’s ‘good guy’ image as an advocate for public service and social causes.”

    Most of the $353 was in crap from his garage to Good Will.

  20. May 3, 2007 at 1:16 pm

    You aked me to cite one example of you spouting the Bush administration rhetoric. I didn.t have to look very far. I found it in your first comment on this thread.


    I didn’t realize the Bush Administration had invented and copyrighted that phrase, Chris.

    Oh yeah — they didn’t.

    Try again.

  21. Dan Chmielewski
    May 3, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    Matt —
    The Bushies may not have copyrigthed the phrase but they use it; so do a considerable number of House and Senate Republicans: here’s some examples but please YouTube Jean Schmidt’s comments to Jack Murtha that brought boos to the House floor.

    Friday , September 29, 2006
    Fox News
    President Bush fired a shot across the bow of the Democratic Party Thursday, saying “the party of FDR… has become the party of cut and run.”

    “Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR, the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run,” Bush said.

    Here’s a link to the video: http://mediamatters.org/items/200609290009

    Some highlights, or lowlights, from the June 18 Face the Nation:
    Bob Schieffer to Tony Snow:
    “Let me just ask you about the quote that Karl Rove put out, because he clearly is trying to make this a part of the coming campaign. He was up in New Hampshire, and he said, [text on screen] Democrats ‘are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough, when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party’s old pattern of cutting and running. They may be with you at the first shots, but they are not going to be with you for the last, tough battle.’ He mentioned, especially, John Murtha and also John Kerry. What pattern is he talking about? When have Democrats been cutting and running?”

  22. Dan Chmielewski
    May 3, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Jim —
    You’re so funny; you cite tax returns on Al Gore from 10 years ago and Cheney’s returns last year as evidence.

    Yeah, Big Dick Cheney is full of good will. And with W, they have seen more Americans fall below the poverty line, more Americans fall into extreme pverty and more Americans lose healthcare. Meanwhile, the richest one percent account to 22 percent of the nation’s income.

    Yeah, that Cheney..he is a regular Mother Theresa.

  23. May 3, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    “The vast majority of causalities of our armed forces in Iraq come from Blue states”

    Get a new calculator or check your sources better……..

    If your refering to mortally wounded, the DOD confirms 3351 with 6 pending for a total of 3357

    Of that number about 1900 are Red state-about 1400 are Blue state

    There have been 26,188 non mortal as well.

  24. Jim Bieber
    May 3, 2007 at 6:01 pm


    It’s a FACT, conservatives particularly Christian conservatives give far more of their personal income to charity than self described political or social “liberals.”

    “…and Cheney’s returns last year as evidence.”

    Its not “evidence” its just a glaring example. $353 for the entire year from Al and Tipper, junk from their garage? Doesn’t that give you pause? Liberals only care about humanity a million at a time.

    I fully concede that liberals are much more active in lobbying lawmakers to spend tax dollars on programs that will supposedly help the poor. I guess that’s what passes as compassion, spending other peoples’ money, distributed from a central all knowing government.

    If you MAKE me pull out evidence, government statistics, public records, university studies, that show the rate of personal giving, conservatives vs liberals, will you be man enough to apologize?

    I’ll take your apology by naming the charity of my choice for you to make a donation. Don’t make me google it, don’t call me on it…

  25. RHackett
    May 3, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    Jim. I’m real happy to know Cheney has such lavish charitable contributions.

    Could you explain how that gets us out of Iraq sooner?

    Great misdirection.

  26. Dan Chmielewski
    May 3, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    Apologize for what Jim? That more people have slid into poverty and lack health insurance under this administration while we’ve wasted a half-trillion dollars on this war? I’ve already answered direct questions of yours on another string and you’ve ignored or dodged mine.

    This is a discussion about the war, the president’s veto, and our collective reaciton to it. But I admire your classic Republican diversionary tactic to bring up something completely unrelated.

  27. Chris Bieber
    May 3, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    Joining the melange a bit late…

    As Ron Paul tonite called for America to switch to a NON interventionist foriegn policy.

    The BIPARTISAN march to fascism and Empire that YOU’RE condoning AND NOT REALLY OPPOSING is not going to go away by voting for MORE OF THE SAME….

    Dan I admire YOUR blatant nondiversionary tactic of using positive and upbeat euphomisms to describe your fascist and internationalists “groupthink” you dont mince words…

  28. Dan Chmielewski
    May 4, 2007 at 8:57 am

    Wow Chris. No one has ever called me a facist before.

    I don’t believe you really know what the term means.

    As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: “A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”

    I would suggest you read Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel “It Can’t Happen Here,” where a conservative southern politician ascends to the presidency aided by a conservative radio talk show host. The politician runs his campaign on family values, the flag, and patriotism. Under his presidency, a Guantanamo-style detention center opens and the protangonist, a Vermont newspaper editor, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution under new “patriotic” laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.

    Pulled this off a UK Newspaper article. 10 Steps to Facism (who does this remind you of?)
    1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
    2. Create a gulag
    3. Develop a thug caste
    4. Set up an internal surveillance system
    5. Harass citizens’ groups
    6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
    7. Target key individuals
    8. Control the press
    9. Dissent equals treason
    10. Suspend the rule of law

  29. Jim Bieber
    May 4, 2007 at 9:59 am


    The premise of this was “string” was personal conviction. Walk the walk. If you support the war the only way not to be a hypocrite is to enlist. I brought up “working for peace” I.E. the Peace Corps.

    That wasn’t enough, Chris trumped me by saying there’s domestic poverty WE must address. I agreed that people could do more in helping fellow Americans, and brought up the FACT that it’s liberals who don’t walk the walk in giving to the needy and the poor.

    The subject was personal responsiblity and conviction – or so I thought?

  30. RHackett
    May 6, 2007 at 12:31 pm


    Please tell us you are not going to compare contributions to charity with putting one’s life on hold to join the military and be sent off to fight in a war.

    At least don’t try to compare the two with a straight face.

    You can’t be serious the two are even remotely similar.

Comments are closed.