Operation Completion
Last Friday, I attended an Operation Completion rally at the Sacramento capitol with my sister and dad. Operation Completion’s mission is “to provide constructive support for our troops and reinforce the mentality that we need to defend America and to support the War on Terror to Victory.” All of the rallies were planned by teens and youth.
At the rally, my family listened to songs performed by the Right Brothers, who have been promoted by Hugh Hewitt, and who play what they describe as “political, issue-based country music.” The speakers included a man who spoke about his service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a Californian politician, among others. Also, fellow Western Alliance member Craig DeLuz acted as the MC.
But anyways, Operation Completion will hold a series of rallies all over the country, so please click here to see if there is one near you to support our armed forces and conservative youth.
1L.
wrote on 24 May 2006 at 20:01
As someone who remembers the Vietnam war and its aftermath, one thing I find very gratifying is that this time around, almost no one is condemning the soldiers personally, even those who disagree with their mission.
Even in ultra-liberal San Francisco, I often see cars with both, “Impeach Bush” and “Support the Troops” bumper stickers, or other combinations to the same effect.
2Scott L
wrote on 31 May 2006 at 6:08
This war has nothing to do with preserving our freedom. Our freedom is not preserved by the seizure of power by an idiot executive supported by NASCAR idiots, “Security Moms”, anti-abortion zealots, and fundamentalists.
Rally all you want, Katelyn. The jig is up. This crap is going to end.
3Andy Nevis
wrote on 1 June 2006 at 1:27
“This crap is going to end.”
I assume the “crap” you are referring to is the rally, the main purpose of which was to support our troops NOT a political event?
It’s nice to see a liberal honest about their support for our troops!
4Katelyn Sills
wrote on 1 June 2006 at 4:18
Scott L., it is very sad that you have to resort to labeling, stereotyping, and using false statements to express your opinion. But then again, if I had your beliefs, I’d probably have no choice but to do the same.
Please, come back sometime when you’re in a better mood. Perhaps then we can have a reasonable discussion, although from looking at our previous talks, it doesn’t seem very likely.
5Stalin the Shark
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 17:20
Heh. Interesting.
How exactly is a rally featuring the Right Brothers, with their single “Bush was right”, a non-political event? If I may just quote the lyrics of that, cough, song:
“Ted Kennedy wrong!
Cindy Sheehan wrong!
France wrong!
Zell Miller right!
Economy is on the rise kicking into overdrive
Angry liberals can’t believe it’s cause of W’s policies
Unemployment’s staying down, Democrats are wondering how
Revenue is going up, can you say “Tax Cuts”
Repeat Chorus
Cheney was right, Condi was right,
Rummy was right, Blair was right
You were right, we were right, The Right was right and
Bush was right
You go that right
Bush was right”
With all due respect, if you’re trying to sell this as an apolitical event, you’re being facetious. Rather, this is yet another example of one political faction wrapping itself in the flag and politicizing the military for partisan gain. And given the way the junta actually treats the military, frankly, opposition to right-wing policies is the most pro-military and pro-American position possible.
, StS
6Katelyn Sills
wrote on 6 June 2006 at 3:50
Perhaps your post would have some value, if not for the simple fact that the Right Brothers did not play that song at the rally. Here is a sample of their songs.
http://www.therightbrothers.com/download-friends.html
My condolences,
7Stalin the Shark
wrote on 6 June 2006 at 4:37
Well, given that the rest of their oeuvre – or “truth disguised as music”, as they deign to call it – is hardly any more subtle than “Bush was right”, I fail to see that your condolences are appropriate. Nor is it apparent how exactly your event can be seen as supportive of the troops, given that it was obviously intended to buttress partisan policy at their direct expense. If you support the troops, then help get them out of a place where they do not belong and do not want to be.
, StS
8Katelyn Sills
wrote on 6 June 2006 at 5:23
Quote: “Nor is it apparent how exactly your event can be seen as supportive of the troops, given that it was obviously intended to buttress partisan policy at their direct expense.”
Gee, that must be why the audience was primarily made up of veterans, and the main speaker was one of “the troops” himself.
9Scott L
wrote on 6 June 2006 at 6:13
Republican Troops.
And no, Andy, I was not talking about the rally. Rally rally rally all you want and good for more rallies.
I am talking about the war in Iraq and incompetent, corrupt, Republican governance.
10Stalin the Shark
wrote on 6 June 2006 at 15:09
Veterans perhaps; after all, they’re free to be partisan. It’s a safe bet, however, that no mention was made of the 60+ veterans running for Congress as Democrats, or of the poll by the Stars and Stripes that shows 72% of the troops actually in Iraq want the US out within the year.
I have no problem whatsoever with people going out there and supporting their point of view. What’s troubling here is that you claim to speak for or support the military, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
, StS
11Katelyn Sills
wrote on 7 June 2006 at 3:40
Perhaps I am missing something, but why on earth would it be mentioned that a group of veterans are running for Congress?
(Although this is not really relevant to this comment, I feel that I need to point out that the “Band of Brothers” organization, though I appreciate their service, is made up of either misinformed people or shrewd politicians. On their website, it says that the “Band of Brothers” opposed the Dubai Port Deal. Anyone, Republican or Democrat, who opposed the deal is in one of the categories above for the reasons I outlined in this post.)
Also, the article you linked states, “But Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, said troops who say the U.S. should withdraw could be concerned for their own safety, or they could be optimistic about progress so far, or they could simply be opposed to the idea of operations in Iraq.
You have to pick apart each servicemembers thought process to understand what that means, he said. I think this is about personal circumstances, and not proof there is a higher rate of troops who desire departure.
Do liberals even read the articles they post?
12Stalin the Shark
wrote on 7 June 2006 at 5:15
Oh, we do; and what is striking with the statement you quote is that it rests on nothing but speculation, since the poll data offer no basis for his conclusion.
Do conservatives ever examine their arguments for relevance?
As to the Band of Brothers and Dubai, not only are they expressing vox populi, but taking into account the rather shaky record of the Bush regime in terms of homeland security. Your analysis has a good deal of merit, but the post-2001 experiential basis you base your judgment of the Dubai government on is a bit frail in my mind. The systems you rely on are hardly failsafe, needless to say.
, StS
13Katelyn Sills
wrote on 7 June 2006 at 23:40
Quote: Oh, we do; and what is striking with the statement you quote is that it rests on nothing but speculation, since the poll data offer no basis for his conclusion.”
His point is that the data offers no basis for anything conclusive because there are multiple reasons for responding in certain ways on the poll- so of course.
As for the Band of Brothers and vox populi, the people in this country are largely ignorant of the facts I gave in that article. I’m not sure it is a plus to “express” ignorance.
14Stalin the Shark
wrote on 10 June 2006 at 3:02
That poll seems valid enough to me for the question of whether the troops want to be in Iraq; that was the question asked. “Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.”
I’m not sure that it’s a plus to express ignorance either, and have noted that in the past whenever someone brought up the fiction that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003, operative ties to Al Qaeda, or any involvement in the 9/11 attacks. I do have to note that, living in a port city, and despite having Arab and Muslim friends, I was and remain uneasy at the Dubai deal. Approving it requires a leap of faith many of us for whom terrorism is a very real thing find themselves unwilling to make. I’m simply not convinced that the government can create a fail-safe system in its ports, and there’s little experience to suggest otherwise.
, StS
15Dave Jenest - Fan of OpComplet
wrote on 17 June 2006 at 19:17
The “Terror of Right-wingers” are you? REALLY? The “Evil stylist spawn of Stalin” an alter ego as well? Good choice of a role model!
You write: “We Anglo-Saxons – by which I mean the citizens of the English-speaking countries in general, regardless of ethnicity – are culturally pre-disposed to fairness and balance, “two sides to every story”, and all that.”
Ernest Hemingway once wrote: “A writer who appreciates the seriousness of writing so little that he is anxious to make people see he is formally educated, cultured or well-bred is merely a popinjay.”