5/31/2005
A tribute to Hack
Col. David H. Hackworth, the United States Army’s legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and lifelong champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and grunt, died May 4, 2005, on a Wednesday, in Mexico. He was 74 years old. The cause of death was a form of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency among Vietnam veterans exposed to the defoliants called Agents Orange and Blue.
There are two groups of people who “support the troops” in Iraq and Afghanistan: There are the people who stick the ribbon magnets on their SUVs and talk about “supporting our troops” while staying a safe distance away from the fight (or maybe simultaneously declaring they don’t support the war), and then there are the people who work to make sure that our soldiers are well-trained, well-equipped and well-led-people, unafraid to tell the truth, no matter who gets upset about it.
We lost a great man in the latter group with the death of Col. David Hackworth, a champion of the common soldier who died of cancer at age 74 on May 4.
“He was perhaps the finest soldier of his generation,” observed the novelist and war correspondent Nicholas Proffit, who described Col. Hackworth’s combat autobiography, About Face, a national best-seller, as “a passionate cry from the heart of a man who never stopped loving the Army, even when it stopped loving him back.”
“Hack never lost his focus,” said Roger Charles, president of Soldiers for the Truth. “That focus was on the young kids that our country sends to bleed and die on our behalf. Everything he did in his retirement was to try to give them a better chance to win and to come home. That’s one hell of a legacy.”
Hackworth will be buried with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery on Tuesday, May 31. His legacy is the group “Soldiers For The Truth,” (www.sftt.org), a group devoted to military reform that has become the main conduit for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to tell people back home the real story of what’s happening at the front. His 1989 autobiography, “About Face,” will be read for years to come by all who are seeking the nuts and bolts of leadership. And most of all, his example of speaking out in favor of common sense when it comes to defending the nation will be remembered by all who know the difference between saying you support the troops and actually doing so.
God bless him and his family.
Soldiers For The Truth is now working on legal action to compel the Pentagon to recognize Agent Blue alongside the better known Agent Orange as a killer and to help veterans exposed to it during the Vietnam War. Memorial contributions can be sent to Soldiers For The Truth either by internet or by mail to, P.O. Box 54365, Irvine, California, 92619-4365.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
NIF linked with Sub-Pope of Sleeping In
May 31st, 2005 at 8:20 am
Sub-Pope of Sleeping In
Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … It’s Kerry-180 Tuesday (Did he sign it or not??)
May 31st, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Hmm,
You’d think that if you admired Col. Hackworth as much as you seem to from the above post, you’d heeded his advice for the past election.
But alas, your toeing the party line forced your vote for Bush.
Once again the blind following the blind.
All this and then you decided to plagiarize Randolph T. Holhut.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
Nice, Cao, nice.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:48 pm
That came from Hack’s website and I didn’t know who the author was. Touchy, touchy, touchy! What’s the matter, don’t like it that I’m covering my tail if I don’t know if something’s copyrighted or not? Granted, I should have given credit; I have done so with the appropriate link. Thanks for drawing that to my attention. Those other quotes I found on Hack’s site, too…so if you want to accuse me of something, accuse me of having great respect for the man.
And how do you know who I voted for? What do you have, a crystal ball or something? And it’s “tow the line” not “toeing the line”.
You libs and your “gotchas”…crack me up. That’s why I have that disclaimer there, for the likes of idiots like you and people at the Washington Post.
My mistake. I guess I thought that giving a link to Hack’s site was enough but then…nothing is enough for nitpickers…lol
May 31st, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Hey, just making sure…
That’s what we bloggers are supposed to be doing for each other right?
Thanks for correcting me, next time I will get it right.
As for 2004, I would be willing to place a rather large wager on who you marked down on that ballot. As I am sure you are of who I put down.
I just find it curious with Hackworth; he was very outspoken against the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq. Normally you guys call out the attack dogs on people who disagree the Mr. Bush or the war.
So naturally as a 15 plus year fan of the Col., I found it odd to find his image here and he was not being bad mouthed. I strongly agree with his criticisms of the Bush administrations bungling of the war in Iraq and the “War on Terror” as a whole.
I am glad that you are spreading his message though. He is one person who is completely qualified to judge the war. I only wish people would listen.
May 31st, 2005 at 7:00 pm
The way I see it, he was talking about the decline of the military and not the Bush administration in particular, but government in general, trashing the military, and preventing our boys from winning. I am in agreement with those points.
Oh and that’s kind of an interesting point–that **** about taking his advice for the election. What I’ve seen Hack talk about is how our reserve system is broken (I have to agree), and how we should be watchful over how our tax dollars are spent on defense, and how we shouldn’t send our boys over for another Vietnam Quagmire.
Hmmm. I don’t see no quagmire, both Iraq and Afghanistan had elections…we won in a very short time in both instances.
But we he points out here I’m still working on:
And I also didn’t see him pointing anyone in any direction as far as who to vote for in the Presidential race, he was trying to get people to THINK.
May 31st, 2005 at 7:39 pm
I do agree, he never said anything about who to vote for. However after reading his writings about the Bush administration and the administrations handling of the war, (as a former soldier) there would be no way I could vote for Bush.
12-06-2004 Example…
This is Hackwork calling Iraq a “quagmire” not me. I will take his assessment of the war over Sean Hannity’s any day, call me crazy.
01-31-2005 Example…
I couldn’t agree more. The higher ups got away with it. And not to say it goes up to Bush himself it does go up the ladder to Sec. Rumsfeld.
I would suggest you read more of his archives; they will give you a pretty good picture of the state our military is in, and the role that Bush has in its current state.
May 31st, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Hey Chris Col.Hackworth whether you agreed with him or not commanded respect.I had the opportunity to meet him in the summer 02′ on his latest book.And you can tell when you come upon greatness,this man certainly would qualify.However,You have missed some information.Hackworth didn’t like all the Political Correctness that you see very prevalent in our Armed Forces today.Since you probably were in Antartica during the “swinging 90’s he was hard on the Clinton Administration.Too bad you didn’t here a great deal of what he said and what he thought of Clinton.Coward among other things,and this man new what he was talking about.Clinton did nothing when the first trade center bombing happened in 1993.Many of our bases and other interests were bombed repeately this man did nothing,and I voted for him.That is what began my disillusionment with that administration.Look at all the blunders this man had on his watch:Kobar Towers,the USS Cole,appeasing North Korea,just like a commie lover isn’t it?!And the embassy bombing in Kenya.Trust me if you go back and look at some news archives you’ll find that the Col.got on folks on boths sides of the isle,i disagreed with him concerning Iraq too but that didn’t stop me from respecting him because I new he had our troops best interests at heart.:shock:
May 31st, 2005 at 10:32 pm
“Whether I agreed with him or not?”
I’ve agreed with him ever since my dad first introduced me to him. I didn’t agree with what Clinton did to the military during the nineties at all.
I agreed with Hackworth then and I agree with him now.
So you agree with him about Clinton, but not about Bush. I am curious, why?
Could it be that Clinton was a Democrat and Bush is a Republican? If so I feel sorry for you missing Hackworth’s message. It was not about blue or red it was about the men in green.
What makes you think that Hackworth is wrong about calling the situation in Iraq a “quagmire”? This too also makes me curious.
Lisa it’s a shame that you would turn you back on our soldiers now for merely political reasons.
June 1st, 2005 at 12:13 am
Chris,I would never turn my back on our guys and gals uniform.Hell, I’m the
child of a one.I know how my dad and many men like him were treated when they came home from Vietnam.So now I would never do such a thing.It is against my upbringing for one thing.But I had my doubts intially about Iraq but I did here the President Bush speak the same words that Clinton spoke in 1998.Did you forget Clinton’s own words
about how he “loathe” the military?men like Col.Hackworth hated frauds like Clinton.If you refuse to believe that than that is tough.Clinton proved his disdain for our military and for our country putting us under the control of
the control of the UN.That is despicable.His own record on National Security speaks for itself.I still am a Democrat,but these lamebrains who control it now can forget about me voting for anyone they put up before me until they clean up their acts.The party is made up of fifth column lefists who are the decendants of Henry Wallace,and I’m sorry,until these people are forced out they can forget about me voting for any of them.
June 1st, 2005 at 12:38 am
Billy Bob-Heading Klinton was, and still is, hated by many of us Vets because he had no respect for us at all — if he had his way, there would be no military at all.
Many of us regard that jackass as just another “Jane ***** Fonda”, except in a different era.
Hack respected authority, and he respected President Bush — just didn’t care for some of the “Rules of Engagement” … hell; show me any military personnel who claim they like every rule the military presents, and we’ll have one helluva argument going!
No matter how you slice it — it doesn’t matter who’s in Office; they’ll NEVER please everyone, nor will they ever “balance” the budget until we start forcing foreign countries to re-pay the loans we gave them over the years, with interest.
If you don’t believe that — go apply for the job of President; if you’re fortunate enough to get the job, watch how fast Americans, and the entire world, crawl up your *** every time you open your mouth, or sign a piece of paper.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:11 am
Under Clinton, the military budget was reduced and the reasoning behind it was we no longer need a strong military, due to our success in the Cold War. Yat and I are both fans of Hack, and as I think I already mentioned, Hack was about supporting our boys in uniform, watching our military spending, making sure our boys are riding in up armored tanks and wearing kevlar, not about partisan politics.
The Clinton/Gore team reduced the active duty service personnel by 709,000 soldiers and the reserve personnel by 293,000. On top of this they increased the mission demands placed upon the military thus demoralizing the service.
This means that we have eight fewer standing army divisions that can never be called up to defend our country from terrorist nations like Russia, China, Korea, Iraq and Iran. We could not handle both Korea and Iraq at the same time as we are told, by this administration.
Thanks to the Clinton/Gore team we have 20 fewer Air Force and Navy Air Wings with a total of 2,000 fewer Combat Aircraft available if needed. We, also, have 232 fewer Strategic Bombers and the manpower to man them in time of war.
The Navy have four less Aircraft Carrier battle groups and four less Battle ship groups and the men and women that it took to man them. You can also add 13 Strategic Ballistic Missile Submarines to the list with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles.
We have 500 ICBM’s fewer with 1,950 warheads deactivated and removed by the Clinton/Gore team. You must also include all of the support bases, shipyards, and logistical assets (R. I. Arsenal) needed to sustain such a force. (Thanks to BRAC much of this support system is going to be reduced even further over the next 10 years.) As far as I can tell, much of this happened due to moves that Congress made under Clinton and Carter.
Generally, it’s conservatives who support a strong military and not leftists…leftists want us to disarm, and consider social programs more important than defending ourselves.
June 1st, 2005 at 9:09 am
Very well stated, Cao — yet, the Lefties are the first one’s to scream the loudest when it comes to sending young men and women off to a foreign land, to “defend my rights and freedoms” … you can’t have it both ways, Lefties; it’s called, SACRIFICE — what are you willing to give up for your rights and freedoms?
It’s not free — it does come with a price-tag attached; how much are you willing to pay?:evil:
June 1st, 2005 at 9:54 am
Your missing the point. I don’t really care what Clinton did back then, it is old news. I didn’t support him then and I don’t support him now. Don’t think that because I am a liberal Democrat that I am all up on Clinton’s nuts.
The point is this. Bush and Clinton both bent our troops over and gave it to them. They both screwed the troops.
And seeing how Bush is in office now, he gets my attention, not Clinton. Clinton is old news. What needs to be addressed is how Bush (Rumsfeld) is ******** our troops, but to the right that is ok, because Bush is like some sort of savoir to the right. Don’t ask me why, because he is going to be the downfall of the party, but that is another story.
I am glad you highlighted Col. Hackworth’s biography Cao. Now you just need to get your readers to read what he had to say about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.
Yat,
He respected President Bush? How?
Even Hack called for Rumsfeld to be removed;
He also called for the dismissal of Condi;
He also said that the existence of WMD’s was ****;
And he really didn’t like your “Swifties”
On Bush and Osama;
So Yat, please tell me how Col. Hackworth respected the President. Because I don’t think he did, I think you just want to think that.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:05 am
I guess you proved your point and this post should be taken down on both sites. I’ll attend to it later on today. Thanks for helping me to realize just what kind of a man and patriot he really was….I guess he wasn’t in support of our military and wanted us to vote for John White Flag Kerry..get a load of this one, Yat!
June 1st, 2005 at 10:36 am
No, he supported our troops, but he did not support Bush.
Just goes to show that you can support the troops with out having to support this president.
Hack knows as well as anyone else that Bush and company are about the worst group of managers this country has ever seen. We need a leader, and our troops need a leader, and that man is not President Bush.
(p.s. I like this little comment preview thingy, it makes commenting a lot easier.)
June 1st, 2005 at 10:44 am
IMHO it proves that while some men are indeed heroes they are not perfect, and therefore prone to the possibility of making a bad decision (i.e. - voting for Kerry) … /TJ
June 1st, 2005 at 11:22 am
Right you are TJ, so many examples of that… e.g., (to change subject a wee) Colin Powell and his continued support of affirmative action — which arose out of serious racisim in the US and even helped him, and perhaps was necessary for a time last century. Now, it simply reinforces negative stereotypes of minorities as regards their capacity for education success and career advancement.
June 1st, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Chris — I’m going out on a limb here and, assuming from your left-wingy attitude about our Commander-In-Chief, you’ve never been in the military, correct?
After viewing a couple of posts, and your young pic, I’m willing to bet I’m absolutely correct … and, this is why you and your cute little DEMOCRAPPER RACK-BUDDIES have no respect for George Bush.
Whether it’s Col. Hackworth; Ron Ermey; or myself … we’ve BTDT, and fully comprehend the Chain Of Command when it comes to our Gov’t. officials.
Like it or not, numerous active-duty personnel, and people like myself who’ve served their time, have alot of respect for George Bush, mainly because HE IS OUR PRESIDENT and was handed a full platter of **** when he took the Oath of Office from that lying *******, Billy Bob-Heading Klinton, whom many military and civilian personnel hated his guts and still do, because he never has and never will have any spine or balls.
So, listen up and listen good ****-bird … Bush and his Admin have done extremely well for all the **** that’s been handed to them, and for everything that has happened to this country since then.
Our troops need a Leader? What the hell do you know about that? DEMOCRAPPERS have a proven history for many years of disliking our military, and they’ve been destroying it even more every time one of those Morons is elected.
You wouldn’t know a good Leader if it bit you in the *** — obviously, you couldn’t find your *** either, unless a Military person drew you a map; took you by your little hand; and led you to it.
Get over it, BOY — the MAJORITY HAVE SPOKEN LOUD AND CLEAR … OUR CHOICE WAS FOUR MORE YEARS OF A PROVEN LEADER — GEORGE W. BUSH!!!
June 1st, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Yat,
You are quick to judge and completely wrong.
I served with both the 3rd ID and the 2nd ID from 99 to 2003 so try again, and this time try a little bit harder.
Your powers of observation are waning, so I hope for yours and your soldier’s sake you are no longer active.
I no all too well about the “chain of command” and how it is supposed to work, I’ve been in it and have seen its benefits and its weakness. So don’t even think that you can even begin to school me on that.
I served under George Bush, have you? Unless you are now, then I would guess no.
I still have many friends in the service that I talk to rather regularly. And they have all been to Iraq. In fact I have a good friend who was driving a HMMWV that was hit by an IED, the right rear passenger was killed. He took shrapnel to the face. You know why? Because George W. sent him to a war of choice with out the proper armor, and with out a proper plan. I am sure he’d love to have a discussion with a dried up piece of **** like your self about it. And I’d love for you to tell him and the family of the dead soldier that you could give a **** about their loss.
You’re the kind of right winger that makes me sick. You think you know, but you know nothing.
Next time you probably should not go out on a limb, it’s bound to break from your weight.
People like Hack understood this, and that is why we respected him.
June 1st, 2005 at 4:56 pm
So Yat, are you still in?
June 1st, 2005 at 5:05 pm
I would say that’s none of your business, Chris. There are many people who are active who feel that way and it’s too bad you don’t like it. Didn’t you know that over 80% of active military voted for Bush which is why the dems tried to block absentee votes? Hack’s post is staying up, but I have to say I’m just ashamed you would bring this disgusting partisan argument here, can’t we just leave him rest in peace? Celebrate the man? Respect that he was trying to do the best for our boys in uniform? (Even though we might not agree what that is or more importantly, who should lead our country?)
I didn’t attack him for partisan politics, but I think your making this post into a partisan attack is a reflection on how low people on your side of the tracks have sunk. You don’t forego the opportunity, it doesn’t matter if it’s done in bad taste, to do some”rightwing bashing”. Even if the original post was meant as a genuine tribute to honor a man that we both admire.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:59 pm
I understand Cao, but part of remembering who he was is continuing his fight. And if he were still alive today, he’d still be fighting the Bush administration.
When a mentor passes on, you take up the fight for them. This is how I feel about Hack. I’ve looked up to him for a long time and long admired his work. And I feel very strongly about it. So when I see his likeness posted on a site like yours it makes me curious. I (and I am sure this would go for Hack) do not wanted people merely idolizing the man if they have no idea about what he stands for. Just because someone has worn the uniform does not make them a Republican.
We can get into the 80% business if you want too, but I have a feeling that would break your heart. Just let me know and I will get all the details you will need.
And it is my business; if Yat wants to attack me for serving then I should be aware of his record. Plus it helps me understand where he is coming from; ever seen combat? Was he all dried up, passed over for promotion one too many times, etc.
There is nothing partisan about ensuring that our troops get all that they deserve. And with the Bush administration in office, that will never happen.
June 1st, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Chris — you’re still showing your true colors as a Leftie; I’m glad you didn’t join my beloved Marine Corps, as you certainly display the obvious lack of attention to detail … now, SLOWLY read this out loud; you’ll see I didn’t “attack you” about my powers of observation … Ready?
“I’m going out on a limb here and, assuming from your left-wingy attitude about our Commander-In-Chief, you’ve never been in the military, correct?”
Okay; so you served — but, apparently from your attitude about our Commander-In-Chief, and any Military Officers in command, you have a hard-on for authority.
I’m not one of you little Iraq War Hero’s — I’m just a Viet-Nam Vet who proudly served our beloved country unselfishly, by respecting those in authority and having the God-given G2 intelligence to know the difference between respecting our Leaders versus jackasses who run their mouths because nothing goes their whiney-*** little way.
June 1st, 2005 at 6:27 pm
I don’t have a hard on for authority. It has its place and the military is one of those places. Now that I am out of the service you don’t get my respect, you earn it. And needless to say Bush hasn’t earned squat.
How’d you feel during the Somalia fiasco? Did you blame Clinton, or did you stand by him and back him because he was the CinC? I am going to guess the former. Same thing, just the parties have changed. But let me guess, it was Clinton so it was bad, Bush = good.
Do your current Marines a favor and keep spreading the words of Col. Hackwork.
After all that was the whole point of this conversation.
If you want more I’ll bring it, I have no issue with that.
But it’s Cao’s house, so I’ll drop it.
June 1st, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Thanks, Chris. SSGT, thank you for your comments. And thank you BOTH for your service.
Please be courteous and leave the BUTTS in the BUTTCAN…