View Full Version : The War President vs the Poet
I guess mista "war president" , bold, brave and fearless,
must have classified info on the imminent threat camped outside his crawford ranch.
WMDs behind her peace symbols?? Nookulars beneath their tents??
I mean, how come a middle aged women can be seen as such a threat to our way of life. What is preventing mista tough and bold from let's say jest meanderin' down the road an goin' mano to mano?
Maybe she "hates us for our freedoms"? And bush just doesn't negotiate with da terrists??
Or maybe, just maybe, bush is afraid of her daughters poetry?
A Nation Rocked to Sleep
By Carly Sheehan
Sister of Casey KIA 04/04/04
Sadr City, Baghdad
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
The torrential rains of a mother's weeping will never be done
They call him a hero, you should be glad that he's one, but
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
He must be brave because his boy died for another man's lies
The only grief he allows himself are long, deep sighs
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?
They say that he died so that the flag will continue to wave
But I believe he died because they had oil to save
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?
Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?
The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain won't be so deep
But if we the people let them continue another mother will weep
JustRalph
08-12-2005, 08:36 AM
as usual you are getting real close to peddling your bullshit on the backs of the families you mention. It is distasteful.........
PaceAdvantage
08-12-2005, 08:50 AM
I didn't realize the sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 was out already.....or have they hit the road already with the broadway version of the show....first stop, Crawford?
JustMissed
08-12-2005, 09:33 AM
That moveon.org bunch won't stand around in that Crawford, TX sweltering heat too long.
As soon as the Crawford 7-11 runs out of Big Gulps and Slurpees, MM will be hitting the road. :lol:
JM
lsbets
08-12-2005, 10:03 AM
You should look up the statement issued by the rest of the Sheehan family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents). It basically says they support the troops and the President and they grieve for the loss of Casey, and that his Mom has gone too far and needs to stop exploiting her son to advance her own agenda.
She has been big news around here, all over talk radio. The "peace protesters" who are there with her have even called some local radio hosts with death threats because the radio hosts disagree with this woman. A group of spouses from Ft. Hood drove up to Crawford to confront her. The family of Elmer Krause, who were at the meeting she already had with the President, has come out to dispute her account of that meeting. I feel sorry for her that she lost her son. Her son was a hero and should be honored as such. She has allowed herself to be maniplulated and exploited by some pretty radical groups. Actually, here is the statement from the Sheehan family:
Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
kenwoodallpromos
08-12-2005, 12:22 PM
I was us out of Iraq ASAP; but I agree with the family.
I have no problem with protesting, and Bush does not eoither or was would be removed like happened before during the Rep convention.
It is legal acts but the attitiudes of people like her that are willing to trash not only theirs but all other families because they want anarchy, selfishness, and idividualism to rule the day at the expense of family and community.
The difference in the 2 party plarforms proved that.
wonatthewire1
08-12-2005, 08:42 PM
needs to stop exploiting her son to advance her own agenda.
What is her agenda anyway?
JustRalph
08-12-2005, 08:44 PM
What is her agenda anyway?
To make the President look bad..............
wonatthewire1
08-12-2005, 08:47 PM
What is her agenda anyway?
To make the President look bad..............
Yeah, could be > hey did you see that woman on O'Reilly's show the other night?
She was tough > even he was stuttering stuff that didn't make any sense. When he kept trying to talk over her, she was just shuttin' him down > guess she won't be back on anytime soon.
Light
08-13-2005, 01:39 AM
This woman's agenda is to get answers to 3 questions directly from Mr. Bush as to what her son died for. If you are a parent,you should be able to understand that rather than labeling her. Among the 3 questions she has for Mr. Bush is when his 2 daughters are going to sign up for what Mr. Bush states is a noble and honorable cause. I can understand Mr. Bush's reluctance to meet her directly since he is a father as well as a president.Seems they have more in common than meets the eye.
lsbets You should look up the statement issued by the rest of the Sheehan family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents). It basically says they support the troops and the President and they grieve for the loss of Casey, and that his Mom has gone too far and needs to stop exploiting her son to advance her own agenda.Huh? What da f**k does this have to do with anything?? From Cindy...""my in-laws sent out a press statement disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey. We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the election when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey's death. The thing that matters to me is that our family -- Casey's dad and my other 3 kids are on the same side of the fence that I am."
Now just so you know...
The letter came from Cheri Quarterolo. Cheri is Casey Sheehan's Aunt and godmother.
Many of the relatives do not want their names made public, and will not be making further statements. But Mrs. Quarterolo confirms that Cindy's actions have been extremely hurtful. "We're coming unglued. We can't walk down the street without people stopping us and telling us that they agree with Cindy. We do not."
Then of course Mr sleeze drudge posts the letter and insinuates Sheehan is only one of the family. As though they have an equal say. Yeah just his mother. How does Caseys' other more distant relatives compare to Caseys' mom, dad and sister and brothers?
Bull. Let them go down to crawford and picket against Cindy, with the other pathetic counter protesters
And poor Cherie, whoever she is,seems to be suffering from Cindy Sheehan's activism? She is, what, traumatized because people agree with Cindy? She says "We can't walk down the street without people stopping us and telling us that they agree with Cindy."
Tough shit- it must be hard to confront people who disagree with you.
The loonies on the right are just like their hero, Afraid to deal with the issue head on. The war. So they attack the messenger.
1-Bill O'Reilly says she's a tool of "far left elements."
2- The New York Sun. In an editorial on August 11, it says Sheehan "has put herself in league with some extreme groups and individuals."
3- Rightwing talk show host Phil Hendrie goes even lower, writing an article amazingly entitled "Anti-War Mom: Another Ignorant Cow," Hendrie called Sheehan a "self-righteous ignoramus," and then went into full mockery mode: "A mother grieving her loss. The inhumanity of war. Oh, the wickedness of it all."
McCarthyism, straight on down to the red-baiting.
Meanwhile your hero drives past on his way to "a neighbor's ranch for a barbecue where he was expected to raise at least $2 million for the Republican National Committee, said RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.
Some 230 people attended the fund-raiser at Stan and Kathy Hickey's Broken Spoke Ranch, a 478-acre spread next to Bush's ranch. All have contributed at least $25,000 to the RNC, and many are "rangers," an honorary campaign title bestowed on those who raised $200,000 or more for Bush, or "pioneers," those who have raised $100,000 or more.
Sheehan: "All we're asking is that he sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us, before the next mother loses her son in Iraq."
lsbets
08-13-2005, 08:17 AM
Well, here is a quote from Cindy, after she met with Bush - yes Hcap, she already met with him:
“I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.”
It was some time later when she decided to give a different account of the meeting.
I feel sorry for the woman, I really do. She is grieving and is not coping well with it at all. From what I have read, her husband has left her and she is only getting comfort from people who could care less about her unless they think they can get good press by exploiting her. Way to go Hcap, exploit a mother in grief for your own purposes. Yeah, your heros are all class. Once the media goes away, the whole crowd down there will abandon Cindy and she will be left to herself again, alone and devastated. Instead of trying to help this woman they are using her and attacking her family who do want to help her. But, like a cult, they keep her seperated from her family, because she is useful to them. Until the cameras disappear, then hopefully the family whom you so deride will be there for her because she will need them once she is all alone.
Light
08-13-2005, 11:22 AM
LSBETS
Since you feel sorry for this woman's grief,as others do,don't you feel that the proper thing for the president to do would be to show some respect for the mother's fallen son by meeting with her for a few minutes? Doesn't his attitude here show a lack of support for American troops as leftists have been accused of? He can urge them to fight for freedom,but when they die for freedom they are ignored,even disdained?Is that right?
46zilzal
08-13-2005, 11:34 AM
To make the President look bad..............
he's done that without anyones help
Tough Spot. Sheehan can say and do anything she wants. Within the bounds of her legal rights. Bloodsuckers or Compassionate comrades will encircle her.
Much Like Randall Terri did with Mrs Schindler. You may recall Senator Frist said on the Floor of the Senate............."I've watched an hour of tape in my office and I don't see symptoms of a vegitative state"
Remember now... He's not only the Majority Leader... He's a Doctor!
Then Tom Delay... Inciting violence by saying on "These Judges will get thiers"...They will get whats coming to them."
100's of people with litte concern for Terry Schiavo, used that hot potato to politically wound thier opponents. Thats Life!
So if Bush is in a tough spot because left wing whackos have latched onto Mrs Sheehan.... thats politics in America. Right now... it's how things play in America.
In many countries in the world... They would dig a big hole, kill all the people outside Bush's ranch, put them in the hole, and then fill it back in. So we're lucky we live in a Country where crazy shit like this can go on.
I feel terrible for Mrs Sheehan.....and I am following her plight. I'm ignoring those who simply jumped on her bandwagon
lsbets
08-13-2005, 12:48 PM
Light - he's already met with her.
Lefty
08-13-2005, 12:52 PM
If he meets with her again then every anti-war activist out there will demand a 1-1 meeting. BTW, her family does not agree with her views.
Everyone who is following this knows that bush met with her before. Her first encounter with her president, two months after Casey, had been killed in an ambush in Sadr City.
She described a president who behaved like he was at a social event, who didn't seem to know the name or gender of her child, referring to him only as her "loved one." Well, he walked in and he said, "So who are we honorin' here?" He didn't know our names. He was totally disrespectful. He called me "Mom" the whole time. And he said some disrespectful things to us.
She also had some positives for bush, like yeah he is a man of faith, but now after no WMDs, no ties to bin laden, the DOWning Str Memos, wants to know why Casey died? Things have changed. When she met bush the first time the war was still supported by the US majority. No longer *
What's the big deal for bush? Really? Invite her in. Give her some lemonade.
Compassianate conservative, remember? Media circus? Yeah so what.
Give the woman some time. Hey cheney can even be there if bush is chicken.
He took Dick Cheney to his interview with the 9/11 commission.
Of course this will not be another prescreened audiences applauding him for platitudes and for his resolve. But the longer he refuses to meet with Sheehan, the more unconcerned, and even callous, bush risks looking to the public.
*
Light - he's already met with her.
He met with her once. He's the President of the USA. It was huge he was there the first time. She wants a "do-over". No can do. Realistically. He met with her once. He's the President. That's that. no 2nd meeting to discuss her personal politics. The whole thing is a charade.
I sympathize with her. Only son:ThmbDown: . Tough:( . I say nothing bad about her. The others are clowns. (they exist on both sides)
lsbets
08-13-2005, 02:38 PM
Suff - you summed it up pretty good in that post. Probably the best post on this topic.
Hcap - I'm not surprised you can't see through the BS. Actually, you probably can but are more than happy to support those who are exploiting this woman.
wonatthewire1
08-13-2005, 03:53 PM
are more than happy to support those who are exploiting this woman.
but what are they exploiting?
Interestingly, the reasons for going into this war have changed as often as the wind > that is the crux of the issue...changes whenever the last reason didn't work out too well...
Yet the money keeps on a flowing...which was the topic of the posting on Congress > keep their eyes on the "circus" while the pickpockets work the crowd...the Crawford "showdown" gives us a very good view of the distraction while the real deals go unnoticed
Perfection! :rolleyes:
".....but what are they exploiting?
They are exploiting her - do you think any of theses lowl ifes will be around after the circus is over? Not a chance. They are there for the opportunity period.
Interestingly, the reasons for going into this war have changed as often as the wind > that is the crux of the issue...changes whenever the last reason didn't work out too well..."
Nothing has changed. All the reasons we went in are still the same. Look it up. The only thing changing as we go are the history revisions being thrown out by the ignorant. Look within.
skate
08-13-2005, 05:16 PM
she(sheehan) plays right into the hands of alqada.
and shed be the first one out of the gate, if the talibon(mullahs) were to enter her society, she would be crying to uncle George.
right or wrong, George is doing his "number one job"(i agree), and she might want to do the same.
wonatthewire1
08-13-2005, 06:20 PM
Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people.
* Version 1.0 - Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat
* Version 1.01 - Saddam Hussein is a gathering threat
* Version 1.02 - Saddam Hussein poses a real and dangerous threat
* Version 1.1 - The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud
* Version 1.2 - We can't afford to wait
* Version 1.3 - We never said imminent
* Version 1.3.1 - OK, maybe we did say it once or twice
* Version 1.4 - We should have been more precise
Saddam Hussein is ready to use weapons of mass destruction.
* Version 2.1 - Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
* Version 2.2 - Saddam has nuclear weapons
* Version 2.3 - Saddam has biological agents he's never accounted for
* Version 2.3.1 - The trailers are mobile labs for producing chemical weapons
* Version 2.3.2 - Unmanned aircraft are ready to spread Saddam's biological weapons
* Version 2.4 - Saddam's going to make more of all these weapons
* Version 2.5 - We all know where the weapons are
* Version 2.5.1 - Well, Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction
* Version 2.5.2 - Iraq is a big country. We'll find the weapons eventually.
* Version 2.5.3 - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction programs
* Version 2.5.4 - Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities"
* Version 2.5.5 - David Kay? Who's David Kay?
* Version 2.6 - It's not about misleading the American people"Saddam Hussein is gone and that's the most important thing
The intelligence is clear.
* Version 3.0 - We based our statements on our available intelligence
* Version 3.1 - Saddam tried to buy uranium ore in Niger
* Version 3.1.2 - Well, that was what the British told us
* Version 3.1.3 - Did we tell you about Joe Wilson's wife?
* Version 3.1.4 - Do you know a good lawyer?
* Version 3.2 - The intelligence is absolutely clear
* Version 3.2.1 - Intelligence is never 100 percent certain
* Version 3.2.2 - We didn't manipulate the intelligence
* Version 3.3 - There was no consensus within the intelligence community
* Version 3.3.1 - We saw the same intelligence the last administration did
Saddam Hussein has deep ties to Al Qaeda.
* Version 4.0 - Saddam has long-standing ties to Al Qaeda
* Version 4.0.1 - You can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda
* Version 4.0.2 - There is an Al Qaeda terrorist network in Iraq
* Version 4.0.3 - Saddam has provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
* Version 4.0.4 - Saddam will give his weapons to Al Qaeda
* Version 4.0.5 - Colin Powell: I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Al Qaeda and Iraq]
* Version 4.0.6 - Vice President Cheney: I still believe there's a connection.
* Version 4.0.7 - CIA Director George Tenet: I told Dick not to say that.
The United Nations just can't handle this.
* Version 5.0 - The UN had 12 years to deal with this
* Version 5.1 - We don't trust the UN to handle this
* Version 5.1.1 - We don't need the UN's help
* Version 5.1.2 - The UN should play a vital, but not central role
* Version 5.1.3 - You there, UN, tell Ayatollah Sistani that elections aren't possible
* Version 5.1.4 - UN, please oversee the election process
* Version 5.1.5 - Pretty please? We'll pay our dues
The war in Iraq won't hurt our efforts in Afghanistan or the hunt for bin Laden.
* Version 6.0 - Iraq won't affect our hunt for bin Laden
* Version 6.1 - Assets have been moved from Afghanistan to Iraq
* Version 6.1.1 - Assets are being returned to Afghanistan
* Version 6.2 - We're mounting a spring offensive against bin Laden
* Version 6.2.1 - We'll catch bin Laden this year
* Version 6.2.2 - We hope to catch bin Laden this year
* Version 6.3 - Even if we catch bin Laden, the threat will still exist.
Mission accomplished.
* Version 7.0 - We won't need hundreds of thousands of troops"that's wildly off the mark
* Version 7.1 - Mission accomplished
* Version 7.1.1 - We'll stay as long as needed and not one day more
* Version 7.1.2 - The troops will be home in six months
* Version 7.1.3 - The Iraqi Army will provide security
* Version 7.1.4 - Where's the Iraqi Army?
* Version 7.1.5 - We've disbanded the Iraqi Army
* Version 7.1.3 - The troops will stay a year and be replaced
* Version 7.2 - We're training the Iraqi army"Iraqification will work
* Version 7.2.1 - We don't need any more American troops
* Version 7.2.2 - Well, maybe we do
* Version 7.2.3 - We're keeping 30,000 more troops on active duty than were authorized
* Version 7.2.4 - We don't know if this increase in troops is a spike or a plateau
* Version 7.2.5 - We're establishing stop loss so troops can't leave
* Version 7.2.6 - The Army is planning multi-year rotations
The cost to the American taxpayer.
* Version 8.0 - Economic advisor Larry Lindsey: The war will cost $200 billion
* Version 8.0.1 - President Bush: You're fired!
* Version 8.1 - The war will pay for itself very quickly
* Version 8.1.1 - Iraqi oil revenue will pay for reconstruction
* Version 8.2 - Our allies will help us
* Version 8.3 - We'll pay for the war through supplementals
* Version 8.3.1 - Congress wouldn't let us put it in the budget
* Version 8.3.2 - Can we please have $87 billion?
* Version 8.3.3 - Well, we really can't calculate what it will cost...
* Version 8.3.4 - Well, maybe we can"$50 billion may be on the low side
* Version 8.3.5 - Ask us after November 2...
Democracy comes to Iraq.
* Version 9.0 - We will be greeted as liberators
* Version 9.0.1 - We'll establish democracy in Iraq
* Version 9.1 - We'll turn this back to the Iraqis quickly
* Version 9.1.1 - President Chalabi will be welcomed with open arms
* Version 9.1.2 - Well, not so fast"we're prohibiting political parties
* Version 9.2 - We have the November 15 agreement"it's unchangeable
* Version 9.2.1 - We will appoint a small governing council
* Version 9.2.2 - Well, maybe a larger one
* Version 9.3 - We don't favor elections
* Version 9.3.1 - Caucuses work in Iowa, why not Iraq?
* Version 9.3.2 - OK fine, we'll have elections
* Version 9.4 - We can't return sovereignty until there is a constitution
* Version 9.4.1 - Never mind, we'll turn over sovereignty first
* Version 9.4.2 - We need to return this to the Iraqis"How about June 30?
* Version 9.4.3 - We're still focused on elections"the ones on November 2
The bottom line.
* Version 10.0 - Trust us. We know what we're doing
What do most of those things have to do with our going in in the first place. Your logic is a tad bit disconnected. But never mind, as long as you are happy, your "facts" don't matter. Have a nice day! :rolleyes:
wonatthewire1
08-13-2005, 07:16 PM
exactly...
muddy the water enough > and the pickpocketing is really easy
now back to moving more of my money off-shore > can't have any of those greedy pollyticians gettin' their hands on all of it!
Lefty
08-13-2005, 08:24 PM
won, if Bush hadn't given you those tax cuts you wouldn't have near as much to move!
hcap, polls are meaningless; it depends on who conducts them and with whom. I particularly find the one that says over half of America disagrees with the war funny because then I find the poll encompassed a 1000 pipples and who knows how many were avid followers of MM and moveon?
Light
08-13-2005, 08:28 PM
Yes I am aware Bush met with her. But that was when she only represented herself.It's not only about her anymore. Now she represents a growing concern among relatives of American servicemen KIA, and Americans who have become disillusioned about the war.Ignoring her now means Bush is ignoring a whole sector of Americans who identify with her. Continuing to ignore her may turn her plight into a genuine grass roots movement. Iraq is becoming the Arabic word for Vietnam.
Who elected her to anything? She already had her meeting and has obviously changed her story. Why should Bush meet with her again? What will he tell her differently this time? Given what she said after the first meeting and what she is saying now, is there any doubt as to her agenda? This is Michael Moore tactics.
wonatthewire1
08-13-2005, 09:01 PM
oh yeah, I forgot about those...
But I had to give more than I got to my one-party local legislators who raised our property taxes by 7% this year (nope, it wasn't voted or discussed > that's why one party rule rocks!)
And even if they hadn't, I'd be just handing those tax cuts over to the heating oil company and the gasoline company > eventhough I get over 30 mpg in both cars > the prices have gone up dramatically...
Not for long though > the solar panel guys are coming over in September to get us off heating oil and reducing that :p
wonatthewire1
08-13-2005, 09:04 PM
Given what she said after the first meeting and what she is saying now
Yep, she's only got to change her mind about 17 more times before she catches up for all the changed reasons we're in Iraq.
Lefty
08-13-2005, 09:14 PM
light, you're in the dark. The woman has affliated herself with the most vehement of Bush haters. Her own family disagrees with her.
And i'm sick and tired of hearing that this war resembles Vietnam, cause it doesn't.
won, good thing he cut your taxes then or you'd still hafta pay that other stuff and have less money. Hope the Solar works for you, but investigated this field long ago and it doesn't "pencil" out. The making of those Solar panels and those "deep cycle" batteries also cause a lot of pollution. But, I wish you luck. While all the libs holler about the cost of oil they still are steadfastly against us drilling at home and the rest of the world getting industrialized cause a big boost in price of Middle East oil. We need an alternative, but so far, a cost effective one hasn't really come along yet.
wonatthewire1
08-13-2005, 09:23 PM
oh, i checked out the solar stuff
There is a building near me (LSBets would know about it) that has been using solar for more than 20 years (28 to be exact)...The Somerset County Environmental Center in Basking Ridge NJ; its a 20,000 sq ft building that serves as a center for a park on the edge of the Great Swamp here in NJ (cool place) > they were really helpful with information on their set-up > interestingly, the panels that they have are the originals and are still working at 94% efficency...
For all the crying about dependency in our society > welfare, food stamps, etc...we still lean on the crutch of the oil man...and the competition from the Chinese and the Indians is only just beginning. Health care and energy > those are the tickets...
Hcap,
Carry on my man. The neocons are now trashing a women who wants to ask the President why her son had to die and how many more must die ? I mean these guys have no limits to how low they will go to maintain Power. Like trashing a decorated war veteran or outing a cia operative or trying to make a federal case of poor Terry Schaivo. They have no real values just their quest for power. The only thing they really fear is the truth! When the truth is made known they respond with their trashing slandering modus operendi. (sp) There are many in the flock on board here, they march goose stepping to the neocon's cadence. Only the truth will overcome this plague. So Carry on my man, carry on.
lsbets
08-13-2005, 10:22 PM
they march goose stepping to the neocon's cadence.
Ah, the inevitable Hitler reference, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, yet it always seems to be what the lunatic fringe pulls out when they have nothing of substance to say. Ljb, thanks for the math lessons when you post. You make it real easy to understand the lowest common denominator.
lsbets
08-13-2005, 10:49 PM
Bush will end up meeting with her, if for nothing else to make the whole thing go away. It won't accomplish anything, she'll come out talking about how angry she is, and after she loses the spotlight her radical friends will abandon her and she'll be left alone in her grief. Hopefully the family that her new friends are so eager to trash will be there for her. She'll tell him to pull the troops out now, he'll say no. She'll tell him his daughters should go, and he'll say its up to them to volunteer we don't have a draft, or something like that(that one makes me laugh, because anyone with even a basic understanding of security realizes that a President's daughter would make everyone around them a hell of a lot less safe than they are now. Sure, lets raise the risk level for everyone to make some bizarre point, yeah, great idea).
So, Bush will go back to Washington. The Dallas Peace Center and friends will move on to the next WTO meeting where they will incite riots (ya gotta love it when a group supposedly about peace always seems to be where the riots break out), and Cindy Sheehan will be alone. MM will trot out some film of her in his next movie, but he won't call to see how she is, see how she's coping, see if she how she is dealing with life. Will anyone who supposedly has so much compassion for this woman be there for her after the spotlight fades? My guess is, a family like the family of Elmer Krausse will be there. People who do not like what she is doing, but who genuinly feel for her, and don't see her as a tool to advance an agenda, but someone with whom they share a bond of tragedy and heroism in the loss of a child in this war. And she will be welcomed by that family and helped to rebuild her life, long after all of her new friends have left her standing on the side of the road in Crawford as soon as the cameras stop taping.
Given what she said after the first meeting and what she is saying now
Yep, she's only got to change her mind about 17 more times before she catches up for all the changed reasons we're in Iraq.
Wow. Is that ALL you have for an arguemnt? Just keep shotgunning things that piss you off, offer no substance at all, and not have one focused reply to anything?
You remind me of the boxer who comes to the ring, takes off his robe, and has forgotten to put his trunks on. There he stands, boots laced up, gloves on, mouthpiece, ready for a fight, but nobody can really take you seriously. :lol:
PaceAdvantage
08-14-2005, 03:58 AM
a) Iraq is nothing like Vietnam (except for the fact that American troops have been killed). Do a little research.
b) I love the wording of that opinion poll that was posted above:
"Has the war in Iraq made us safer at home."
I believe the proper phrasing would have been "Has the war in Iraq made us LESS SAFE at home" The results would have been incredibly different, IMHO.
The point being, we've been 100% safe at home after 9/11 and all through the Iraq war to date. Therefore, how could we be made any more safer? Of course the War hasn't made us safer, because you can't get any safer than ZERO attacks.....
Clever wording designed to place yet another negative spotlight on the President, the country, and our men and women in combat.
All polls taken recently show the majority of the american public NOT believing in the Iraqi war. A year ago, using simiilar wordings as the newsweek poll, the majorty believed bush. Things have changed big time. I guess maybe except on this board, and those here that refuse to see the lies leading up to, and continuing to issue from the White House Pr machine.
Ok maybe you guys believe it is acceptable to lie if the agenda matches your world view. Then everything is just ducky ain't it??
You guys represent a shrinking minority. Those few of us who have opposed this war of choice from the very beginning, were dismissed as "traitors, and non-supporters of the troops".
Amazin was kicked off by the misled majority on this board. Maybe we should invite him back. Maybe he went a bit too far. But considering the hate issuing from the misled majority here - calling for extermination of innocents-and lumping all Muslim and Arabs into one "evil" enemy persona, Amazin was a bit tame.
Justifying over the top hateful simplistic solutions to complicated world problems, is apparently OK.
If bush can repeatedly declare a "do-over" on the official line for why we went to war as wonatthewire so nicely summed up, and since she is representing the clear majority of us folks now-bush owes Sheehan a "do-over".
1900 of our kids do as well
Do-over
Do-over
Do-over
Gee, I remember shouting that as a kid, too bad reality is not like a bunch of kids playing down by the schoolhouse. Just like the "bully on the block" theory of foreign policy. Simple minds-simple solutions.
wonatthewire1
08-14-2005, 06:17 AM
who said I was pissed off?
:D
wonatthewire1
08-14-2005, 07:07 AM
in today's NYT offers up some things to chew on...
Frank Rich (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/14rich.html)
lsbets
08-14-2005, 09:25 AM
Ok maybe you guys believe it is acceptable to lie if the agenda matches your world view.
Well, based on your posts, we know that you have no problem doing so, hell its like a ritual rite of passage for you.
Yeah, the poll numbers are down. So what? You want to make decisions based on polls. Okay, there's good policy. The next "poll" that counts will be in Nov 2006. Frankly, I'm not surprised the poll numbers are down - incredibly slanted reporting coupled with a relentless assault of partisan attacks on every topic, with no real good response to it from the WH - the numbers should have been down a long time ago. Bush should have lost the election, I was saying a long time before the election that I thought he would lose. If that happenned, Sec would be on here trumpeting the genius Kerry and how great things are going in Iraq, when truth be told, they would probably be going about the same, which all in all is pretty good as far as a war goes. There's been a lot of progress, things have certainly moved along in the past 18 months. The constitution will be written, not because we put pressure on them to get it done as some people will claim, but because they wanted to get it written and move on. How do I know they wanted to get it written? Well, they had a higher voter turnout than we did. I know guys like Hcap hate to acknowledge that event. Then their next elections will be held, and sometime after that, we'll reduce the number of troops over there, my guess is by about 30,000 or so, and a little bit more 6 months after that. And again the political battle for credit will start, with the left saying we reduced troops because of popular opinion at home, and the WH doing a totally ineffective job of PR on their end. But, the truth is, that was probably a part of the plan for a while now, at least at a certain level. And because of all the partisan attempts to get credit, credit will not go where it should - to our soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen.
All polls taken recently show the majority of the american public NOT believing in the Iraqi war. A year ago, using simiilar wordings as the newsweek poll, the majorty believed bush..
Don't go there.... You'll regret it. The "people" are sheep. Pay no mind to polls. They'll hurt you more than help you. If OBL gets caught tommorrow those polls will flip on you and then what?
Today your right because the people agree with you?
Tommorrow when they don't agree with you, are you wrong?
No , of course not. Be right based on principle, not crowd size.
25% of the American Public does'nt even know who Karl Rove is. I don't want to be included in any poll with those people.
I and others were against this war when the polls were not.
The people may be sheep most of the time, but there moments when reality bites. I believe Abe Lincoln had a few choice words in this regard.The MSM is mostly to blame for our national slumber. That and a popular culture that tends to believe the unreality of TV situation comedy scribes.
The polls reflecting a different majority-those that are against this war-deserve to have bush answer some hard questions. Cindy Sheehan is asking these for us. High profile, as long as it lasts is a good thing.
Casey according to bush died for a "noble cause". Well at least let him back up the discredited claim of mushroom clouds and the immediate danger Saddam was before we invaded. That was the original noble cause that convinced congress to grant him war power
Let him explain to Cindy his performance at the press diner-the one where bush acting the fool-looked for WMds behind the curtains, smirking " well they gotta be har somewhar, hardy har har "
If osama is caught tommorrow bush will ride the crest, but the mess in Iraq appears to have a life on it's own. One of osamas buddies I'm sure will be named the new osama. Back to da war on terrists.
Since Cindy met bush the first time, Iraq has worsened. The downing street memos have cast further doubts on the integrety of what they told us. Sheehan has had time to digest new info. Bush did-over his rationales for invading many times.
Cindy deserves a do-over.
Summer 2002-- a senior Bush official to Ron Suskind: "[Establishment liberals] believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
Summer 2005-- a senior Bush official to Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer: "What we expected to achieve [in Iraq] was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground. We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
Is it any wonder these guys can't be trusted?
lsbets
08-14-2005, 11:25 AM
[QUOTE=hcap]Since Cindy met bush the first time, Iraq has worsened. /QUOTE]
Really? Wow, almost everyone I know who has been there would say you're wrong, but hey, when it comes to your agenda, who the hell cares about the truth, hyperbole works so much better.
Lefty
08-14-2005, 11:39 AM
lbj, will you never tire of saying things that aren't true? Nobody on the right has trashed the woman. They have sypathized with her loss and have been nothing but respectful. They have pointed out, truthfully, that her own family disagrees with her views and that she has let herself be used by MM, moveon.ugh and other leftwing extremist groups.
And, it's not been proven that anyone on the right has outed any cia iperative. It has been proven that Wilson lied. So get some facts, then get em strght.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says
By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; A01
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
Hey Ls imagine this is one of them old fashioned reading comphrehension tests they gave us in high school.
Question 1a...
Choose the word that best describes the condition Iraq will be in as contrasted with "originally envisioned"?
1- better
2-wonderful
3-stable
4-worse
Question 1b....
Why did the "originally envisioned" loose favor, and do you think that CURRENT conditions NOW had anything to do with lowering of expectations?
Question 2
Should we assume based on previous lies, exagerations and other sources outside the offiicial lineup, that it may be far worse than these guys are fessing up to. OOps you need material other than the DOD bullshit to answer this. Never mind
boxcar
08-14-2005, 11:57 AM
lsbets wrote:
Light - he's already met with her.
I guess "Light" had his turned off when that meeting occurred.
Boxcar
lsbets
08-14-2005, 12:02 PM
OOps you need material other than the DOD bullshit to answer this. Never mind
DOD Bullshit? That's what you call my personal experience and firsthand knowledge and that of most of my friends, many of whom are still there.
Get a friggin clue. There is no metric that you can show me that says things are worse in Iraq now than they were in June 2004 when Bush met with Sheehan. Not one. You desperatly want to believe things are worse, so you'll keep saying it, but you can't back it up. If you had any interest in an honest debate about today vs. 14 months ago you would lose, hands down. You won't do it. You can't do it, and you know it.
Here's one thing that has changed according to my friends who are still there. The troops are not getting as many care packages from people back home. Guys coming home on R&R are not getting welcomed as heros as often as they were a year ago. Maybe your drumbeat has had an effect - the troops are not getting the support of the people that they once were. Your never ending propoganda campaign has had an affect, and its the one I said I was worried about before I even went, that if you repeated your crap long enough, the troops would stop getting the widespread support they once had. Good job hcap, I hope you're proud.
boxcar
08-14-2005, 12:07 PM
hcap quotes from a Lib Rag:
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
So the Washington Post quotes a nameless "senior official" -- another one of these infamous anonymous sources. :rolleyes:
Boxcar
Lefty
08-14-2005, 12:12 PM
ls, box, give h'cap a brk. These libs get so happy reading this kinda crap. Their perception that we might lose this war prob just gets them "high" as hell.
ls....very well put. :ThmbUp:
we might lose this war .
:lol: You can't even define winning, and you fear losing?
If your thinking a democratic , pro-western Iraq is the win, then you, my fine feathered friend, have already lost the war.
What some Americans are trying to do is save us from the likes of you.
You have led us into, yet another , bad bad stain on the Historical Military Record of the United States of America.
Ls, you called me out on whether things are better or worse. I cited Iraqi worsening conditions as ONE reason supporting a Sheehan "do-over". Ok you and your buddies may see a blossoming rose, but others have other views.
I appologize for calling your "blossoming rose" DOD bullshit.
200 billion dollars to depose Saddam and turn the country into an Islamic theocracy and send it into anarchy, and maybe civil war
Here are the other views....
From the so-called lib rag article..
1-Killings of members of the Iraqi security force have tripled since January. Iraq's ministry of health estimates that bombings and other attacks have killed 4,000 civilians in Baghdad since Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari's interim government took office April 28.
2-Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve.
3-Attacks on U.S. convoys by insurgents using roadside bombs have doubled over the past year, Army Brig. Gen. Yves Fontaine said Friday. Convoys ferrying food, fuel, water, arms and equipment from Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey are attacked about 30 times a week, Fontaine said.
3-Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.
4-There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy," Yaphe said. "This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start."
5-The United States had high hopes of quick, big-budget fixes for the electrical power system that would show Iraqis tangible benefits from the ouster of Hussein. But inadequate training for Iraqi staff, regional rivalries restricting the power flow to Baghdad, inadequate fuel for electrical generators and attacks on the infrastructure have contributed to the worst summer of electrical shortages in the capital.
6-Water is also a "tough, tough" situation in a desert country, said a U.S. official in Baghdad familiar with reconstruction issues. Pumping stations depend on electricity, and engineers now say the system has hundreds of thousands of leaks.
7-"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.
boxcar
08-14-2005, 01:25 PM
lsbets wrote:
...are not getting the support of the people that they once were. Your never ending propoganda campaign has had an affect, and its the one I said I was worried about before I even went, that if you repeated your crap long enough, the troops would stop getting the widespread support they once had. Good job hcap, I hope you're proud.
Anyone ever listen closely to the tapes these murderous rag-head pond scum release to propaganda outlets such as Aljezeera, etc.? Every talking point is taken right out of the Libs' playbook. Every one of them!
The Libs, I'm sure, must be proud that they have allied themselves with the lowest form of human debris on the face of the planet.
Boxcar
I think we must, realistcally, consider incacerating certain americans. At least until we can get the truth sorted out.
All those who want Americans to die in Iraq Today, should be detained.
All those who want to re-elvaluate the situation, while not having Americans die , should get together and talk.
lsbets
08-14-2005, 01:54 PM
And pray tell Suff, who are "they" who want Americans to die in Iraq?
And pray tell Suff, who are "they" who want Americans to die in Iraq?
Those that continue to support American Children dieing by sending them into a War we are no longer supporting victory in. We need to come up with a system to identify those people. Of course , those that openly say "send more americans to die in Iraq" identify themselves.
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8942482/
Anyone who sends an American Kid to die in support of this Policy, should go with him. Or be in Jail.
boxcar
08-14-2005, 02:35 PM
Suff writes:
Those that continue to support American Children dieing by sending them into a War we are no longer supporting victory in. We need to come up with a system to identify those people. Of course , those that openly say "send more americans to die in Iraq" identify themselves.
"Children", you say? I don't see any "children" being sent to Iraq to fight this war. I've been seeing young men and women fighting this war -- but no children. Children aren't old enough (read: sufficiently mature) to make those kinds of intelligent, informed decisions to join the military and possibly put their lives on the line for their country -- let alone to physcially fight a war.
Secondly, there are, very sadly, many older men and women losing their lives in this war. They're not "children" either. Out of what orifice did you pull out this term "children"?
Boxcar
I use the Governments own reasoning. Until a person turns 21 they are not suffiecently mature enough to handle the responsibilities of ingesting Alcohol. So says the US Govt.
For me, when I see 18 and 19 and even 20 year old boys being killed, I view them as children we've lost.
No more repsonse's from "El Suffbo" today. The nonsense is to deep. Pictures of Rumsfeld with Iraq.... Direct quotes from the administartion saying Freedom and Democracy are no longer our goals... .....and people want my definition of a Child. :lol:
Iraq is very tough spot. I need to sleep at night. No one is dieng in my name any longer in Iraq.
wonatthewire1
08-14-2005, 03:32 PM
...if you give it a couple of days...the reasons for being in Iraq will probably change a few more times in the interim...
lsbets Your never ending propoganda campaign has had an affect, and its the one I said I was worried about before I even went, that if you repeated your crap long enough, the troops would stop getting the widespread support they once had. Good job hcap, I hope you're proud.There is more propaganda coming out of the white house that is dreamed about in your philosophy, Horatio. Some of us look at the current messupotania war and remember the ORIGINAL reasons cited to invade. It ain't now anything resembling what it was then The "mix" of reasons had MUSHROOM CLOUDS in the hands of BIN LADEN, as JOB #1.
Well we all know now bullshit is JOB #1 from these guys.
Does anyone actually believe the congress and the country would have supported redoing the electrical grid in Bagdhad as a reason to loose 1900+ kids. Yeah Suff had it right CHILDREN. I'm 58, I didn't know Boxcars' ass from Tom's face ( should be elbow ?) when I was 18 or19. Let alone enough to choose to live or die.
That's propaganda ala George Orwell. Not dissagreing with war. Not supporting Cindy Sheehan. To even think protesting your nations leaders and policies is "propaganda" is to miss the larger set of lies, you gentlemen have bought into.
And speaking of Boxcars' ass,Boxhead--Anyone ever listen closely to the tapes these murderous rag-head pond scum release to propaganda outlets such as Aljezeera, etc.? Every talking point is taken right out of the Libs' playbook. Every one of them! The Libs, I'm sure, must be proud that they have allied themselves with the lowest form of human debris on the face of the planet. Well you managed to squeeze that out of your southern orifice with your typical bombastic flair.
boxcar
08-14-2005, 05:22 PM
hcap, our resident pacificst (read: antiwar adherent) writes:
Well we all know now bullshit is JOB #1 from these guys.
Yeah, yeah...Bushco deliberately misled us. :rolleyes: Just like Clinton and many other Dems were misled before the war begun.
Yeah Suff had it right CHILDREN. I'm 58, I didn't know Boxcars' ass from Tom's face ( should be elbow ?) when I was 18 or19. Let alone enough to choose to live or die.
58, eh? I would never have guessed that in 10 lifetimes!.
You write with the mind of a child that is hopelessly trapped in the quaqmire of its juvenille fantasies. You're so far removed from reality that all the giant earthmovers in the world wouldn't be able to drag you back to it! If you want to talk about children dying, then I refer you back to a little bit of American history a la the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, for starters -- when there were 14, 15, 16 and 17-year olds fighting and dying in those wars. In fact, there were even underage people fighting the First and Second World Wars when they freely chose to lie about their age to serve their country. But...in this day and age, I doubt we have very many "children" fighting our wars.
Definition of "child":
Main Entry:child
Pronunciation:*ch*(*)ld
Function:noun
Inflected Form:plural chil£dren \*chil-dr*n, -d*rn\
Usage:often attributive
Etymology:Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit ja*hara belly
Date:before 12th century
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
So, tell me, 'cap: when does a person cease to be a child? In other words, when does a person come of age? At 20? No? How 'bout at 25? Still too young -- still too "childlike"? How 'bout at 30?
And speaking of Boxcars' ass, Well you managed to squeeze that out of your southern orifice with your typical bombastic flair.
Hcap: All you have to do for once in your life is listen carefully to the Lib antiwar rhetoric and then compare notes with the rhetoric of the terrorists. The best friends those scumbuckets have in this world are you Liberals. Libs like yourself speak and they mimic.
Boxcar
Suff, you are really reaching posting an old photo (20, 25 years?) like it was relevant to today. I expect better from you.
So I take it you oppose Afghanistan, too, seeing how those kids couldn't buy beer either? BTW, isn't drinking age up to counties, not the Us government?
Weak argument, really weak.
...if you give it a couple of days...the reasons for being in Iraq will probably change a few more times in the interim...
Haven't changed since day one.
Lefty
08-14-2005, 07:17 PM
suff, low blow, buddy by using only part of my quote. Right out of the old liberal playbook! Here's the full quote made by me. Makes you look rather foolish, suff.
ls, box, give h'cap a brk. These libs get so happy reading this kinda crap. Their perception that we might lose this war prob just gets them "high" as hell.
suff, here's the part of that you quoted:
Originally Posted by Lefty
we might lose this war .
Hcap,
I see lsbets is now blaming you for Bush's mistakes regarding Iraq. Seems to think you have a propaganda machine even more powerful then the neocons. :D
The thing that ls and others on this board seem to be overlooking is that nasty old item they fear even more then taxes. Yes, they are being whipped by the TRUTH!
Carry on Hcap, carry on.
Lefty
08-14-2005, 08:37 PM
lbj, what mstks? Iraq is getting ready to draft their constitution and while we have been keeping the terrorists busy there hasn't been an attack in this country since 9-11. That's 48 mos, son.
lsbets
08-14-2005, 08:42 PM
No ljb, you seem to have a problem understanding what one writes, so let me try to make it clear:
I blame shitbags like you for a drop in the support that the troops serving in Iraq have recently noticed.
Is that clear enough for you to understand? I can't think of a simpler way to put it.
And by like you I mean Michael Moore and his band of merry men, who do seem to have a pretty far reaching propoganda machine. Of course someone as simple as you can't figure it out.
wonatthewire1
08-14-2005, 08:52 PM
Haven't changed since day one.
I've noticed...maybe a good reason why things are running downhill
It looks like reading comprehension isn't necessarily a skill & the pollyticians sold you their beliefs > just like Vietnam, Granada, & the Contras. One can still smell the smoldering cash of Iran/Contra...can't ya?
Enjoy > hope your kids & grandkids will enjoy paying for it all
;)
Buckeye
08-14-2005, 09:05 PM
If they can carry an M-16 they should be able to vote and drink,
I would think.
Lefty
08-14-2005, 09:37 PM
last I heard, 18 yr olds can vote.
won, saw your wish for the grandkids. Thanks to Bush, and those kids over there willing to do what some of us can't or won't do, the grandkids will be continue to be free.
.
ls, box, give h'cap a brk. These libs get so happy reading this kinda crap. Their perception that we might lose this war prob just gets them "high" as hell.
.
I did'nt use the quote.... I wanted to highlight your concern for Losing the war.
I ask you... what is winning? You said losing the war makes Liberals high?
I'm curious how at this point we define winning and losing?
If stay we win, & if we leave we lose? ......... The whole matter is out of hand.
Iran/Contra.....you sound like that was a bad thing. It was a good thing. It was our people fighting the war on terror long before we knew about it. Olli North knew what a threat Bin Laden was even back then.
Buckeye
08-14-2005, 09:52 PM
Just trying to set the record straight, 18-year-olds are not children.
If they die serving Our Country, they do so as adults. Granted they are serving to protect the interests of American children (present and future), but they are not themselves children.
boxcar
08-14-2005, 10:02 PM
Suff "reasons":
I use the Governments own reasoning. Until a person turns 21 they are not suffiecently mature enough to handle the responsibilities of ingesting Alcohol. So says the US Govt.
Yeah...but according to the same government and the vast majority of governments of the several sovereign states, they are sufficiently mature enough to inhale tobacco products, to gamble, to consent to sex, to view pornography, to be liable for debt, to be tried,convicted and sentenced in courts of law as adults, to marry without parental consent, to obtain business licenses, to operate dangerous equipment, to enter into contracts, to own property, to join the military without parental consent, etc., etc. Why can't they vote or drink until the age of 21? Beyond me. I chalk these exceptions up to just more bureacratic inconsistencies.
For me, when I see 18 and 19 and even 20 year old boys being killed, I view them as children we've lost.
Well...maybe when compared to your old age, they are. Are you just feeling old these days? Not getting around like you used to? Not as active as you once were? :rolleyes: But whatever your problem is -- by any reasonable definition of terms, these young people are not children.
No more repsonse's from "El Suffbo" today. The nonsense is to deep. Pictures of Rumsfeld with Iraq.... Direct quotes from the administartion saying Freedom and Democracy are no longer our goals... .....and people want my definition of a Child. :lol:
Thank you for sparing us of some sure-to-be inane definition. Wouldn't suprise me in the slightest if you characterized all people who aren't grandfathers or grandmothers as being mere children. :rolleyes:
Boxcar
ElKabong
08-15-2005, 12:16 AM
DOD Bullshit? That's what you call my personal experience and firsthand knowledge and that of most of my friends, many of whom are still there.
Get a friggin clue. There is no metric that you can show me that says things are worse in Iraq now than they were in June 2004 when Bush met with Sheehan. Not one. You desperatly want to believe things are worse, so you'll keep saying it, but you can't back it up. If you had any interest in an honest debate about today vs. 14 months ago you would lose, hands down. You won't do it. You can't do it, and you know it.
Here's one thing that has changed according to my friends who are still there. The troops are not getting as many care packages from people back home. Guys coming home on R&R are not getting welcomed as heros as often as they were a year ago. Maybe your drumbeat has had an effect - the troops are not getting the support of the people that they once were. Your never ending propoganda campaign has had an affect, and its the one I said I was worried about before I even went, that if you repeated your crap long enough, the troops would stop getting the widespread support they once had. Good job hcap, I hope you're proud.
As well put, as can be. No wavering here, tho. Your comments do strike a chord, I sense some are worn down by the hcaps and ljb's of the world. I know I'm sick and tired of argueing with the far left b/c they make no sense, have no resolutions, win no elections. They're useless all around (to me).
I'll contact you off line in a week or two for suggestions on "care packages" and the like next week (snowed under now, but w/h some time in a week or so). I want to pitch in a bit more than the usual small donation, or visit to the VA Hospital during the Holidays.
PaceAdvantage
08-15-2005, 04:13 AM
If stay we win, & if we leave we lose? ......... The whole matter is out of hand.
I'm curious about one thing.
Invading a country and totally dismantling their military machine, along with capturing their capital city and imprisoning their former leader is not winning? All along suffering less deaths in a two year period+ than all those who died in ONE DAY on 9/11?
How is that not winning? What dictionary are you using?
lsbets No ljb, you seem to have a problem understanding what one writes, so let me try to make it clear:
I blame shitbags like you for a drop in the support that the troops serving in Iraq have recently noticed. Is that clear enough for you to understand? I can't think of a simpler way to put it. And by like you I mean Michael Moore and his band of merry men, who do seem to have a pretty far reaching propoganda machine. Of course someone as simple as you can't figure it out.You know protesting, and dissagreing with the elected has a tradition. Like these guys..
"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Now compare Kosovo and Iraq.
Which is closer to Vietnam?
Which cost more in blood and treasure?
Which strategy failed?
I was against Clinton as I am now against bush.
But as Kosovo was criticized, I and others claim the SAME traditional right to criticize Iraq.
Shove the propaganda angle. Bullshit
Hey Boxhead,
Yeah I realize the young are on the front lines. I also realize the older so-called statesmen , the ones to plan and start the war, are not. Wars are like that. Always will be unless our elders ride their mountain bikes ala georgie. Physical condition has been why the young get to shoulder the burden.
That brings up a thought-are there mountains in Iraq? Nah, I guess he's stuck stateside, like during "Nam
The word Children has broad emotional meanings. Speaking as a father I know my son is my child, as well as a grown man. If God forbid anything happened to him, or your kids Box, I would say and think child. No matter the age.
If you wanna resort to dictionary definitions, to strip the outrage that Cindy Sheehan and others like myself, feel towards the uselessness of this so-called war, and the young dying, you are denying the full context of the outrage. I think if it was one of your kids, and not Sheehans, you might use the word child as well. The more one sees the war as tragedy , rather than glory or justified, the greater the significance of the word "child".
socantra
08-15-2005, 10:40 AM
I'm curious about one thing.
Invading a country and totally dismantling their military machine, along with capturing their capital city and imprisoning their former leader is not winning? All along suffering less deaths in a two year period+ than all those who died in ONE DAY on 9/11?
How is that not winning? What dictionary are you using?
Your description of our achievements sounds a lot like the achievements of the German army in western Europe in the early days of WWII, but I don't believe they are usually credited with having won the war.
I'm not in any way equating us with the Nazi's. Just pointing out that winning the battle is not necessarily the same as winning the war.
socantra...
boxcar
08-15-2005, 11:06 AM
The word Children has broad emotional meanings. Speaking as a father I know my son is my child, as well as a grown man. If God forbid anything happened to him, or your kids Box, I would say and think child. No matter the age.
If you wanna resort to dictionary definitions, to strip the outrage that Cindy Sheehan and others like myself, feel towards the uselessness of this so-called war, and the young dying, you are denying the full context of the outrage. I think if it was one of your kids, and not Sheehans, you might use the word child as well. The more one sees the war as tragedy , rather than glory or justified, the greater the significance of the word "child".
Yup, "broad emotional meanings" says it all. And another one of those "meanings" for why the term "child" or "children" is used in the context of debate is to project the image that the young men and women who have sacrificed their lives for this country have done so only because these immature, unknowing, unsuspecting, gullible "kids" were duped, were beguiled, were conned by the old men in Washington who plan and start these wars. The image you want to create is one of an innocent, unsuspecting little girl, for example, being lured into car by a dirty old pervert to be molested by him.
But you know what, 'cap? What you and Suff do is utterly despicable because it denigrates these fine young people and it all but summarily dismisses the ultimate sacrifice they've made because sacrifices can only be made willingly with "eyes wide open" -- being fully aware of what is at risk -- what is at stake. But little children don't, yet, have the capacity to process this kind of information and reach an essential and substantial understanding of it, do they?
You and Suff are no better than that the terrorists (or should I call them "freedom fighters" in your case?) who hide behind the skirts of women and children and use them as human shields. That's exactly what you two are doing here. You can't reasonably, logically and coherently debate this war, so instead you create emotional talking points -- which in this particualr instance is to hide behind the imagery of children -- in the hopes that such imagery will protect you from the slings and arrows of those who can argue with facts.
You're one pathectic excuse for a human being...
Boxcar
Lefty
08-15-2005, 11:31 AM
suff, better read what i said one more time. I have no concern about losing this war. We are winning and we'll continue winning. You take me outta context and then try to change my whole meaning. Not gonna work...
Light
08-15-2005, 12:58 PM
Just like we won in Vietnam. 58,000 American troops dead for nothing or pardon me,freedom and democracy and containment of communism.Now proven to be flat out lies.Now where did I hear that before? Hmm.Puzzling. In the end the North Vietnamese did exactly what the 58,000 dead troops tried to stop.Siagon fell in 1975 to the North Vietnamese.Why didn't we care any longer in 1975?Not in vogue? Isn't that disrespect to the men who gave their lives trying to stop it that we idly sat by while Saigon fell?Same story in Iraq. You just don't have as many dead Americans . Stay long enough,and you will. Bagdad will be the next Saigon.
No ljb, you seem to have a problem understanding what one writes, so let me try to make it clear:
I blame shitbags like you for a drop in the support that the troops serving in Iraq have recently noticed.
Is that clear enough for you to understand? I can't think of a simpler way to put it.
And by like you I mean Michael Moore and his band of merry men, who do seem to have a pretty far reaching propoganda machine. Of course someone as simple as you can't figure it out.
ls,
Typical non-response, call someone a name. Do you remember when you protested so loudly about the press getting involved with a Rummy flick in Iraq? You know when the soldier asked Rummy about armor and Rummy responded with an arrogant reply. Well ls, the press is finally getting their fear of the neocons out of the way and starting to report some TRUTH. This is the real cause of non support for Bush's quagmire in Iraq. You are just going to have to learn to accept the TRUTH inspite of how it makes you cringe and cuss. Michael Moore will go down in history as a Great American who had the balls to stand up to the military-industrial complex and the neocons.
lsbets
08-15-2005, 01:30 PM
No ljb - mine was not a non response, it was a direct response that you don't want to deal with.
I can respect someone who says they don't believe in the war and want us to leave. There is nothing wrong with that. What I cannot repspect are those who feel that way but use deliberate lies and distortions to try to galvanize public opinion (I know your response will be that's what Bush did, but I'm not talking about Bush, so please try not to divert attention from what we are discussing).
Yes they (and you) have a right to free speech, but with speech comes consequences, some intended some unintended. One of the offshoots of the neverending propoganda campaign that says that we are murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and rampantly torturing innocent prisoners is that soldiers have begun to see a drop in support from the public. So, those who have brought about that drop in support, even if it is an unintended consequence of their actions, are shitbags in my book. Plain and simple. And you are a poster boy.
Once again you cannot deal with what I said, you need to divert attention. Because when the light of scrutiny is turned on those of your ilk, it is obvious to most what you are. I see you've learned to use the capslock key when you type truth, unfortunatly your response has nothing to do with what I posted. Where did I say support for the war? Umm, nowhere. Where did I say support Bush? Nowhere. I said support for the troops. Now maybe you equate the two in your mind, and if you do, than from the gist of your post it seems you are happy that the troops are receiveing less support, which wouldn't suprise me a bit, because that is the kind of guy you seem to be - a shitbag.
ls,
I have opposed this invasion of Iraq from way before it happened. I do know we cannot leave now. My support of the mother in crawford is not intended to get us to pull out of Iraq immediately but rather to help spotlight to America the neocons lies and deceptions that put us in this quagmire. Hopefully this will make them think some before blindly voting next time.
If you haven't read the link on "Who owns congress" thread, I urge you do so. I find agreement with some of Boxcars comments following the link. And this is an earth shattering event. :D
ps. I have supported the troops from day one. I have donated both time and money in their support. A fellow board member once said he would refuse any "care" package from me but, that is his problem. Kind of like calling someone who supports you a shitbag just because you disagree with their political philosophy.
lsbets
08-15-2005, 02:26 PM
Kind of like calling someone who supports you a shitbag just because you disagree with their political philosophy.
That shows how you truly do not comprehend what I said. It has nothing to do with political philosophy. It has everything to do with actions taken.
JustRalph
08-15-2005, 02:47 PM
Just like we won in Vietnam. 58,000 American troops dead for nothing or pardon me,freedom and democracy and containment of communism.Now proven to be flat out lies.Now where did I hear that before? Hmm.Puzzling. In the end the North Vietnamese did exactly what the 58,000 dead troops tried to stop.Siagon fell in 1975 to the North Vietnamese.Why didn't we care any longer in 1975?Not in vogue? Isn't that disrespect to the men who gave their lives trying to stop it that we idly sat by while Saigon fell?Same story in Iraq. You just don't have as many dead Americans . Stay long enough,and you will. Bagdad will be the next Saigon.
Fundamental mis-understanding of the goals and the current conditions in place in the middle east. Myopic at best, misinformed more likely.
Lefty
08-15-2005, 02:57 PM
light, I just heard that 3100 schools are now open again in Iraq and 47 countries have reastablished embassies there. Yes, the dems messed up Vietnam badly, thank God, they're not in charge now.
That shows how you truly do not comprehend what I said. It has nothing to do with political philosophy. It has everything to do with actions taken.
So then, you called me a shitbag because I supported our troops with both time and money? What exact actions did I take that caused such name calling?
light, I just heard that 3100 schools are now open again in Iraq and 47 countries have reastablished embassies there. Yes, the dems messed up Vietnam badly, thank God, they're not in charge now.
Lefty,
and in the meantime how many American schools are struggling to maintain funding ? Oh and I believe Nixon was a Republican when he quit viet nam and also when he quit the white house. :D
boxcar
08-15-2005, 03:09 PM
Lefty wrote:
light, I just heard that 3100 schools are now open again in Iraq and 47 countries have reastablished embassies there. Yes, the dems messed up Vietnam badly, thank God, they're not in charge now.
I'm beginning to wonder if this guy's lights are ever on!? Funny how libs only seem to remember the Nixon administration during that war. They conveniently forget who it was who got us into that war, and who it was who finally ordered the troops home because he mismanaged the war so badly.
Boxcar
PaceAdvantage
08-15-2005, 03:14 PM
You just don't have as many dead Americans . Stay long enough,and you will. Bagdad will be the next Saigon.
Not going to happen....not in a million years. Of course you and I can't prove our points yet, but I vehemently disagree with your future assessment.
boxcar
08-15-2005, 03:15 PM
ljb wrote:
Lefty,
and in the meantime how many American schools are struggling to maintain funding?
This is what LSBETS was talking about -- just change the topic -- switch horses in the middle of the stream when you have no reasonable, rationale, coherent on-topic reply to give -- especially when good news is written about over in Iraq.
Boxcar
Boxcar,
I responded to lsbets. This response is to Lefty. I did not change topics. Please clear your mind before posting.
Light
08-15-2005, 03:36 PM
Boxcar
This is the 2nd time you have alluded to me as if I don't know what I'm talking about. In both cases you're showing signs of dementia.
The first was when I said I was aware that the president met with Cindy. After I posted that you said I had my "Lights" turned off when the meeting occured,Inferring that I did not know it happened.Well, Duh!
Now regarding my last post you say "I'm beginning to wonder if this guy's lights are ever on!",cause I "forget who it was who got us into that war".My post was not about who got us into the war.Duh#2!
Next time you criticize someone,get your facts straight.
Those that continue to support American Children dieing by sending them into a War we are no longer supporting victory in. We need to come up with a system to identify those people. Of course , those that openly say "send more americans to die in Iraq" identify themselves.
Quote:
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8942482/
Anyone who sends an American Kid to die in support of this Policy, should go with him. Or be in Jail
The Bush Supporters
Watch these guys very carefully.... watch them dance. Watch them hang on a word because the sentence makes them choke with shame.
The wheels are off the cart in Iraq. I want my "boys" home. It is difficult to watch men that I respect hang onto to nothing. They followed Bush and Rumsfeld because they beleived. Now its 3 years later.... 400 billion later and we cannot even provide a level of security needed to conduct a society.
It is time to revise. put 100K troops in Kuwait and watch the situation from there. Anythng but this stubborn ...."we're making progress"... "Its hard work"... they voted... They this, they that. The way I see it...
1. Nuke them, or
2. put another 250K troops there and suffocate them , or
3. get out.
Watch these idiots... wrapping you up in how old you need to be to drink or vote..... or what your definition of a man is, or accusing you of being a terrorist....and blaming you for the mistakes of their president. LOL....:lol:
I feel terrible for these guys... they were led by a bufoon, across a desert to an empty pond. Now everyone is still thirsty and its your fault.
Don't worry. We're all Americans. I'll still love you in the morning. You did'nt send anyone to War. I don't hold you accountable for that. But from here on out..... it is on you. So be careful what you say. If one young man dies today....and you supported the misguied policy. It is on you.
Every man entitled to his opinion. You have mine.
btw... my post was the MSNBC article. Not Birthday parties at Chuckie Cheese.
schweitz
08-15-2005, 03:53 PM
[b]
btw... my post was the MSNBC article.
Who exactly are the Bush Administration Officials that are quoted in the MSNBC article?
boxcar
08-15-2005, 04:46 PM
ljb wrote:
Boxcar,
I responded to lsbets. This response is to Lefty. I did not change topics. Please clear your mind before posting.
Hey, meathead...I would tell you to take your own advice -- except I'm beginning to think you have something in your head that more closely resembles a bug-infested weed patch than gray matter.
I know precisely who you responded to in both cases (go back and carefully read the header in my last post to you). I simply made the observation that Lsbets earlier comments about your posting tactics was right on the money due to how you responded to Lefty.
Meanwhile, have a nice day...
Boxcar
Lefty
08-15-2005, 05:06 PM
lbj, Boxcar was right. You changed the subject. The subject was some good news in Iraq but you changed it to american schools. When I went to school you had to pass one grade to go to another. When you were bad you got punished; a whipping sometimes. Then dad punished you again when the news got home. The libs have screwed up american schools badly over last 40-50 yrs. With the advent of teachers unions you can't even fire a bad teacher. Money is poured into this decaying school system at an alarming rate. Conservatives push for vouchers and private schools while dems want to keep the status quo. A sad state of affairs. But our schooll probs have nothing to do with Iraq. But the Dem playbook says when you can't defend your argument, change the subject. You did that. Go have a cookie.
Who exactly are the Bush Administration Officials that are quoted in the MSNBC article?
Still no respone to the Article itself huh? Now you want names?
Dan Goure...
Deputy Director of Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mark Lagon
Member of the State Department's Office of Policy and Planning
They were two of the constructors of Bush's American PAX. (or PNAC)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
PaceAdvantage
08-15-2005, 06:50 PM
this, they that. The way I see it...
1. Nuke them, or
2. put another 250K troops there and suffocate them , or
3. get out.
How can I seriously have a discussion with someone who posts stuff like this? Suff, I didn't know you were part of the "MTV" generation....Mr. Instant Gratification. Give me a break.
Let's stop using the word "Vietnam" and then maybe we can talk. Yes, one American death is one too many, but we must face the reality we are in. Less troops have died in Iraq to date than the number of civilians who died in ONE DAY on 9/11. This, after a full-on invasion and takeover of an entire nation.
I don't see where all this urgency is coming from. We all want the troops back as soon as possible, but this sudden "get it done or get out" stuff isn't going to fly. Welcome to the real world.
How can I seriously have a discussion with someone who posts stuff like this? Suff, I didn't know you were part of the "MTV" generation....Mr. Instant Gratification. Give me a break.
.
Mike... do you have a Flipping comment on the article or not... Huh?
For jesus H Christ Sakes man... You dance all over the place...
Forget my use of the word CHILDREN and forget PRUNNING out a sentence or point that allows you to Dance....
Now you want to discuss my Military tactical views... I posted a NUMBER of articles on the IRAq war. Not on me... Not on You.. Not on ISBETS...
ON THE IRAQ war...!!!! The statements on the GOALS of our Military in IRAQ.. DO you have an opinion on that? Or do you just type and type and get me to respond then attack my repsonses, or the sources...
Huh mike? You want to talk about "how you can have a discussion"...
You can't.
I take back every word I typed besides the Article... I take it all back...
Now.... can I get you to address the point?
Last week I posted the "the struggle for Freedom" and you did the same thing.
The article mike... the MSNBC article... DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION on that? Or do you want to Physcoanylize me as an excuse for a reply? The article... for the 25th time to all PA posters interested in this thread... The article.
Not me.. Not you.. Not Hdcap... THE ARTICLE!
schweitz
08-15-2005, 07:03 PM
Still no respone to the Article itself huh? Now you want names?
Dan Goure...
Deputy Director of Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mark Lagon
Member of the State Department's Office of Policy and Planning
They were two of the constructors of Bush's American PAX. (or PNAC)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Dan Goure is an MSNBC terrorist analyst and not mentioned in the story.
Mark Lagon is with the State Dept. which says on their web page that his responsibilities are UN-related human rights and humanitarian policy and UN administration and reform. He is also not mentioned in the story.
The story has no one on record with the Bush administration.
I see no reason to comment on an article that sounds to me like someone's fantasy or personal opinion.
That being said---it would be no surprise if there are adjustments to the original plan.
Dan Goure is an MSNBC terrorist analyst and not mentioned in the story.
Mark Lagon is with the State Dept. which says on their web page that his responsibilities are UN-related human rights and humanitarian policy and UN administration and reform. He is also not mentioned in the story.
The story has no one on record with the Bush administration.
I see no reason to comment on an article that sounds to me like someone's fantasy or personal opinion.
That being said---it would be no surprise if there are adjustments to the original plan.
Men die while you word play....
It's number-driven," Mr Goure said. "The military can only maintain these levels in Iraq if it has absolutely no choice. Otherwise, the current pattern of rotations and other commitments mean that they will have to lower numbers."
There will, in any case, be a short-term increase in US troop levels to cover the Iraq elections scheduled for December. After that, said Mr Goure, the military has drawn up three broad strategies for cutting troops.
ce by autumn next year to help Republicans fighting mid-term elections in November 2006. Military commanders, however, also need to wind down numbers, the imperative that prompted Gen Casey's comments, according to Dan Goure, a Pentagon adviser and vice-president of the Lexington Institute defence think-
Die for votes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/14/wirq14.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/14/ixworld.html
PaceAdvantage
08-15-2005, 07:13 PM
What do you want me to comment on? I just read the article and it's pretty much self explanatory. They are revising what they had hoped to accomplish based on the reality of the situation at hand. This is to be expected.
What do you want me to say, they screwed up on the initial planning? No initial planning is going to be 100% accurate....not even close.
The far left voices in America are partly to blame for what has happened post-invasion, IMO (this includes the influx of foriegn fighters). Yes, poor planning is partly to blame as well, no doubt. But like I said, going into Iraq, one can never plan for everything, or expect most of your goals to be achieved.
When you post stuff like "Nuke them" I take it seriously, as opposed to Tom, who I don't take too seriously when he says "Nuke them" (but maybe I should):lol: ....that's why I felt the need to comment on your post. Sorry I didn't take the path you wanted me to take (which was a critique of the article you posted).
I know there are lots of guys on here who are way smarter than I am when it comes to Iraq....hell, just going there, like you did, and fighting there, like lsbets did, makes me not even want to participate here....
But, when I feel I can inject a point or two that others might want to consider, I go for it....and will continue to do so....
"We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University
oh but we did..... and they were advised of this... But no one can tell them nothing... they're strong leaders... a man who says what he means and means what he says...
"BRING THEM ON"
That is what he said two years ago when people tried to tell him that it must be done another way.
"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."
But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how the initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors
Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853.html?nav=rss_email/components
schweitz
08-15-2005, 07:42 PM
Suff---what is your problem? I asked for someone with the administration who was on record for this STORY. You gave me two names that have nothing at all to do with the story---and now names that that have nothing to do with the administration. And you accuse me of word play. You want to believe the story word for word thats your choice---but I don't and you are doing a piss poor job of convincing me.
Lefty
08-15-2005, 08:03 PM
The article is by a guy named Pitt. Apropos, you ask me. Of course you just "swallow" what this guy says, huh, suff?
He fell flat on his face when he mentioned the 2000 election and how Jeb was in place to ensure victory by any means possible. All the newspapers in fla had to finally admit that Bush won, albeit they buried the admission in the back pages.
Meanwhil;e, there's no perfect plan for a war but at least Bush has one. The Dems criticize but have no plan themselves. Dean admitted that while stumbling all over the question on a Sunday Tv show.
toetoe
08-15-2005, 08:06 PM
Shouldn't she confront His Nibs as soon as her boy went to Iraq? If he survived, either it wouldn't be such a pressing issue to her, or she is out of her mind with grief now.
If someone 'gives' his life for his country, why is he more heroic than the survivors? He failed to stay alive and forfeited any shot at future accomplishments. If Samyn falls off his horse in an admittedly dangerous sport, losing his life, shall we admire him more than those that lived to ride another day, simply because he fell?
[QUOTE=schweitz] You gave me two names that have nothing at all to do with the story ---
Yes they do.
and now names that that have nothing to do with the administration.
Yes they do.
And you accuse me of word play. You want to believe the story word for word thats your choice---but I don't and you are doing a piss poor job of convincing me
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. And I'm not asking you to believe the story word for word. You may believe none of it, and that is of no consequnec to me. Through 5 posts and 2 days... Your conclusion was..
That being said---it would be no surprise if there are adjustments to the original plan.
I see it very differently. I'll stand by my take that Bush is ill equipped to handle the situation, has mismanaged the situation, and has endangered our country as a result.
JustRalph
08-15-2005, 08:46 PM
Looks like Sheehan's family has had enough.....including her husband who is divorcing her...........
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0815051sheehan1.gif
schweitz
08-15-2005, 08:50 PM
[QUOTE] ---
Through 5 posts and 2 days... Your conclusion was..
That was not my conclusion--that has been my opinion from the very beginning---all long range plans are subject to changes. I read the story and was left wondering ---who are these officials they are quoting?--they certainly did not have anybody on record with this administration. The people at the end of the story who were on record were just offering their opinion and are not part of the current administration.
You have your "take" and I have mine---mine is that you are real quick to believe any story you think undermines this administration.
mine is that you are real quick to believe any story you think undermines this administration.
That is a wrong assumption. Thereby leading to a false conclusion. At any speed.
Yesterday, in the name of freedom, I had my lunch box searched to take a Bus.
I see many more problems created, than solved by Iraq.
Looks like Sheehan's family has had enough.....including her husband who is divorcing her...........
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html
Frequently, a tragic loss of a Child leads to these things.
I remember the pain of Vietnam loss's led to the disolution of Marriages , and family ties.
_------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny enough before I hit submit, I checked for comments.
"Grief pulls families apart, but my decision to seek justice for my son's death and prevent other mothers from having this heartache has nothing to do with our decision to end our marriage," the statement said.
She said her husband supports her but "hasn't chosen a public quest for answers."
A local soldier home on leave, was interviewed on TV thisweekend.
He said he watched the news about how bad things were in Iraq and was not sure what they were talking about. He said that, yeah, it is a war zone in some places, but overall, he thought they were not describing what he had been living. He singled out Joe Biden as being particulary "in the dark" and off base.
He goes back next week and promised he would "look into this" and report back to us! (his ;) , not mine)
lbj, Boxcar was right. You changed the subject. The subject was some good news in Iraq but you changed it to american schools. When I went to school you had to pass one grade to go to another. When you were bad you got punished; a whipping sometimes. Then dad punished you again when the news got home. The libs have screwed up american schools badly over last 40-50 yrs. With the advent of teachers unions you can't even fire a bad teacher. Money is poured into this decaying school system at an alarming rate. Conservatives push for vouchers and private schools while dems want to keep the status quo. A sad state of affairs. But our schooll probs have nothing to do with Iraq. But the Dem playbook says when you can't defend your argument, change the subject. You did that. Go have a cookie.
Lefty,
I just pointed out the irony of the fact that the neocons are bragging about schools in Iraq while they are putting those in America in dire straights. Our school problems are exacerbated by this wasted expense in Iraq. Remember when the neocons said Iraq oil production will pay for rebuilding the country. Oh the lies, the lies. Will they never end? And I suppose you had to walk through waist deep snow uphill both ways to get to school also. Oh Lefty you have suffered so, shall we all shed a tear for Lefty ?
ljb wrote:
Lefty,
and in the meantime how many American schools are struggling to maintain funding?
This is what LSBETS was talking about -- just change the topic -- switch horses in the middle of the stream when you have no reasonable, rationale, coherent on-topic reply to give -- especially when good news is written about over in Iraq.
Boxcar
Boxcar,
Hope this doesn't upset you but, we live in a small world and all these things are related. Dump more money in Iraq means less money for American needs, notwithstanding the Republicans tendency to spend like there is no tommorow. :D :D :D
lsbets
08-15-2005, 10:44 PM
Tom,
That is what I have been saying and at least 75% of the guys I know who have been there have been saying. Its no surprise to me, but to some, when the soldiers fighting the war talk about it, its just "DOD bullshit." Heck, one of those guys today told me I don't know the "TRUTH". Guess I must have been sleep walking for 13 months. Remember when I was scolded that I "wasn't the only one to go over there." I bet there were more guys living in my tent than people that poster knows who have been there. But, the radicals have to dismiss what I and many others who either have served or are serving in Iraq have to say about things. Because the picture we paint is the polar opposite of the Michael Moore mass slaughter of civilians and torture chambers under American control version. But, MM is a "great American" according to some. I wish I had the magic chair that gave me a better view than the guys on the ground. Frankly, it boggles my mind how you can on the one hand summarily dismiss what the soldiers have to say - after all, we're only children, how you can say our soldiers have been committing atrocities and murdering innocents (note to readers - I used the term murder not killing, there is a difference), but then on the other hand insist that you support the troops. I don't get it, and neither do most of the guys in the service that I know.
boxcar
08-15-2005, 11:48 PM
ljb wrote:
Boxcar,
Hope this doesn't upset you but, we live in a small world and all these things are related. Dump more money in Iraq means less money for American needs, notwithstanding the Republicans tendency to spend like there is no tommorow. :D :D :D
Small wonder you believe in evolution, since you think "all...things are related". Even at the terrible risk of insulting the orangutan, I somehow must find a way of communicating to them that you're a direct descendant from their line. Those poor critters screwed up big time.
Boxcar
Lefty
08-16-2005, 02:25 AM
lbj, "points" just whiz right over your head, don't they? I told about discipline in school whwen I was young to point out the fact that the libs have screwed the schools up through the last 49-50 yrs. It sure wasn't a post about any suffering i did; so don't know how you came up with that. You can't discipline kids in school anymore. Kids are passed through whether they know anything or not. Throwing more money at the situation is not the solution. So the schools would be in exactly the same shape if we had never spent a dime in Iraq. Thank you, liberals!
There's good news coming out of Iraq and people like you instead of being happy that we're accomplishing something have to seek some way to put it down. You won't give this Pres credit for anything and it's a mystery to me. I understand the elected Dems wanting to hang on to power but when you see guys like Dean and Kennedy making asses of themselves constantly, how can you fail to see the truth?
JustRalph
08-16-2005, 11:05 AM
throw more money at the schools........that's the ticket.........Geez!
How much more full of shit can you get................
by the way.......... I believe in evolution...........what the hell does that matter?
oops.......sorry.........I forgot I am the crazy right wing.........shhhhhh......:bang:
throw more money at the schools........that's the ticket.........Geez!
You think a statement like that is so full of shit, and so juvenile, yet you find George Bush's statements examples of strong leadership and straight forwardness?
Yes,,, I'm afarid you have diagnosed yourself properly.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
-Thucydides 471
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/THUCY.HTM
boxcar
08-16-2005, 11:42 AM
Sufferin' writes:
Frequently, a tragic loss of a Child leads to these things.
I remember the pain of Vietnam loss's led to the disolution of Marriages , and family ties.
Hey, Sufferin', since you're so very deeply concerned about the loss of children's lives, why aren't you out there in the streets demonstrating and demanding that the states raise the age limit for driving licenses? I have to think that more "children" lose their lives behind the wheels of vehicles than they have, thus far, in this war.
Boxcar
JustRalph
08-16-2005, 11:46 AM
You think a statement like that is so full of shit, and so juvenile, yet you find George Bush's statements examples of strong leadership and straight forwardness?
Yes,,, I'm afarid you have diagnosed yourself properly.
come on Suff. If you think throwing more money at schools makes them better........you need to do some research.......we can agree to disagree on this one.......call me what you will.......
back to my post. The MSNBC artcle. I'm just sounding the alarm.
Scwietz is right in one respect. We don't know the cause and effect of a piece like that.
Who knows, maybe two guys got cut out of the circle of trust and they are being flys in the ointment. Maybe it is just another in a series of trial Balloons that dissenters are forwarding in an effort to effect change. The story has not been widely dissemminated, nor concurred upon by high ranking officials.
I realize all that. I'm a Child of Vietnam. Born in 1960. I see it happening. The god forbid, please god no, could never happen again, repeat of history. So suddenly close to Vietnam that it is bone jarring.
The words are almost identical. I'm scared. I'm just sounding the Bell.
People have more League of Nations knowledge than I? Has anyone read the League of Nations links I posted.
Consider this. The United Kingdom did'nt support our goals in Iraq. We are supporting thiers! Englands energy comes from that Agreement. The league of Nations. England has us doing what they cannot do. Recapture what was awarded them through the agreement.
The reason the Oil for Food scandal goes nowhere, is because it was run from London.
come on Suff. If you think throwing more money at schools makes them better........you need to do some research.......we can agree to disagree on this one.......call me what you will.......
Your right. I understand your point, and he was'nt coming from where i am.
He was being the Church lady from the Simpsons
"what about the Chidren"!
Gotcha. I make a good point though.
boxcar
08-16-2005, 12:06 PM
Sufferin' writes:
"what about the Chidren"!
Gotcha. I make a good point though
If you have any good points, it has to be the one on top of your noggin'. :rolleyes:
Meanwhile, go seek some pyschiatric help; for those "children" are a figment of your overworked, overwrought, malnourished imagination.
Boxcar
Sufferin' writes:
"what about the Chidren"!
Gotcha. I make a good point though
Boxcar
What ? They don't have a TV in the Nursin Home? :jump: :lol:
Ralph.... you got it. Explain it to a#1 out of touch.
ljb wrote:
Boxcar,
Hope this doesn't upset you but, we live in a small world and all these things are related. Dump more money in Iraq means less money for American needs, notwithstanding the Republicans tendency to spend like there is no tommorow. :D :D :D
Small wonder you believe in evolution, since you think "all...things are related". Even at the terrible risk of insulting the orangutan, I somehow must find a way of communicating to them that you're a direct descendant from their line. Those poor critters screwed up big time.
Boxcar
Typical non-response from Boxcar, name calling and no logic. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Typical non-response from Boxcar, name calling and no logic. :lol: :lol: :lol:
he's big on that. He appears to enjoy or even require lambasting people directly. Anyone can have a gripe with anyone. Anyone can have a bad day, week or month.
This guy is a lost soul who appears to badly require attacking people.
That is his form of social interaction. He's odd. people say i'm angry? This guy is fruit loops.
boxcar
08-16-2005, 01:40 PM
Suff wrote:
What ? They don't have a TV in the Nursin Home? :jump: :lol:
Ahh...so that's your problem: By overdosing on your boob tube in your nursin' home, it has turned you into a boob.
Do us all a favor, will ya? Go out and demonstrate, commit acts of civil disobedience, or whatever it takes and get the children from behind the wheels of vehicles. Look how many lives you'll save... :rolleyes:
Boxcar
kenwoodallpromos
08-16-2005, 08:06 PM
She don't know the difference between protesting and tresspassing.
The Arlington West cemetery has been growing for more than a year. Begun in California seeking to honor those soldiers killed in Iraq. The cemetery is made up of small grave markers made of simple wood. There are crosses, and crescents, and stars of David. Each one represents a dead American soldier.
The Arlington West cemetery was packed up and sent to Texas. This was no small job, as there are now nearly 2,000 grave markers - each bearing a name - that make up the cemetery.
Some time around 10:00 p.m. on Monday night, Larry Northern of Waco, Texas, drove his pickup truck down to the Crawford protest site. He got out, went around back to the tailgate, and attached a pipe and a chain to the rear of the truck. He got back in and proceeded to drive his truck through the Arlington West cemetery, grinding and smashing through the grave markers. Five hundred of them were knocked down, and 100 of them were totally destroyed.
She is the left's version of Terry Shiebo.
*****
Throw more money at schools? Gee, then how do you explain Abraham Lincoln?
He was one of our most influential presidents and never the advantage of a billion dollar soccer budget. What's up wit dat?:jump:
*****
Ralph mentioined evolution. So try this on.....if creationism is wrong, and man is a product of evolution, then man is a product of nature, not God. Therefore, whatever man does is natural. And what we are today is not what we will be in the future - we are NOT the highest life forms, but rather just another stage, like Lucy or Flathead. We will evolve into a higher life form that will be able to adapt to global warming, which, if it is caused by man, a natural creature, then it too is a natural occurrence and just part of the grand scheme of things, which, btw, is not really a scheme since God did not map it out, but rather a random, natural series of events.
So stick that global warming alarm stuff where the sun don't shine, an area which will probably warm up anyway, since it is natural part of a natural creature, affected by the natural warming process.
And I dind't even play soccer! :lol:
46zilzal
08-16-2005, 11:09 PM
strange stuff hereabouts....
PaceAdvantage
08-17-2005, 01:48 AM
Some time around 10:00 p.m. on Monday night, Larry Northern of Waco, Texas, drove his pickup truck down to the Crawford protest site. He got out, went around back to the tailgate, and attached a pipe and a chain to the rear of the truck. He got back in and proceeded to drive his truck through the Arlington West cemetery, grinding and smashing through the grave markers. Five hundred of them were knocked down, and 100 of them were totally destroyed.
What "side" do you think he was on?
Why was this "Arlington West" cemetary "packed up" and moved? It wasn't to honor the dead soldiers of the American armed forces. It was to make another political statement, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
What this guy did with his truck, while utterly distasteful in its most basic form, was also a POLITICAL statement. Force meets force, and the guy with the pickup truck wins in the end....
What "side" do you think he was on?
Why was this "Arlington West" cemetary "packed up" and moved? It wasn't to honor the dead soldiers of the American armed forces. It was to make another political statement, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
What this guy did with his truck, while utterly distasteful in its most basic form, was also a POLITICAL statement. Force meets force, and the guy with the pickup truck wins in the end....
I heard the dude with the pickup was arrested. Not sure if this constitutes winning in Texas.
how about the other Dude...Bush's nieghbor, who drank 30 keystone beers and started blasting his shotgun in the air.:lol:
:rolleyes:
These "deep thinkers" are the guys we are trusting our nation to.
If anything, these characters have refreshed my faith in God. Only God can protect us from these mis-fits.
I hope.
Lefty
08-17-2005, 11:47 AM
suff, wasn't aware either of these guys, the one with the pickup or the one firing his shotgun, held any office.
Yeah, your side has deep thinkers like Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy. Lottsa luck. Or even this woman herself, who has changed her story about Bush's demeanor when she met him. She's told 2 diff stories which is it?
suff, wasn't aware either of these guys, the one with the pickup or the one firing his shotgun, held any office.
Yeah, your side has deep thinkers like Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy. Lottsa luck. Or even this woman herself, who has changed her story about Bush's demeanor when she met him. She's told 2 diff stories which is it?
Lefty...everyone sucks. Including me & you.
The rub here is....................Violence.
By todays modern definition, when one use's violence to force thier will upon you it is called TERROR er er er ism.....;)
lsbets
08-17-2005, 11:58 AM
The guys in the pickup should be charged. He's an idiot. The guy who shot his gun in his own yard, well, I'm sure that's his way of saying welcome to the country in Texas. Not very constructive, but it was good for a chuckle.
I heard yesterday, but I can't find the story, I'll link it if I can find it, about the Mom of an AF CPT who died in Iraq who has requested than an anti-war group take her son's name off their memorial because she said her son believed in the war and would not want his name used in an anti-war memorial. The group has refused to remover her son's name. Pretty tasteless if you ask me.
P.S. - I think I've described our coyete huntig adventures before - our first stop is the beer store. Then we head out, me with my AK and my neighbor Steve with his AR-15, night vision on both, and wait for the coyotes. You should have seen when we took my brother in law who's from Philly. His words "OMG, its true what they say about Texas in the Northeast!" That was one of the funniest nights of my life, especially when one of the sherrif's depties came out to check on us. My brother in law thought for sure we were going to jail. Instead, the deputy sat down and hung out for a bit and we told him the other spots we were going to hit before the night was out and that we planned on doing some target (ie beer can) shooting if nothing showed up, so if anyone called, don't sweat it, its just us.
The guys in the pickup should be charged. He's an idiot. The guy who shot his gun in his own yard, well, I'm sure that's his way of saying welcome to the country in Texas. Not very constructive, but it was good for a chuckle.
I heard yesterday, but I can't find the story, I'll link it if I can find it, about the Mom of an AF CPT who died in Iraq who has requested than an anti-war group take her son's name off their memorial because she said her son believed in the war and would not want his name used in an anti-war memorial. The group has refused to remover her son's name. Pretty tasteless if you ask me.
turn it around. If everyone that was killed in war that opposed it asked not to be memoralized by war supporters.
btw... These Gold Star Mothers are not all ( or automatically) anti-war. They are anti-this war.
lsbets
08-17-2005, 12:04 PM
Either way, the family should be respected.
. The guy who shot his gun in his own yard, well, I'm sure that's his way of saying welcome to the country in Texas. Not very constructive, but it was good for a chuckle.
its is funny. so long as no one got hurt. But you gotta figure the guy beside Bush's ranch has some Money, influence and power. For people at that locale to be firing off shotguns in a drunken stupor is downright whacky! That's something I would do, and as I am sure all will attest, you would'nt want me living next to any President or even talking to one.!!!!:lol:
lsbets
08-17-2005, 12:14 PM
Suff, two things:
1) I think you would fit in down here and enjoy yourself, even in Crawford.
2) I doubt the guy who lives next to Bush has any real money. THe town has 700 people in it. While his land might be worth some money, its probably been in his family forever, and he runs some cattle on it. The closest town where there is any real economy is Waco, and aside from Baylor University and the Dr. Pepper museum, there is nothing in Waco. That's why the press hates going to Crawford. After Waco, Temple would be the next closest "city", and trust me, Temple wouldn't be considered a city anywhere up by you. But, there is some money in Temple. That's where the owner of the Astros, McClain, is from.
Influence and power? Well, when there are only 700 people in the whole town, I'd think everyone has some influence, because everyone knows who everyone is. Power? My guess is most of the roads in Crawford are gravel, not paved. How much power can you have when you don't even have paved roads?
Lefty
08-17-2005, 12:31 PM
Violence? Who got hurt? Implied violence? You mean like a hundred or so people clambering about private property and disrupting the quiet existence of people's lives? That kind of implied violence?
You mean like the Dems did during republican convention by trying to plant things in the subways to throw off the dogs and the way some were cght with ballbearings they planned to throw under mounted police horses?
You mean the shoutdown that Clarence Thomas gets everytime he was invited to speak at a school? That kinda thing?
Lefty
08-17-2005, 12:48 PM
suff, of course the real irony of you calling 2 exuberent dumbasses terrorists is that we have an anti-war demonstration, in Bush's hometown, against a war that seeks to eradicate the REAL terrorists.
JustRalph
08-17-2005, 01:19 PM
how about the other Dude...Bush's nieghbor, who drank 30 keystone beers and started blasting his shotgun in the air.:lol:
:rolleyes:
These "deep thinkers" are the guys we are trusting our nation to.
If anything, these characters have refreshed my faith in God. Only God can protect us from these mis-fits.
I hope.
one thing about Texas.......they do whatever the hell they want to. That is what I like about them. They also recognize good old fashion thinking........and terms like "common law" etc...........they know what the 2nd amendment is too..........
ElKabong
08-17-2005, 09:21 PM
how about the other Dude...Bush's nieghbor, who drank 30 keystone beers and started blasting his shotgun in the air.:lol:
:rolleyes:
These "deep thinkers" are the guys we are trusting our nation to.
If anything, these characters have refreshed my faith in God. Only God can protect us from these mis-fits.
I hope.
Now for the rest of the story....
He drove a "female acquantance" off a Brazos River bridge one nite, left her for dead, hid out for a couple of hours, then made up a lame excuse as to why he wasn't man enough to save her.
Such a pitiful man, he is.
Such a pitiful man, he is.
I hit a nerve? Keystone must be your brand.:jump:
Kennedy as was aptly pointed out , was convicted of nothing. He's a great American. Life is full of contradictions.
Like Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite and the Nobel Peace prize.
ElKabong
08-17-2005, 10:24 PM
Hit a nerve? Not hardly. I've been smiling or laughing at every liberal's comment since Nov 2, 2004 :).
Funny, there are about 20 million people in Texas. You sought out two that don't conform to the norm. Do you always seek out misfits and criminals? Is that why Mass's Senators are who they are, and where they are?
I saw a great article about a soldier that came home in teh local paper recently. When I think of Texas, this excerpt below is what I recognize my great state as being...., not the freaks you search the internet and cable newscasts for....
The xxxxxxxx neighborhood helped take care of things on the home front.
"I'd get home from work and our grass would be cut and wouldn't know who did it until after the fact," Mrs. xxxxxxxxxx said.
Neighbors and church members brought food, watched the children and did
whatever else they could. The neighbors' mailboxes were decorated with
yellow ribbons when Mr. xxxxxxxxx came home on break.
. The neighbors' mailboxes were decorated with
yellow ribbons when Mr. xxxxxxxxx came home on break.
If I put chains and pipes on my Pickup and ran those mailbox's over would I win?
ElKabong
08-17-2005, 10:34 PM
No, you'd go to jail eventually.
Kennedy otoh....
Funny, there are about 20 million people in Texas.
One guy shoots a shotgun and gets a visit from the Secret Service....... The other guy defames my country and its symbols.
The ink is still wet on those stories. Your going back a 1/2 century to bash Kennedy.
I'm glad there was a nice story in your local paper about a veteran.
PA.... Can't we honor the dead?
lsbets
08-17-2005, 10:39 PM
I'm glad there was a nice story in your local paper about a veteran.
Hey Elk - that story looks a little familiar. Is it about anyone I know? ;)
ElKabong
08-17-2005, 10:49 PM
Lsbets,
I'm posting it, (w/ your permission if you please). I doubt PA w/ mind if I pasted the whole article since it's about a PA member....who served in Iraq. Twice. Cool write up.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/rockwallrowlett/stories/070805dnrocbronzestar.8409d158.html
In his hometown, he's a hero
Ex-GI's July 4 speech draws goosebumps, admiration, gratitude
08:51 PM CDT on Thursday, July 7, 2005
By LaKISHA LADSON / The Dallas Morning News
Jeffrey Schneider awoke on the Saturday of the Fourth of July weekend
thinking about where he wasn't.
No longer was he in Iraq, looking after the 154 soldiers under his command,
overseeing convoys and literally fighting for his life.
"I think about the guys who are still there and also think I'm lucky to be
here," he said. "The Fourth of July over there is just another day, but
maybe you get a better meal to celebrate the holiday."
During his Equestrian Meadows neighborhood's Independence Day celebration,
Mr. Schneider spoke about the heroes of the American Revolution. But around
Rockwall, where the Bronze Star recipient has addressed several community
groups, he's considered the hero.
"He answered the call to go and serve overseas, and that is something that
is always admirable," said David Peek, president of the Rockwall County
Republican Men's Club.
"It gave me goosebumps," neighbor Bronwen Walsh said of Mr. Schneider's
speech and his attendance at the neighborhood event.
It was his presence that most pleased is wife.
"We had the neighborhood things last year, and I was pretty down about it
because Jeff wasn't home," Meredith Schneider said.
This year, she said, the neighborhood children learned that Independence Day
is about more than fireworks.
"Just having him home with the kids meant the world to us," she said.
Ms. Walsh said she enjoyed watching the Schneiders walking 3-year-old
Benjamin and pushing 10-month-old Rachel Faith in a stroller to the
community barn.
"It's good to see them together again," she said
Mr. Schneider spent 15 months away from home - 13 of them in Iraq - with the
227th Transportation Company from North Carolina.
Multiple missions
Although he had served in Kuwait in 1997 and Bosnia in 1998, this was
different. Then, he was single and living in Fort Hood's military housing.
This time, he was married, with a son at home and another child on the way.
The mission was different, too, involving combat rather than peacekeeping or
deterrence.
As a company commander, he told his troops he had two goals: "We were going
to accomplish every single mission that we were given, and I was going to do
absolutely everything I could to make sure every single one of them got home
to their families."
Despite traveling through some of Iraq's deadliest zones and taking frequent
fire, all of his men made it home.
Mr. Schneider vividly remembers how he and his wife chose their daughter's
middle name. Not long after being blasted out of his cot at 5 a.m. by a
mortar round, he opened an e-mail from Mrs. Schneider suggesting "Faith."
"I thought about what just happened this morning, and my response was,
'That's perfect,' " he said.
After two weeks off to attend his daughter's birth, Mr. Schneider said,
going back was hard - but necessary.
'In harm's way'
"You knew your fellow soldiers - your brothers and sisters in that company -
were still over there, and they were still running missions, and they were
in harm's way, and a part of you feels guilty that you're at home," he said.
The Rockwall neighborhood helped take care of things on the home front.
"I'd get home from work and our grass would be cut and wouldn't know who did
it until after the fact," Mrs. Schneider said.
Neighbors and church members brought food, watched the children and did
whatever else they could. The neighbors' mailboxes were decorated with
yellow ribbons when Mr. Schneider came home on break.
"It was really nice, heartwarming. It made me feel really good that my
family was being looked after, that I knew everything was going to be OK
with my wife, and this way I could focus on my soldiers," said Mr.
Schneider, who now works as a financial adviser.
Humility intact
Before coming home for good in April, and since then, he has related his
soldiers' experiences in the news media.
He said he's sometimes surprised that local residents consider him a hero.
"I'm not," he tells them. "I just did my job, took my soldiers over there
and I brought them home."
Lefty
08-17-2005, 10:50 PM
suff, don't have to go back 50 yrs to defame Kennedy. He shows himself to be the nut he is everytime he speaks. You wanta talk about defaming symbols? Just look to your beloved ACLU.
Lsbets,
Jeffrey Schneider
During his Equestrian Meadows neighborhood's ."
Schneider you son of a bitch..:D You live in Equestrian Meadows? Why did'nt you say so. That is cool.
The Iraq part is ok to.
Lsbets,
"I'm not," he tells them. "I just did my job, took my soldiers over there
and I brought them home."
I am blown away by that article. Floored. Read it three times.
We are one lucky group of people to have you here.
Part of me would like to apologize for acting like such an ass off and on.
That won't happen again. I assure you. Just floored by that piece.
Your an amazing person.
Steve 'StatMan'
08-17-2005, 11:18 PM
Congrats on the article, Jeff/LSBets, but more importantly Thank You Again for all you've done for our country, your fellow soliders, and for those whom your missions have helped abroad.
lsbets
08-17-2005, 11:22 PM
Thanks Suff. I'm honestly just happy that I'll be home on Saturday when my daughter turns one. I may only have known her for 5 months, but she really is Daddy's little girl. You can bet every guy who ever comes knocking at the door to pick her up is going to hear about her middle name, and the story will probably grow over time so that I send the guys on their date with their knees shaking! Having a girl scares me more than combat, but at least she has an older brother to look out for her.
And lets be honest here - I have my ass moments too. Some I regret, some I don't, but, that's me. Most people have that disconnect between their brain and mouth that keeps them from saying things they shouldn't - mine broke when I was about 3, so if I think it, it comes out.
Come on down in October with the minutemen, we'll sit on the border drinking Keystone calling in the illegals. I'll bring my shotgun. :)
lsbets
08-17-2005, 11:24 PM
You live in Equestrian Meadows?
You know what's really funny about that? After I moved here I had to renew my owners license, and the woman at Louisiana Downs had no clue how to spell Equestrian.
Come on down in October with the minutemen, we'll sit on the border drinking Keystone calling in the illegals. I'll bring my shotgun. :)
I'd love to come down....and when I say that...it means I will if I can,,,
BuT I have'nt had a drink in 8 months. When I load up on the Keystone I get like that Koo-Koo Bird in the pick up. He and I may be related I think.
skate
08-18-2005, 02:10 PM
suff;
man that is some incredulous info you have, what with rummy and saddommy shaking hands in 1983/84, wow, oh my, what next.
and the 18 / 20 years olds dying, man thats sure is a first.
hey , we can probably forget all about any real problems, we just have to start crying and "its"all over. never thought of that, thanks.
i figure, i have no problem with those that would like to sit on the fence and let others do the dirty work, but they should stay out of the way, thanks again.
so.cal.fan
08-18-2005, 02:32 PM
lsbets?
It's people like you that will save the world, friend.
Welcome home and thank you so much for your service!
toetoe
08-18-2005, 02:50 PM
Okay, let's try this. Set up a grandstand across from 1600 Pennsylvania Av. Star chanting "IT'S all O-ver. IT'S all O-ver ..." until Johnny comes marching home. What?!? Icka happen!
lsbets
08-20-2005, 08:42 AM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122
Interesting read:
I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.
I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.
The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times portrays Mrs. Sheehan as a distraught mom standing heroically outside the guarded gates of the most powerful and inhumane man on earth, President Bush. Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us. How can we all possess "absolute moral authority" when we hold so many different perspectives?
I don't want that title. I haven't earned that title.
Read the rest, its worth the time.
lsbets
08-20-2005, 09:31 AM
Here's another good one (in a laughable kind of way):
"in a signed article discloses the true colors of the United States as the world's most dangerous state and worst terrorist nation as it is escalating the "anti-terrorist war" worldwide under the pretext of the "elimination of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)" and "combating terrorism". Recalling that the U.S. tops the world list of military spending and arms sale, the article says that the Bush administration, loudmouthed about the "U.S. mightiness" and "strength-all-mighty" theory, has spent a stupendous amount of money each year to massively produce and export all type WMD including nukes.
It goes on:
The U.S. military spending sharply swelled every year: It stood at 310 billion dollars in the fiscal 2001, 343 billion dollars in the fiscal 2002, more than 379 billion dollars in the fiscal 2003 and 401.3 billion dollars in the fiscal 2004.
The U.S. is the biggest exporter of arms in the world. The arms sale by the U.S. munitions monopolies in 2002 reached 13.3 billion dollars or 45.5 percent of the world total arms sale. In 2003 the U.S. signed arms sale contracts worth more than 14.5 billion dollars with other countries. This was 56.7 percent of the world total arms sale.
The U.S. is annually providing Israel with military equipment worth billions of dollars.
The U.S. war-like forces committed military intervention and invasion against other countries including the Persian Gulf War, the Balkan War, the Afghan War and the war of aggression against Iraq by brandishing WMDs which cost a ridiculous amount of money.
The Bush bellicose group is describing those wars of aggression as ones aimed to ensure "peace" and "democracy". But they, in actuality, only increased the vicious cycle of terror and retaliation and brought peaceful countries confusion, bloodshed, disorder and confrontation and discord between countries.
The article calls upon the people who value the sovereignty of their countries and peace and aspire after independent development and social progress to rise up as one in anti-U.S. struggle, keenly aware of the criminal nature of the U.S. imperialists' high-handed military actions and their interference in the internal affairs of other countries committed under the signboard of "elimination of WMDs" and "combating terrorism".
That's gotta be Michael Moore, right? Sure sounds like him. How about the Dallas Peace Group? Sounds like them too. Any other guesses? That is an official news release from North Korea. It definatly sounds like the radical left gets its talking points from the most repressive regime in the world. Wow, they sure do agree on a lot.
ls, this whole thing is just another spin by the wacko-left. Cindy had her meeting with Bush and now the left-wing liars are trying to spin this to the fact that Bush is ignoring a grieving Mother. He is actually ignoring a manipulative political operative, no better than Michael Moore. Franklly, I would applaud Bush if he mooned that group of losers everytime he drove by.
Lefty
08-20-2005, 12:04 PM
She not only had the meeting but she praised the Pres. after the meeting. Now that she's been "absorbed" by the left she has changed her story about the meeting and has resorted to calling the Pres. a killer. She not only does not speak for everyone, she does not even speak for her own family.
Lefty, in my warped sense of humor, I would tell Bush to stop his car today, get out, and ask where she was - he wanted to talk to her!:kiss:
boxcar
08-20-2005, 01:59 PM
lsbets wrote:
That's gotta be Michael Moore, right? Sure sounds like him. How about the Dallas Peace Group? Sounds like them too. Any other guesses? That is an official news release from North Korea. It definatly sounds like the radical left gets its talking points from the most repressive regime in the world. Wow, they sure do agree on a lot.
You conclusion is highly debatable. Methinks it's the other way around. Terrorists and totalitarian states get their talking points from the Extreme Left Wing "America-Is-What's-Wrong-With-The-World" WhackJobs.
Boxcar
The beginning of this thread started with a poem by Cindy Sheehans' daughter, and me wondering why the preznit didn't have the guts to speak with Cindy.
He could have defused the situation. But getting on with his mountain biking, and clearing brush around the ole' homestead had priority.
But low and behold, on March 20, 2005, the preznit rapidly returned to DC from another, yes another crawford vacation so he could intervene in the Terry Schiavo case by signing Republican legislation requiring doctors to restore Schiavo's feeding tube.
Faith based pandering rules the day.
Lefty
08-20-2005, 08:56 PM
hcap, the diff between Terry Shiavo and Sheehan is that Terry did not have the ability to spk for herself.
Light
08-20-2005, 09:26 PM
Cindy may have changed her mind about Bush,but she is entitled to. If you want to hold her to her first position,then you should be fair and hold Bush to his first position for invading Iraq. WMD's. Since Bush has changed his reasons for being in Iraq each time one has been proven false,I don't see a problem with Cindy changing her mind one time.
Secretariat
08-20-2005, 09:28 PM
We've unfortunately seen this stuff before during Nam. Families who have lost ones who want to beleive their child was sacrificed for a noble purpose versus those who belevie their child was lost due to a flawed policy. This will go on to the end of time.
The issue is not so much the right or wrong of Sheehan's vigil. The issue is Bush's lack of ability in "how" to deal with yet another situation. His policy when confronting these kind of things is to wait (or go on vacation) until things explode before he actually deals with it. Had Mr. Bush simply met with this woman briefly he could have defused a situation, and shown himself as a gracious and caring man. Instead, he once again chose stubborness and unwillingness to address the simplest of problems. The man continues to evidence his incompetence for the job and instead chooses to clear brush. It's no wonder they call him "shrub".
Cindy has every right to change her postition, and to protest the war, and to picket Bush's ranch.
What she doesn't have the right to do is pawn herself off as a grieving mother who wants to talk to the president about her son's death -been there done that. Bush did not ignore her, but that is the cover story here. She is there now as a political operative.
Lefty
08-20-2005, 10:27 PM
NO,no, no, no. She reported Bushe's DEMEANOR two diff ways. It's beyond changing her position.
And boys, i'm tired of hearing about the WMD's. The DEms believed Saddam had em too, so the WMD argument is specious. Only one way to defeat terrorists and that's to fight. The Pres realizes this, too bad you have to keep bring up specious arguments, but not surprising, since it's all ya got.
PaceAdvantage
08-20-2005, 10:41 PM
Just went to the website of the organiztion Ms. Sheehan helped start, Gold Star Families for Peace.
You'll enjoy these links:
http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id4.html
http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id120.html
This one seems a bit out of place:
http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id272.html
But this one I fully expected:
https://secure.ga3.org/03/goldstar
Not to sound too callous, but I wonder if this whole thing outside the Bush ranch was nothing more than an elaborate fund raiser.....
Lefty
08-20-2005, 11:08 PM
After all this country has gone through from its birth it's amazing to me that some people still do not realize that peace is never achieved through capitulation but only through victory.
Light
08-20-2005, 11:14 PM
Lefty
Ghandi said that freedom is not given but earned. So he would agree with you. Where I think Ghandi would disagree with you is if you tried to impose "freedom" on another especially while pointing a gun at them.
JustRalph
08-20-2005, 11:26 PM
Cindy has every right to change her postition, and to protest the war, and to picket Bush's ranch.
What she doesn't have the right to do is pawn herself off as a grieving mother who wants to talk to the president about her son's death -been there done that. Bush did not ignore her, but that is the cover story here. She is there now as a political operative.
Can we get a "Bingo!!!" right on Tom!
Secretariat
08-21-2005, 12:14 AM
[QUOTE=Left...And boys, i'm tired of hearing about the WMD's. The DEms believed Saddam had em too, so the WMD argument is specious. ...[/QUOTE]
There is a big difference and a salient one here Lefty. GW "launched a pre-emptive war" based on a "beleif", not one ever based on reliable intelligence, but based on selective intelligence reports in contrast to what some of his own counter-terrorist people in the WH told him.
The issue is "not specious". It goes to the heart of the matter. It is one thing to "beleive" another country may have WMD's, and another to launch an attack based on unsubstantiated evidence or intelligence which was set to adjust to a policy surrounding that beleif.
Bottom line here is the invasion of Iraq took place on Bush's watch, not a Dem's watch. He made the decision, the buck stops there. He made the call that a "beleif" that Hussein "might" have WMD's merited a "pre-emptive invasion" of the country. That is part of his legacy. His priority over the all-out attempt to squash Bin Laden, capture Omar and Zawahari. He will have to live with that whether you agree with his decision or not.
Please don't call his decision "specious". Too many people have lost their lives over this to have it dismissed as "specious". It goes to the crux of where our admin went awry, and how the fundamental differences in this country divided after 911. The invasion of Iraq was promulgated on WMD's. Other reasons were thrown in, but this is the main reason given to Congress, listed in the Downing Street Memos, and is what the UN inspection issue was all about.
Frankly, what worries me more now is the change that has been fostered out of the failure to find caches of WMD's in Iraq after the invasion. That decision was to attempt to paint the war in a new humantiarian light of "democracy" throughout the Mid-East. Bush re-itereated that in his radio address today. Democracies in the mid-east are bought with American taxpayers money and American lives. Most soldiers i beleive were interested more in the security of the United States and avenging 911, than in setting up a Jeffersonian democracy in the middle of Iraq.
The cost of "global democracy" is an insane policy, much like what brought the British Empire down.
On one hand we can afford to spend billions in Iraq, but we do not have the money to stop poppy production in Afghanistan. On one hand we can spend billions in Iraq, but cannot manage a diplomatic agreement with Pakistan to sweep their borders with Afghanistan. On one hand we can spend billions in Iraq which is more than the amount of money it would have cost to buy every driver in this country a hybrid car by now.
"Specious" is not a word I would use Lefty.
Lefty
08-21-2005, 12:45 AM
light, Evidently you do not remember the Iraqui elections where people voted in record numbers even though the terrorists threatened them with death. We're not imposing freedom on anyone but rather giving a helping hand to a people who yearn for freedom and at the same time serving our own best interests because the terrorists are our enemies too, and even though the last Pres refused to face up to his respnsibiloties this one does not.
Lefty
08-21-2005, 12:52 AM
sec, the word is specious. Kerry, when he first started in the primaries said something like, "if you do not believe Saddam has wmd's then don't vote for me." and I paraphrase prob. but that is the essence of what he said.
The world needs more democracy, it is a good thing. People are hungry in the world, not for the lack of food, but for a lack of democracy, as the dictators steal the food from the poor. If libs were the champion of the poor they pretend to be, they would applaud this Pres for his efforts, but they are all phonies and the still ongoing prattle about wmd's is SPECIOUS!
Secretariat
08-21-2005, 01:04 AM
Lefty,
The issue again is not what John Kerry said, or what Bill Clinton beleived, it is on what has happened on THIS watch. You still don't get that. Kerry never backed a "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq, but wanted the UN inspections to continue. A correct decision back up by Bush's own appointed post-war inspectors and which would have been backed by a more "prudent" (using Bush's daddy's term) course rather than an all out costly war. We've debated this point time after time here and it gets tiring ,but never "specious".
I do attach an article by Frank Rich on this Sheehan issue, and a letter from a retired iraqi soldier on the Sheehan issue so that you might "try" to look at it in a different way. Give it a try.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21rich.html?ex=1282276800&en=6c0954bcc1bcb9a0&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082005A.shtml
Lefty
08-21-2005, 01:41 AM
sec, It doesn't matter what the Dems blvd when they blvd the same damn thing Bush did? That's rather nutty and i'm being kind. Saddam lead the inspectors around by the nose, broke 18-19 resolutions, terrorists were training in Iraq, saddam was paying families of homicide bombers and yet you think the inpections should have continued? If Bush had ignored his intelligence reports and Saddam had done something terrible to us you would be hollering for his head. You're doing it anyway so clearly this Pres can't win with you. You follow the nuts Kennedy and Dean and i'll follow this Pres cause he's right.
46zilzal
08-21-2005, 01:57 AM
Lefty
Ghandi said that freedom is not given but earned. So he would agree with you. Where I think Ghandi would disagree with you is if you tried to impose "freedom" on another especially while pointing a gun at them.
EXACTLY
Lefty
08-21-2005, 02:06 AM
sec, the Ny Times lost any semblance of objectivety a long time ago. I wouldn't line my birdcage with it.
As for the 2nd article, I salute all who fight for this country and I do not side with the guy who ran down the crosses, but let's get real; those crosses were brght to the site for purely political reasons.
Sheehan has lied about the President's demeanor in the first meeting and while now calling him a killer she wants a 2nd meeting, a do-over if you will.
Would you meet with such a woman a 2nd time? Of course not.
ElKabong
08-21-2005, 02:16 AM
Had Mr. Bush simply met with this woman briefly he could have defused a situation, and shown himself as a gracious and caring man. Instead, he once again chose stubborness and unwillingness to address the simplest of problems. ...... It's no wonder they call him "shrub".
Sec,
Of all people here, you don't belong in this thread. I asked/ dared/ confronted you to meet me last year and you wouldn't do it. You wouldn't show your face to me. GWB has given Sheehan a face to face already. You can't even do that man to man, but you'll hide behind Cindy Sheehan's skirt if you'd think Bush could look bad for it.
"It's no wonder" I think of you as a "coward". You are what you are.
Lefty
08-21-2005, 02:20 AM
46, EXACTLY WRONG! Our guns are pointed at the terrorists. The Iraquis voted for freedom, it's not being forced upon them.
ElKabong
08-21-2005, 02:25 AM
Why wasn't Cindy Sheehan up front about this all along? :rolleyes:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/br/article/491781/ben-jerrys-founder-pays-pr-firm-mother-fallen-son/
EXCERPTED
Ben and Jerry's founder pays for PR firm for mother of fallen son
by Mark Hand PR Week Worldwire 19 Aug 2005
CRAWFORD, TX - The PR firm working for Cindy Sheehan as she protests outside President Bush's ranch in Texas campaigning over the death of her son killed in Iraq has been paid for by Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry's ice cream.
The 24-hour media attention being lavished upon Sheehan owes as much to the professionals supporting her as it does to the emotional impact of her story.
Fenton Communications is assisting Sheehan, the mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq, to earn media coverage for her vigil. TrueMajority, a nonprofit advocacy group created by Cohen is paying Washington, DC-based Fenton from the $70,000 that the group has raised so far to support Sheehan's protest efforts........
Fenton also worked with Sheehan to publicize candlelight vigils held on Wednesday in 1,672 US cities in sympathy with her action. When Fenton organized a press briefing on Tuesday to discuss the coming vigils, about 100 journalists participated in the teleconference, an unheard of number for a typical Fenton-managed press briefing.
ElKabong
08-21-2005, 02:34 AM
Just went to the website of the organiztion Ms. Sheehan helped start, Gold Star Families for Peace.
You'll enjoy these links:
http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id4.html
http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id120.html
This one seems a bit out of place:
http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id272.html
But this one I fully expected:
https://secure.ga3.org/03/goldstar
Not to sound too callous, but I wonder if this whole thing outside the Bush ranch was nothing more than an elaborate fund raiser.....
PA,
In reply to your last sentence....As each day passes by, it's certainly looking that way. :ThmbDown:
lsbets
08-21-2005, 11:01 AM
While the origional publicity that Cindy Sheehan received was great for her campaign, she has a huge problem. Her own words and actions. Most people don't care if she has a professional staff of PR people and has had one for quite some time. That doesn't matter. She has a point she wants to make and is working hard to do so, so getting funding and professional help is only natural. What her real problem is will be her own words and the people she has chosen to associate with. The more that comes out about what she says and believes, the more mainstream America will no longer view her as a grieving mother who wants answers, but as a woman with a radical agenda that middle America will never support. Read the words of her speeches before Camp Casey, and it is clear that she is way out of the mainstream. Look at the company she has kept. The fact that Cindy Sheehan has stood next to and spoken in support of a woman convicted of aiding terrorists (do your own research here, its not hard to find, Cindy has spoken in support of a woman who has smuggled messages out of jail for Sheik Rachman to his followers) is a PR nightmare for her professional handlers. Her funding will begin to slip away, as the grieving Mom is increasingly perceived as a radical, and she will slowly slip out of the headlines as her backers seek someone else to exploit because instead of good PR, Cindy's own words and actions create bad PR.
JustRalph
08-21-2005, 11:04 AM
Lefty,
The issue again is not what John Kerry said, or what Bill Clinton beleived, it is on what has happened on THIS watch.
and that makes you a duplicitous SOB
and that makes you a duplicitous SOB
....a stench on God's notstrils. :eek: (Thank you, Mr. Will)
46 and Light must either be too young to know better, or their cable service does not pick up reality. It was Sadam who stole the freedom of the Iraqi people. For three decades, he deprived them of what we consider to be self-evident rights. WE went in and took out his regime and are now protecting free Iraqi's while they set up thier own governement. Anyone who thinks the terrorist/insurgents that are causing the problems are average Iraqis is plain stupid. Many of them are foreign fighters, many or the remains of the evil army of SH who want to take back control and resume their rein of terror over helpless people.
George Will wrote an excellabt peice today on tis subject - I saw in the NY Post, it is in the Washington Post, and probably on-line. Makes a ton of sense.
46zilzal
08-21-2005, 08:34 PM
HE was and IS none of our business.
Steve 'StatMan'
08-21-2005, 09:01 PM
"OUR" Zilly?!!! You don't even live in the U.S.A.!!!
He's been the world's problem for the world for the last 20 years! The inspectors were only allowed back into the country because we'd moved our firepower into the area and told him let them back in or else - and he still dicked around with them.
Some of you really a refresher on who the real bad guys are here. It isn't us, and it isn't the average Iraqi whose freedom we're trying to solidly set up. It's the foreign fighters and others that are using domestic violence against their fellow citizens as well as our troups that are trying to force their will on the Iraqi people. We are trying to give all Iraqi's a voice in their future, not just the ones who who are killing their own countrymen!
lsbets
08-21-2005, 09:58 PM
Well said Steve.
lsbets
08-21-2005, 10:08 PM
Here's a good read:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn21.html
"They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as "children." If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee "child" who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing.
I get many e-mails from soldiers in Iraq, and they sound a lot more grown-up than most Ivy League professors and certainly than Maureen Dowd, who writes like she's auditioning for a minor supporting role in ''Sex And The City.''
The infantilization of the military promoted by the left is deeply insulting to America's warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd's purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that "of course" they "support our troops," because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine."
Secretariat
08-21-2005, 10:32 PM
"OUR" Zilly?!!! You don't even live in the U.S.A.!!!
He's been the world's problem for the world for the last 20 years! The inspectors were only allowed back into the country because we'd moved our firepower into the area and told him let them back in or else - and he still dicked around with them.
Some of you really a refresher on who the real bad guys are here. It isn't us, and it isn't the average Iraqi whose freedom we're trying to solidly set up. It's the foreign fighters and others that are using domestic violence against their fellow citizens as well as our troups that are trying to force their will on the Iraqi people. We are trying to give all Iraqi's a voice in their future, not just the ones who who are killing their own countrymen!
I think we know who the bad guys are. In fact there are lots of bad guys all over the world from North Korea to Northern Uganda, and freedom does not even remotely exist in those places, yet we do nothing.
I guess one has to ask a few core questions (a) was and is this war in Iraq to set up a democracy? and, if so, what costs are we willing to entail both in carnage and money? (b) will a democracy in Iraq stop the spread of terrorism? This is speculation. At this point the attempt to set up a democracy has increased the amount of worldwide terrorism according to the State Dept. (c) Did inspections turn up anything worth constituting a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and did it deter the terrorists? Easy answer here. (d) Have the forces behind the WTC bombing been captured and/or neutralized? (e) Have they sought refuge in neighboring countries such as Iran and Pakistan? Didn't Bush say that those countries that harbor the terrorists will be dealt with the same as the terrorists?
Now the big ones. (f) Would a US withdrawal in Iraq (such as Nam) lead to a civil war within Iraq? Most likely. (g) Would the US staying four more years in Iraq lead to a civil war within Iraq? Very Possible. (h) Would the US staying in Iraq hasten the capture of Osama Bin Laden? (i) Would a constitution that places Islam as its primary guiding principle be worth the loss of American lives that have occurred? (j) Speculation - "if" (and let's all hope not), "if" an attack takes place in America such as occurred in Britain, will strikes against the insurgency in Iraq help to prevent such attacks and help deter the perpetrators?
I guess I see this as not a good guy/bad guy thing Steve. I see this as vengenance upon those who got away with attacking our nation on 911, namely Al Queda led by Bin Laden. I do not see it as creating an Iraqi Islamic democracy. Until the poppy fields are eradicated in Afghanistan, and the Iranian and Pakistan borders swept of terrorists, we have not yet begun the fight. Iraq is and remains a diversion from the 911 mission. The problem is it has now become a partisan issue with many Repubs (Chuck Hagel and a few excepted such as the Freedom Fries guy from NC) who stubbornly won't concede the error. It took a*hole McNamara forty years to admit he was wrong, so I'm not surprised. Admitting you were wrong takes a lot of courage.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050822/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
.....
"Stay the course is not a policy. By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq... we're not winning."
-- above quote by Chuck Hagel, GOP Senator (winner of two purple hearts in Nam - well, we'll see about that when the Swift Boaters hear this quote of his)
lsbets
08-21-2005, 10:40 PM
Sec, say what you want, but I'm not attacking the man's life 30 or 40 years ago, but I will say about his statement:
By any standard, when people in the military evaluate Chuck Hagels' comment that we are not winning the war, it is an idiotic and foolish statement and the man owes an apology to every man and woman in uniform today.
Call us swift boaters or whatever the hell you want, but I know of no one who I know personally and no one with any credibility who I have heard speak that has served in Iraq who would say we are losing the war. That is simply an idiotic statement to make. I agree with what Gen Casey said - we can't lose the war militarily, but we can lose it politically if we lose the support of the people at home.
Steve 'StatMan'
08-22-2005, 12:00 AM
(c) Did inspections turn up anything worth constituting a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and did it deter the terrorists? Easy answer here.
This one I can answer. The inspections did have them destroying some things, and merely tagging other items, which could still have been used later had they no longer cared what the U.S. or the U.N. would do if they used those weapons.
To me, it was Saddam and his governments evasivness, blowing off of the inspectors, the tossing them out before the work was done, before the things we were concerned about were proven to our satisfaction were dismantled and destroyed. That these things, like the germ and chemical components, could be stored anywhere, and he had so many 'palaces' on large plots of land that he kept insisting and demanding were NOT to be inspected, and then all kinds of trucks would supposedly be going in and out - who knows what was taken out. That he threw the U.N. inspectors out before the job was complete - one of the biggest conditions for our ceasing fire during the First Gulf War.
Those actions, to me, were those of someone very guilty to me. He told us he'd gotten rid of his WMD's, but he refused to prove it - to the U.S. as well as the U.N.'s satisfaction. He wanted his neighbors like Iran to still fear that he had WMD's so that they wouldn't invade Iraq themselves. He firery rhetoric claimed the most awful, hideous death would await our soldier if we invaded (as if he would use those WMD's, and had chemical protection suits in his own troops bunkers.) That things weren't found despite the inteligence - was it moved and hidden, merely disassembled, or fully destoyed, we can't find proof. Did they destroy all their own intelligence, and make their scientists and upcoming students FORGET how to make WMD's? Highly doubtful.
Now, having successfully going into all his palaces, now we know the WMD's are not there. It is also clear that his ploy about the inspections of the palaces, if nothing else, was to hide how many Billions he and his sons had bilked from the people of Iraq. If nothing else, we did to Saddam what the people who had to live under him longed to do but were under too strong of control to accomplish. Did Iraqi disdents lie, or trump up their stories, and paint a far more serious picture of Saddam and his WMD's to induce us into finally invading and deposing Saddam, something that truly could not have been done on their own? Time will tell.
But if Saddam wanted to prove to the world he had no WMD's, he would have destoyed them all in front of the eyes of the world - and the U.N. would have had no logical choice but to defend a compliant Iraq against threats from the Iran's of the world should this have rendered them truly defensless against and aggressive neighbor. But he didn't do that, did he. Worst case, the stuff is just separted, in diffferent forms, multi-use equipment, or moved elsewhere, to Syria or elsewhere. Simplest case - the U.S. called the bluff of the Middle East's biggest Boogeyman, because the rest of the world was either making too many Billions from him in the Oil For Food fraud he was pulling, or they were just to scared, complacent, or too neutral to make and organized effort and do something.
Now we're getting scoffed at because at the very least, we unmasked the Boogeyman? When the others should have been there with us, sharing the expense and the risk, with the region and the world better off without Saddam? No. The world owes a huge debt of gratitude to the U.S. and the Coalition forces, and the brave Men and Women of our armed forces, and those of the Coaliton and the Iraqi's who have come forward to take the reigns of their new country.
But the more naysaying, the more plublicy expressed doubts by partisan politicans and special interests, the more the media showcases Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and other type of movements that just seem to suggest that our nation any day now will just have to give up and pull out of Iraq. Then the more likely the political and religious forces in Iraq will see this and say to themselves "Why should we compromise? Why should we work together? They're going to pull out, they aren't serious, surely a new U.S. Admininstration will pull out of here, and we can fight for our own way and overtake the others" The insurgents and foreign fighters will have confidence, saying to themselves once again "Just a few more months of hiding in basements & caves, just a few more good kills of American Soldiers and they'll give up, and go home, and we can rule Iraq, and these people can forget all about that freedom thing - they'll do what WE want, because We have the guns, WE have the might, WE will have their fear, and WE will rule, not the people".
Worst case, Saddam's bluff got us there. If these bad guys end up with control of Iraq, yes, you won't see that Iraq selling oil to the U.S. You will see them seeking vengance on us. And we WILL end up having to go back a third time.
Are there a lot more places that need our attention? Hell yes. That's why I'm so dissapointed in the non-coalition countries, letting us mostly pay for what the world should have done. They will also be slow to help or do anything about anywhere else.
The European's don't like us? They're mad at us? What're they going to do, invade us? Hell, they can't even agree on going to war against Saddam Hussein! They sure as hell aren't going to agree or be willing to do anything against us!
Secretariat
08-22-2005, 01:49 AM
Sec, say what you want, but I'm not attacking the man's life 30 or 40 years ago, but I will say about his statement:
By any standard, when people in the military evaluate Chuck Hagels' comment that we are not winning the war, it is an idiotic and foolish statement and the man owes an apology to every man and woman in uniform today.
Call us swift boaters or whatever the hell you want, but I know of no one who I know personally and no one with any credibility who I have heard speak that has served in Iraq who would say we are losing the war. That is simply an idiotic statement to make. I agree with what Gen Casey said - we can't lose the war militarily, but we can lose it politically if we lose the support of the people at home.
Well Paul Hackett has credibility. I also beleive Chuck's credentials give him credibility.
These are not the quotes of Michael Moore, but of a conservative Republican senator from Nebraska.
Hagel added, “It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won’t be four years. We need to be out.”
“I don’t know where he’s going to get these troops” Hagel said. “There won’t be any National Guard left..no Army Reserve left…there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years.”
“What I think the White House does not yet understand – and some of my colleagues- the dam has broke on this policy” Hagel said. “The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are coming together.”
Hagel said “stay the course” is not a policy. “By any standard, when you analyze 2 ½ years in Iraq…we’re not winning.”
“We should start figuring out how we get out of there.” Hagel said
Chuck Hagel, GOP Senator, Nebraska, two purple hearts Vietnam, Episcopalian, former Veterans Administration deputy adminstator in Reagan admin, and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov
Secretariat
08-22-2005, 02:06 AM
Here's a few more:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012405Y.shtml
Light
08-22-2005, 02:23 AM
light, Evidently you do not remember the Iraqui elections where people voted in record numbers even though the terrorists threatened them with death. We're not imposing freedom on anyone but rather giving a helping hand to a people who yearn for freedom and at the same time serving our own best interests because the terrorists are our enemies too, and even though the last Pres refused to face up to his respnsibiloties this one does not.
Delusional. You don't understand the situation in Iraq. You only understand what you want to understand and disregard the rest.
lsbets
08-22-2005, 08:26 AM
Sec, I thought you might bring up Paul Hackett, and I am glad you did. I'm laughing my ass off right now, because you took the bait so quickly. Hehe, you make this easy. Because he did not say we are losing, he said he didn't hink we should have gone in - big difference. The other thing he said - too many guys like you want us to lose because Bush is the President. Let that sink in Sec, because those words came from a guy you seem to really look up to, and I bet he would throw you in with the crowd that wants us to lose.
I don't give a crap about Hagel's resume. It doesn't change what I said, and what you cannot refute. No one from the military with any credibility that I have talked to or seen speak would agree when he says we are losing. And you cannot refute that, as much as you want to.
Lefty
08-22-2005, 11:42 AM
light, so lines of people, even though threatened with death, waiting to vote for freedom, is just a delusion of mine? I could have sworn it happened!
light, so lines of people, even though threatened with death, waiting to vote for freedom, is just a delusion of mine? I could have sworn it happened!
Lefty,
there are medications which will help you with your delusions, contact Rush, he knows drugs. :D :D :D
Secretariat
08-22-2005, 12:42 PM
Sec, I thought you might bring up Paul Hackett, and I am glad you did. I'm laughing my ass off right now, because you took the bait so quickly. Hehe, you make this easy. Because he did not say we are losing, he said he didn't hink we should have gone in - big difference. The other thing he said - too many guys like you want us to lose because Bush is the President. Let that sink in Sec, because those words came from a guy you seem to really look up to, and I bet he would throw you in with the crowd that wants us to lose.
I don't give a crap about Hagel's resume. It doesn't change what I said, and what you cannot refute. No one from the military with any credibility that I have talked to or seen speak would agree when he says we are losing. And you cannot refute that, as much as you want to.
I'm very happy to bring up Paul Hackett's "credibility" at any time or Corporal Huze's or Senator Hagel's.
On Hackett, "A former member of the state Senate, Schmidt said she shares the "moral values" of the district, including support for President Bush''s handling of the war in Iraq, while Hackett at one point described Bush as the biggest threat facing the nation and even referred to the president as "that SOB in the White House."
On Hackett: Hackett – "..who called the president a "chicken hawk for not going to Vietnam" and criticized the president's war policy and his “Bring 'em on" statement"
On Hackett: On Iraq, Hackett’s stance may seem surprising. “I disagreed with the war,” he says, calling it “a diversion from the real war on terror.”
I find all of those statements by him "credible".
As to Hagel I'm sorry one more conservative has seen the light, and you don't care about his credentials. Is Limpballs more to your liking in terms of credibility? I certainly hope not.
And as to Coporal Huze...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012405Y.shtml
It's not about taking bait or crap like that. It's about what what Hacektt said, "the war in Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror." He's exactly right.
lsbets
08-22-2005, 01:25 PM
So Sec, once again we are back to you cannot refute what I said, yet you still try to argue the point. Either you can't read and don't know what I said, or you are a masochist. Which is it? I said that no one I know and no one with any credibility who has served in Iraq agrees with Hagel's statement that we are losing. Your response - linking to guys who say they are opposed to the war. How does opposed mean losing? Do you use a different dictionary than the rest of us? Is there a Webster's for the hyper partisan hack?
Do you agree with Hackett when he says guys like you want us to lose in Iraq?
Where did Hackett say we are losing? You still haven't shown me that. Because he didn't. Did I question Hackett's credibility? No, and I agree with the way he views guys like you.
None of the people you linked to said what Hagel did - that we are losing. They said they were against the war. Okay, fine. You still cannot refute what I said.
I don't give a rat's ass about Hagel's resume or Limbaugh's or anyone else. When someone is wrong, they are wrong, plain and simple. If I felt like playing the "my opinion means more than so and so's because I have more medals game" it would be meaningless. My opinion doesn't mean any more or any less because of whatever medals I may have received in the Army.
What seems to give you fits is that the guys on the ground don't agree with you. The guys on the ground certainly don't agree that we are losing. It was simply an idiotic statement for Hagel to make. I'm not talking about anything else that he said, only that one statement. It was ridiculous, and in your as long as it looks bad for Bush I agree with it mindset, you are willing to disregard what the guys who actually fight the war have to say, and you cannot comprehend what a ridiculous statement it is.
Lefty
08-22-2005, 01:36 PM
lbj, you and light just don't seem to remember that Iraqui election and then you call me delusional? My, My.
lsbets, great post. I'll take the word of the guys on the ground, who are actually fighting this war, anytime. Thanks to you all.
It is rumored that Hagel has aspirations to run for Pres. Perhaps he's trying to cozy up to the big lib media.
Lefty,
You were the one that called yourself delusional. I merely agreed and offered advice on how to handle your problems. :D :D :D
Lefty
08-22-2005, 02:02 PM
lbj, your reading skills have gotten worse.
If there were no elections in Iraq then I would be delusional. Obviously there were, but you and light don't seem to think so. There's delusion on this board, but it's not me, pal.
Steve 'StatMan'
08-22-2005, 02:22 PM
light, so lines of people, even though threatened with death, waiting to vote for freedom, is just a delusion of mine? I could have sworn it happened!
Yes! And does everyone remember the last Iraqi Election under Saddam Hussein? A few months, or perhaps a year before the our invasion. Where Saddam had every elligible voter march to the polls, and proudly proclaimed that EVERY single voter voted for him, that NO ONE cast a single 'other' or 'no confidence' vote, and proudly pointed out that no U.S. President could claim a 100% margin of victory. Yeah, sure, they all wanted Saddam and that government as their leaders. Well, those that wanted themselves and their relatives to continue living were willing to 'vote' that way. :rolleyes:
Secretariat
08-22-2005, 03:06 PM
So Sec, once again we are back to you cannot refute what I said, yet you still try to argue the point. Either you can't read and don't know what I said, or you are a masochist. Which is it? I said that no one I know and no one with any credibility who has served in Iraq agrees with Hagel's statement that we are losing. Your response - linking to guys who say they are opposed to the war. How does opposed mean losing? Do you use a different dictionary than the rest of us? Is there a Webster's for the hyper partisan hack?
Do you agree with Hackett when he says guys like you want us to lose in Iraq?
Where did Hackett say we are losing? You still haven't shown me that. Because he didn't. Did I question Hackett's credibility? No, and I agree with the way he views guys like you.
None of the people you linked to said what Hagel did - that we are losing. They said they were against the war. Okay, fine. You still cannot refute what I said.
I don't give a rat's ass about Hagel's resume or Limbaugh's or anyone else. When someone is wrong, they are wrong, plain and simple. If I felt like playing the "my opinion means more than so and so's because I have more medals game" it would be meaningless. My opinion doesn't mean any more or any less because of whatever medals I may have received in the Army.
What seems to give you fits is that the guys on the ground don't agree with you. The guys on the ground certainly don't agree that we are losing. It was simply an idiotic statement for Hagel to make. I'm not talking about anything else that he said, only that one statement. It was ridiculous, and in your as long as it looks bad for Bush I agree with it mindset, you are willing to disregard what the guys who actually fight the war have to say, and you cannot comprehend what a ridiculous statement it is.
Isbets,
You chide my criticism of Bush’s Iraq War policy, but you seem to have blinders on to anything that is critical of Bush. You paint me as someone who hates everything Bush has done, but I’ve posted examples previously of things I’ve approved that he’s done including the invasion of Afghansitan. However, when it comes to the Iraq War, I agree with Hackett that the war is a “diversion on the war on terror.” I’ve said that all along. I simply said I consider Hackett “credible”, and I consider Hagel “credible”. Go back to my post and read what I said. You want to isolate this to Hagel’s one comment that we are losing the war. Personally, I take his comment in the same context as Hackett’s “that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror.”
But there are soldiers in Iraq who disagree with you directly apparently such as Leonard Clark:
“The leadership says we’re winning the war, that Hagel and the others are wrong. I hate to tell you this. Mr. Hagel and Mr. Kennedy are right. We are losing. This IS a quagmire….Almost every soldier I talk to says we’re losing…
Every soldier who dies now is a NEEDLESS DEATH..Including very conservative soldiers who are diehard Republicans …About those who say that objections lower the morale of soldiers: We are calling our families back home and telling them …this is a fundraiser for Halliburton, KBR…”:
By Leonard Clark, 860th MP CO, AZ Army National Guard.
http://www.notinourname.net/gi-special/3/b72.pdf
Or Andrew Balthazar on Moore’s book Will They Ever Trust Us Again: on emails from many soldiers in Iraq.
I am not an alleged soldier., October 5, 2004
Reviewer: Andrew Balthazor "Iraqi War Vet" (Houston, TX USA) - See all my reviews
I am not an alleged soldier. I did write an email to Michael Moore, and gave him express permission to use portions of my email in this book. I felt compelled to respond to the reviewer who implied that I am not a real veteran of the Iraqi war and the 'war on terrorism.'
I wrote a letter to Mr. Moore after I returned from Iraq because when I was sent to Iraq in March 2003 and throughout my ten months of service in Baghdad I was extremely upset at fighting a war that was not necessary. When I and my comrades signed up for the Armed Forces we knew war was a possibility, but we trusted that our government and our leaders would only call upon us to risk our lives if war was absolutely necessary and only as a last resort. The Iraq war was not absolutely necessary and was not waged as a measure of last resort. Mr. Moore's recent documentary seemed to echo my sentiment, so I wrote him with some of my thoughts. You will now find some of these thoughts in his book.
Please at least flip through this book in the bookstore, if you can find it. We are real soldiers, and we are really upset at being used in a war that shouldn't be. I wouldn't expect the book to be filled with those soldiers and officers who support the war; generally, a lot of us at one point or another have had to convince ourselves that the war is necessary and good, which is sometimes the only way to keep yourself going. What you will see in the book are those us of who have stopped lying to ourselves, those of us who are now home, and some of us who were lucky enough to get out of the military so we can stop being pawns in a game we don't belong in.
I was lucky to find my way out of the military through special exceptions to stop loss policies, but many members of the military are looking at endless deployments with little time at home with their families; our military is stretched extremely thin, and I am very concerned that if we as a country ever really need the might of our military it won't be there for us.
-Andrew Balthazor
Isbets, I respect any soldier’s service, and understand that feeling of the need to win. In fact we do need to win the war, but terrorism is expanding according to the State Department, more soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan this year than since 2001, wounded claims have been skyrocketing at the VA, veterans are speaking out more and more, recrutiment is down, Islam is going to be at the heart of the Iraqi constitution, the Kurds want the ability secede, the Shiites want a southern autonomous religious area, all this while Al Queda has attacked directly in London. The coalition of the unwilling seems to be unraveling as oOther nations have begun pulling out of Iraq such as the Italians and Poles next.
Is, from your post it seems your focus is on trying to “win” a debate on some small point, and then glory in someone “taking the bait”. Not sure I understand that kind of pea-shooting. Frankly, I’m not into that kind of crap. I speak honestly and from the heart, not into political games. I’m thinking Hagel may very well be the GOP nominee for president in 2008. But I figure it’ll be Rush or Newt.
Light
08-22-2005, 03:28 PM
light, so lines of people, even though threatened with death, waiting to vote for freedom, is just a delusion of mine? I could have sworn it happened!
What is delusional,is you think we are there to bring freedom to Iraqi's. Remember WMD's were the reason stated by the President to Congress for invading Iraq. Not "freedom" for Iraqi's. That was a lie and so are the subsequent excuses up till today. Bush can come up with a new reason tomorrow about why we are in Iraq,and you'll be the first one to buy it. You don't think independently of the admisnistration's policy in Iraq.People dying for lies is not a cause for concern for you because you want to believe the President.Your mind is closed to reality in Iraq and no conversing with you will change that unless the president tells you otherwise.You are a mass produced sheep.
lsbets
08-22-2005, 03:29 PM
Okay Sec, you came up with one soldier who says we are losing. He also says he is about to be arrested and held as a "political prisoner". Okay, whatever.
Edit - Leonard's blog site is down. It was put up by a friend of his who wanted to help a "democratic activist". Now his friend who ran the blog no longer wants his name associated with it. Interesting.
Do you agree with Paul Hackett when he says too many guys like you want us to lose simply because Bush is President? You still have not answered that question.
And thanks for the funniest line I have seen anyone post here - that you post honsetly and from the heart and are not into political games. Come on, even you don't believe that.
46zilzal
08-22-2005, 03:32 PM
You are a mass produced sheep.
nailed it on the head
46zilzal
08-22-2005, 03:53 PM
"OUR" Zilly?!!! You don't even live in the U.S.A.!!!
An American citizen, LIVING ANYWHERE ON EARTH, has a say in his country's affairs
lsbets
08-22-2005, 03:58 PM
An American citizen, LIVING ANYWHERE ON EARTH, has a say in his country's affairs
I thought you were neutral - shouldn't matter to you either way.
46zilzal
08-22-2005, 04:17 PM
I thought you were neutral - shouldn't matter to you either way.
Still am, but have NEVER given up citizenship...remember that.
Lefty
08-22-2005, 04:23 PM
light, so if i agree with the pres. i'm a sheep and a delusional one at that. What's delusional is you on the left who blve Saddam had no wmd's and now want to totally discount that all the dems you admire blve he had em too. Just because Saddam was astute enough to get rid of most of them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Ask the Kurds. We went in there to get rid of the wmd's and guess what, a war broke out. Now we're in it, and while we're at it we're helping the Iraquis attain their freedom. Isn't your mind big enough to encompass multiple reasons for being in Iraq? Guess not.
Seems like the left has redefined patriotism: Anybody that disagrees with Bush is now considered a patriot by the left.
46zilzal
08-22-2005, 04:25 PM
light, so if i agree with the pres. .
You should feel just like salad dressing over rutabags as this crazed SUN GOD thinks his ORDAINED position is RIGHT.
Lsbets,
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/rockwallrowlett/stories/070805dnrocbronzestar.8409d158.html
In his hometown, he's a hero
Ex-GI's July 4 speech draws goosebumps, admiration, gratitude
08:51 PM CDT on Thursday, July 7, 2005
By LaKISHA LADSON / The Dallas Morning News
Jeffrey Schneider awoke on the Saturday of the Fourth of July weekend
thinking about where he wasn't.
No longer was he in Iraq, looking after the 154 soldiers under his command,
overseeing convoys and literally fighting for his life.
"I think about the guys who are still there and also think I'm lucky to be
here," he said. "The Fourth of July over there is just another day, but
maybe you get a better meal to celebrate the holiday."
During his Equestrian Meadows neighborhood's Independence Day celebration,
Mr. Schneider spoke about the heroes of the American Revolution. But around
Rockwall, where the Bronze Star recipient has addressed several community
groups, he's considered the hero.
"He answered the call to go and serve overseas, and that is something that
is always admirable," said David Peek, president of the Rockwall County
Republican Men's Club.
"It gave me goosebumps," neighbor Bronwen Walsh said of Mr. Schneider's
speech and his attendance at the neighborhood event.
It was his presence that most pleased is wife.
"We had the neighborhood things last year, and I was pretty down about it
because Jeff wasn't home," Meredith Schneider said.
This year, she said, the neighborhood children learned that Independence Day
is about more than fireworks.
"Just having him home with the kids meant the world to us," she said.
Ms. Walsh said she enjoyed watching the Schneiders walking 3-year-old
Benjamin and pushing 10-month-old Rachel Faith in a stroller to the
community barn.
"It's good to see them together again," she said
Mr. Schneider spent 15 months away from home - 13 of them in Iraq - with the
227th Transportation Company from North Carolina.
Multiple missions
Although he had served in Kuwait in 1997 and Bosnia in 1998, this was
different. Then, he was single and living in Fort Hood's military housing.
This time, he was married, with a son at home and another child on the way.
The mission was different, too, involving combat rather than peacekeeping or
deterrence.
As a company commander, he told his troops he had two goals: "We were going
to accomplish every single mission that we were given, and I was going to do
absolutely everything I could to make sure every single one of them got home
to their families."
Despite traveling through some of Iraq's deadliest zones and taking frequent
fire, all of his men made it home.
Mr. Schneider vividly remembers how he and his wife chose their daughter's
middle name. Not long after being blasted out of his cot at 5 a.m. by a
mortar round, he opened an e-mail from Mrs. Schneider suggesting "Faith."
"I thought about what just happened this morning, and my response was,
'That's perfect,' " he said.
After two weeks off to attend his daughter's birth, Mr. Schneider said,
going back was hard - but necessary.
'In harm's way'
"You knew your fellow soldiers - your brothers and sisters in that company -
were still over there, and they were still running missions, and they were
in harm's way, and a part of you feels guilty that you're at home," he said.
The Rockwall neighborhood helped take care of things on the home front.
"I'd get home from work and our grass would be cut and wouldn't know who did
it until after the fact," Mrs. Schneider said.
Neighbors and church members brought food, watched the children and did
whatever else they could. The neighbors' mailboxes were decorated with
yellow ribbons when Mr. Schneider came home on break.
"It was really nice, heartwarming. It made me feel really good that my
family was being looked after, that I knew everything was going to be OK
with my wife, and this way I could focus on my soldiers," said Mr.
Schneider, who now works as a financial adviser.
Humility intact
Before coming home for good in April, and since then, he has related his
soldiers' experiences in the news media.
He said he's sometimes surprised that local residents consider him a hero.
"I'm not," he tells them. "I just did my job, took my soldiers over there
and I brought them home."
My idealogical comrades.. Did You see this? I know you did. Regardless what you think of George Bush or Iraq. Don't be busting Isbets balls. He's earned the right to a whole lot of respect around here.... and further...Show a litte smarts and realize that the guy knows things we can't see on TV or Newspapers.
More importanty... Forget the mowing the lawn shit... I do that for guys in the can. Isbets laid in a cot knowing his odds of getting his head blown off were good... While his Pregnant wife and little child were home alone. He led 150 men into battle and brought them all home. Don't f*** with him...it makes you appear stupid. Wise up. He's a Goddamn Hero.
I think Iraq's a mess... But I'm not going to tell him that (anymore)
Delusional. You don't understand the situation in Iraq. You only understand what you want to understand and disregard the rest.
No, it is you. Talk to soldiers, not left-wing-zombies for facts. We are winning. The terrorists have failed to stop the move towards a constitution, the elections, the democratic process. They are failing to stop anyone.
You also have a short memory - WMD was only part of the package. What did you think would happen if we went in? You did not see this process that is taking place now occurring? You though we would go in, blow them to kingdom come and then leave? That wasn't Bush, that was ME. :rolleyes:
Suppose we had found WMD...just waht do you think would be different today?
And btw - we DID get the nukes from Kadaffy - that we would not have had we not captured SH. Do you dispute that those nukes would have found their way to terrorists?
Coffee's on .....can't you smell it?:bang:
You should feel just like salad dressing over rutabags as this crazed SUN GOD thinks his ORDAINED position is RIGHT.
Ordained? No.
Elected.
I can see how you are not familiar with the word. :D
lsbets
08-22-2005, 05:03 PM
I think Iraq's a mess... But I'm not going to tell him that (anymore)
Suff - tell me its a mess all you want. That's a lot different than saying we're losing. I know a lot of guys who would agree its a mess, and in many ways I think its a mess. Its a war, and by definition a war is a mess. I don't care when people say they oppose the war or they want us out now or they think we should do x,y, or z differently. I care when people say stupid shit simply for political reasons. While you and I disagree on an awful lot, you don't take a position simply because Bush has the opposite position, you take one because you believe its right. I can respect that even when I disagree with you.
Suff - tell me its a mess all you want. .
Pm'd you on this
46zilzal
08-22-2005, 05:57 PM
what does pm'd mean?
what does pm'd mean?
Its an electronic secret ray gun that makes your Dick get bigger.
No j/k "private messaged"
Secretariat
08-22-2005, 08:58 PM
Do you agree with Paul Hackett when he says too many guys like you want us to lose simply because Bush is President? You still have not answered that question.
I got news for you, I know of no one who WANTS us to lose, and I didn't see Hackett mentioning my name, perhaps you have a link ...
The issue as Hagel contends is..we are losing...not that we want to lose...
You still don't get it. Hackett contends the war in Iraq was a mistake, "a diversion on the war on terror." Hagel agrees. These are not far left wackos, but men with excellent service records, unlike our current commander in chief.
I realize you are entenched in your position as a rah-rah pro-Bush can do no wrong kind of a guy, but please don't try to characterize Paul Hackett's statements as speaking about me as someone who wants us to lose the war and you know that's totally disingenious.
You actually beleive that someone like myself who votes Democratic wants us to lose the war on terror? The truth is the exact opposite. I just have never beleived the solution lies in setting up an Islamic democracy. A part of me understands your POV as you were there. I get that. It's tough to let go of that. But I truly beleive history will view Bush's Iraq decision as a mistake, and as Hackett says, "a diversion on the war on terror."
But stop distorting the words of Hackett to buffer Bush's decisions and use them to paint me as someone who WANTS to LOSE the war. That's NOT what he's saying if you bother to read his speeches. He's saying the current policy is flawed, flat out wrong and diverting us from the true enemy. Hagel goes further saying we're losing in Iraq.
Again these are not Blue State liberals, but a Red State Conservative and a guy who was in Fallujah.
lsbets
08-22-2005, 09:04 PM
But stop distorting the words of Hackett to buffer Bush's decisions and use them to paint me as someone who WANTS to LOSE the war. That's NOT what he's saying if you bother to read his speeches.
"And too many liberals who opposed the war want to see the president’s Iraq policy fail."
That's from Paul Hackett's web site. I don't think he could be more clear.
I don't get it? That's friggin hysterical. You can say I'm rah rah pro Bush he can do no wrong - you almost have to - because you cannot deal with what the vast majority of soldiers who have been there have to say.
Tell me again how I don't get it, that's awesome coming from you. You should have your own comedy special.
lsbets
08-22-2005, 09:07 PM
A part of me understands your POV as you were there. I get that. It's tough to let go of that.
Does that sound to anyone else like the reference to "children"? Pat the poor soldiers on the head and pity them - they are too foolish and immature to know the truth of what they did and what they saw.
Lefty
08-22-2005, 09:25 PM
sec says, Quote: Quote:
I got news for you, I know of no one who WANTS us to lose
From listening to libs and reading them here, sec, you coulda fooled me. Maybe you don't want us to lose, sec, but many do. We're not losing, and I base this view on listening lsbets and others that arre there in Iraq. But even if we were, getting out sure not the answer. That would be playing right in the terrorists hands. The teroorsists do not want democracy in Iraq, why do you think they are fighting so desperately?
Secretariat
08-22-2005, 09:31 PM
"And too many liberals who opposed the war want to see the president’s Iraq policy fail."
That's from Paul Hackett's web site. I don't think he could be more clear.
I don't get it? That's friggin hysterical. You can say I'm rah rah pro Bush he can do no wrong - you almost have to - because you cannot deal with what the vast majority of soldiers who have been there have to say.
Tell me again how I don't get it, that's awesome coming from you. You should have your own comedy special.
And so you make that leap that Hackett was talking about me from that comment? Hackett says "too many liberals", Sec is a liberal, ergo Hackett means Sec. Not the best syllogistic logic Is...
Suff asked us to give you a break, I was trying to do so by saying I understand your POV. But OK, you view that as "pity". Fine.
When I say you don't get it, I mean it. You see only the aspect of your own personal combat, and not the larger picture. You don't understand what Hagel is saying. You appear to read it as the troops are doing a bad job. That's not what he's saying. He's not saying soldiers are not doing their job, or soldiers coming home are unpatriotic or any such thing. He says "we're losing the war." Why? Why, would a conservative GOP senator with two purple hearts, and a distingusihed military record say that from a Red State? Honestly, Why? You dismiss it as you don't care about his resume which is an evasion. It makes him quite qualifed or credible. He's been to Iraq. He serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is well respected in his party and I've seen Bush embrace him. He didn't say that because this soldier said it, or that soldier said it. He's saying it because (a) terrorism is expanding and (b) it's costing us a lot of frigging money and diverting us away from the war on terror..
I didn't even bring up the costs because no one here wants to hear that ...it's always "whatever it costs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/opinion/20bilmes.html
"...if the American military presence in the region lasts another five years, the total outlay for the war could stretch to more than $1.3 trillion, or $11,300 for every household in the United States."
"...the biggest long-term costs are disability and health payments for returning troops, which will be incurred even if hostilities were to stop tomorrow. The United States currently pays more than $2 billion in disability claims per year for 159,000 veterans of the 1991 gulf war, even though that conflict lasted only five weeks, with 148 dead and 467 wounded. Even assuming that the 525,000 American troops who have so far served in Iraq and Afghanistan will require treatment only on the same scale as their predecessors from the gulf war, these payments are likely to run at $7 billion a year for the next 45 years."
"...All of this spending will need to be financed by adding to the federal debt. Extra interest payments will total $200 billion or more even if the borrowing is repaid quickly."
The war in Iraq is being lost not because of the fault of soldiers. This is what I mean by you don't get it. It is being lost because it is a war that is NOT helping us stop the war on terror. It is NOT and has NOT got us closer to Bin Laden. It is NOT stopping attacks in Britain. It is NOT reducing the deficit so that we can become a more secure nation, but enlarging it. It is swelling the VA support limits long term.
And for what? This is what I am interested in Isbets. This is the question I have for you.
What exactly are we going to get out of Iraq for all of this, and is the pricetag worth it?
lsbets
08-22-2005, 09:43 PM
I understand exactly what Hagel is saying and I say he is wrong. I know he is wrong. It seems to offend you that I say he is wrong. I don't read it as the troops are doing a bad job, I read it as we're losing. He's wrong. How much more clear can I be? So, you say I don't see the big picture. I guess no one that I know sees the big picture either. I guess only the people you agree with see the big picture. I see now - Sec knows more about the big picture than I do and more than anyone I know who has served over there. :faint: I must have imagined all of the big picture things that I saw when I was there. I must imagine what I hear from my friends. Hey, maybe I'm delusional. Sec, can you please show me the truth? :lol: :lol: :lol:
lsbets
08-22-2005, 10:15 PM
Here's the content of a talk that the 1st Cav Div commander gave at an AUSA dinner after they redeployed this spring. I guess he didn't see the big picture either, maybe Sec can show him the truth:
Went to an AUSA dinner last night at the Ft. Hood Officers' Club to hear a speech by MG Pete Chiarelli, CG of the 1st Cav Div. He and most of the Div. have just returned from Iraq. Very informative and, surprise, the Mainstream Media (MSM) isn't telling the story.
I was not there as a reporter, didn't take notes but I'll make some the points I remember that were interesting, surprising or generally stuff I had not heard before. It was not a speech per se. He just walked and talked, showed some slides and answered questions. Very impressive guy.
1. While units of the Cav served all over Iraq, he spoke mostly of Baghdad and more specifically Sadr City, the big slum on the eastern side of the Tigris River. He pointed out that Baghdad is, in geography, is about the size of Austin. Austin has 600,000 to 700,000 people. Baghdad has 6 to7 million people.
2. The Cav lost 28 main battle tanks. He said one of the big lessons learned is that, contrary to docterine going in, M1-A2s and Bradleys are needed, preferred and devastating in urban combat and he is going to make that point to the JCS next week while they are considering downsizing armor.
3. He showed a graph of attacks in Sadr City by month. Last Aug-Sep they were getting up to 160 attacks per week. During the last three months, the graph had flatlined at below 5 to zero per week.
4. His big point was not that they were "winning battles" to do this but that cleaning the place up, electricity, sewage, water were the key factors. He said yes they fought but after they started delivering services that the Iraqis in Sadr City had never had, the terrorist recruiting of 15 and 16 year olds came up empty.
5. The electrical "grid" is a bad, deadly joke. Said that driving down the street in a Hummv with an antenna would short out a whole block of apt. buildings. People do their own wiring and it was not uncommon for early morning patrols would find one or two people lying dead in the street, having been electrocuted trying to re-wire their own homes.
6. Said that not tending to a dead body in the Muslim culture never happens. On election day, after suicide bombers blew themselves up trying to take out polling places, voters would step up to the body lying there, spit on it, and move up in the line to vote.
7. Pointed out that we all heard from the media about the 100 Iraqis killed as they were lined up to enlist in the police and security service. What the media didn't point out was that the next day there 300 lined up in the same place.
8. Said bin Laden and Zarqawi made a HUGE mistake when bin laden went public with naming Zarqawi the "prince" of al Qaeda in Iraq. Said that what the Iraqis saw and heard was a Saudi telling a Jordanian that his job was to kill Iraqis. HUGE mistake. It was one of the biggest factors in getting Iraqis who were on the "fence" to jump off on the side of the coalition and the new gov't.
9. Said the MSM was making a big, and wrong, deal out of the religious sects. Said Iraqis are incredibly nationalistic. They are Iraqis first and then say they are Muslim but the Shi'a - Sunni thing is just not that big a deal to them.
10. After the election the Mayor of Baghdad told him that the people of the region (Middle East) are joyous and the governments are nervous.
11. Said that he did not lose a single tanker truck carrying oil and gas over the roads of Iraq. Think about that. All the attacks we saw on TV with IEDs hitting trucks but he didn't lose one. Why? Army Aviation. Praised his air units and said they made the decision early on that every convoy would have helicopter air cover. Said aviators in that unit were hitting the 1,000 hour mark (sound familiar?). Said a convoy was supposed to head out but stopped at the gates of a compound on the command of an E6. He asked the SSG what the hold up was. E6 said, "Air , sir." He wondered what was wrong with the air, not realizing what the kid was talking about. Then the AH-64s showed up and the E6 said, "That air sir." And then moved out.
12. Said one of the biggest problems was money and regs. There was a $77 million gap between the supplemental budget and what he needed in cash on the ground to get projects started. Said he spent most of his time trying to get money. Said he didn't do much as a "combat commander" because the the war he was fighting was a war at the squad and platoon level. Said that his NCOs were winning the war and it was a sight to behold.
13. Said that of all the money appropriated for Iraq, not a cent was earmarked for agriculture. Said that Iraq could feed itself completely and still have food for export but no one thought about it. Said the Cav started working with Texas A&M on ag projects and had special hybrid seeds sent to them through Jordan. TAM analyzed soil samples and worked out how and what to plant. Said he had an E7 from Belton, TX (just down the road from Ft. Hood) who was almost single-handedly rebuilding the ag industry in the Baghdad area.
14. Said he could hire hundreds of Iraqis daily for $7 to $10 a day to work on sewer, electric, water projects, etc. but that the contracting rules from CONUS applied so he had to have $500,000 insurance policies in place in case the workers got hurt. Not kidding. The CONUS peacetime regs slowed everything down, even if they could eventually get waivers for the regs.
There was more, lots more, but the idea is that you haven't heard any of this from anyone, at least I hadn't and I pay more attention than most. Great stuff. We should be proud. Said the Cav troops said it was ALL worth it on Jan. 30 when they saw how the Iraqis handled election day. Made them very proud of their service and what they had accomplished.
Yeah Sec, tell me some more how myself and most of the guys who've been there don't see the big picture, while you get it. :faint:
Light
08-22-2005, 10:22 PM
Re WMD's Lefty said:Just because Saddam was astute enough to get rid of most of them doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Man you are more delusional than I thought. What evidence do you have for your statement(above) that Saddam got rid of WMD's. Don't you realize this evidence would have made major headlines. Bush would have been vindicated up till today. He wouldn't need any excuses to be there now. The left would have been silenced.You're not only delusional,you're hallucinating events that never happened.
Secretariat
08-22-2005, 11:14 PM
I understand exactly what Hagel is saying and I say he is wrong. I know he is wrong. It seems to offend you that I say he is wrong. I don't read it as the troops are doing a bad job, I read it as we're losing. He's wrong. How much more clear can I be? So, you say I don't see the big picture. I guess no one that I know sees the big picture either. I guess only the people you agree with see the big picture. I see now - Sec knows more about the big picture than I do and more than anyone I know who has served over there. :faint: I must have imagined all of the big picture things that I saw when I was there. I must imagine what I hear from my friends. Hey, maybe I'm delusional. Sec, can you please show me the truth? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Isbets,
You try to make the discussion about me. It isn’t. It's not even about the courage of those fighting on the ground. It isn’t. You keep manevering away from the question I asked with personal attacks that are beneath your general discourse..
However, you almost began to answer my question about Hagel, but never quite did. Here it is again:
Why would a long term conservative GOP senator from a red state with two purple hearts make such a statement? You say you know, but don’t elucidate. I am interested in your opinion, not name calling. You simply say he is wrong, but avoid my question which is WHY would Hagel make such a statement?
Needless to say there are people beyond Hagel speaking of losing the war. And they are or have been over there.
Army Major General Charles H. Swannack, Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, …”at the tactical level at which fighting occurs , the US miltiary is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing he said, “I think strategically we are.”
Army Col. Paul Hughes, who was the first director of strategic planning for the US occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the US failure in Vietnam. “Unless we assure that we have coherency in our policy , we will lose strategically.”
"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."
A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it -- and they should not."
One Pentagon consultant said that officials with whom he works on Iraq policy continue to put on a happy face publicly, but privately are grim about the situation in Baghdad. When it comes to discussions of the administration's Iraq policy, he said, "It's 'Dead Man Walking.' "
Jeff Smith, a former general counsel of the CIA who has close ties to many senior officers, said, "Some of my friends in the military are exceedingly angry." In the Army, he said, "It's pretty bitter."
Retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a frequent Pentagon consultant, said, "The people in the military are mad as hell."
Generally, military keep their mouths shut, or they get in trouble like the guys who voiced their problems with Iraq on ABC News.
Why are these men saying this? Why is Hagel risking his career to say this? Why has he changed his mind?
Steve 'StatMan'
08-22-2005, 11:24 PM
Wait, Light. Are you implying that Saddam never ever had WMD's to begin with? That would be totally disllusional! He even said himself that they'd gotten rid of everything. But if he did, he didn't do it in front of the world, outside of what was done with the U.N. Inspectors, and even then, often they just tagged inventory with seals on them and noted their locations.
Lefty
08-22-2005, 11:46 PM
sec, says:could stretch to more than $1.3 trillion, or $11,300 for every household in the United States."
sec, that's still way cheaper than 5-6 TRILLION that Johnson's and other libs war on poverty cost us.
You say, Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror? Man, Iraq IS the war on terror. The terrorists so afraid of a democracy there they are coming in there to do everything they can to prevent it. These are not insurgents, but the very terrorists that we have to defeat.
Sorry, ls bets for jumpoing in here, but had to address this. I now turn it over to you:
lsbets
08-23-2005, 12:20 AM
Sec - once again - I don't give a shit what motivates a politician to say something. I don't care why. A politician is a politician is a politician, regardless of their background. I don't trust any of them and I take what they all say with a grain of salt. He is wrong when he says we are losing. Did you bother to read my first post when I said he was wrong - where I said we could lose this war politically? Do you only read what you want to?
You come on here and tell me I'm distorting Paul Hackett's words, which you obviously never read, because once I show them to you, you only say "that's not me." Then, when another member on this board says some things that are way too kind about me and points out that I probably know a few things about Iraq that you do not, you say that I can't see the big picture and I don't get it. Are you so dense that you cannot understand what the generals are saying when they say strategically? Politics. Plain and simple politics. That's exactly what I said in my first post about Hagel's remarks.
I try to make the discussion about you? No, the discussion is not about you. The discussion is about the soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen who are mad as hell at the way the war is portrayed by the media here at home and the way their accomplishments are minimized by politicians and political hacks for personal gain. That's what its about for me, but you don't get that. Because for you, they don't matter. Nothing matters more to you than your party, nothing is more important than blind partisanship. You are a microcosm of what is wrong with America, because in the big scheme of things political party should be sitting way down the list. But to you, its everything. No Sec, this discussion is not about you, and its not about me. I know you had a hard time reading the article that Elk posted and that some folks like Suff were kind enough to comment on. Why did you have a hard time? Because by the standard you set a while ago, my word should be infallible. I have said for a long time that whatever awards I got don't matter, but there you saw it in the Dallas Morning News, I got a Bronze Star and I commanded 154 soldiers, and we got shot at a lot and we are all home. And that drives you nuts, so you have to get on here and say I can't see the big picture. Then when I respond in a rather restrained manner for my personality you say I am trying to make this about you. I'm not - you came after me and I shot back. Your problem is I shoot better than you.
Secretariat
08-23-2005, 09:05 AM
You say, Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror? Man, Iraq IS the war on terror. T
First of all Paul Hackett said the "Iraq is a diversion on the war on terror." I simply agreed with him, so let's get that straight first.
Second, the war on terror is first of all a nebulous term because there is terror throughout the world, not just Iraq.
The issue is Al Queda. They are the ones who invaded on 911 under the direction of Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden remains Public Enemy Number one with Zawahari and Omar close behind. It was under Bin Laden's orders that our country was invaded, NOT that of Saddam Hussein. (I'll give you a reasonable argument here Lefty) You may say, "How about that Zarqawi and Al Queda are now attacking in Iraq, and therefore Iraq is a viable front in the war on terror. That would be the first argument that had some validity despite the fact that ZERO attacks were made by Zarqawi in Iraq until we invaded there. Zarqawi represents the fact that Al Queda has crossed the borders to attack accessible American troops, just as they have attacked targets in Kenya, Britain, Bahrain, and the US. Zarqawi is a henchman who does the bidding of Bin Laden. Get Bin Laden, Zawahari and Omar and you'll make a significant assault on the war on terror, eradicate the poppy fields of Afghanistan and you'll make a significant assault on the war on terror, sweep the Pakistani and Iranian borders and you'll make a signficiant assualt on the war on terror. The capture of saddam Hussein has not reduced terrorism worldwide according to the State Department, and it has not made America safer from Al Queda. Is it a good thing Hussein is not in power? Absolutely. Was it worth it financially and worth the loss of American lives to do so to instill an Islamic democracy? I think not.
Secretariat
08-23-2005, 09:33 AM
Sec - once again - I don't give a shit what motivates a politician to say something.
Disagreement one. I am concerned what motivates a politician to say something since they help influence policy in this country. I'm espeically interested when it is someone with a diostingusihed creer, who switches his position on the war dramatically and puts at risk to his political career in a conservative red state.
You come on here and tell me I'm distorting Paul Hackett's words, which you obviously never read, because once I show them to you, you only say "that's not me." Then, when another member on this board says some things that are way too kind about me and points out that I probably know a few things about Iraq that you do not, you say that I can't see the big picture and I don't get it. Are you so dense that you cannot understand what the generals are saying when they say strategically? Politics. Plain and simple politics. That's exactly what I said in my first post about Hagel's remarks.
You take one quote of Hackett and ascribe it to referring to me. You avoid Hackett's speeches about "Iraq being a diversion on the war of terror" or that he considers GW an SOB and a chckenhawk who made a mistake invading Iraq. I can read what the senior officals from the Pentagon say that I quoted, and I don't arrive at the same conclusions you do from their quotes. You say I'm dense (btw..another personal attack)...I read their quotes as saying they're "damn mad". That we need a "coherent policy". There is no mention of poltics. That is your opinion from their quotes. Nowhere is the word politics used. If you wish to infer that from their quotes OK, but I don't read it that way. In fact Hagel's quotes puts him at risk with his own party, and his state. If anything he is speaking out in spite of advantageous politics.
I try to make the discussion about you? No, the discussion is not about you. The discussion is about the soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen who are mad as hell at the way the war is portrayed by the media here at home and the way their accomplishments are minimized by politicians and political hacks for personal gain. That's what its about for me, but you don't get that. Because for you, they don't matter. Nothing matters more to you than your party, nothing is more important than blind partisanship. You are a microcosm of what is wrong with America, because in the big scheme of things political party should be sitting way down the list. But to you, its everything. No Sec, this discussion is not about you, and its not about me.
Well, the above "seems all about me." Your POV is all about the soldiers efforts and courage. I applaud the soldiers efforts and courage, and if you can find one post here where I have said otherwise be my guest. Please tell me how Chuck Hagel is a political hack and how much this is going to help him in the Republican party. Gimme a break. And the discussion is NOT about the soldiers who are fighting. It is about the "POLICY" of whether we are effectively fighting the war on terror. Chuck Hagel disagrees with you. Paul Hackett disagrees with you. Hackett doesn't even beleive we should have went into Iraq. I have posted many posts applauding Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. I don't agree with his diversion into Iraq. You seem to see this as partisanship. Now Hagel disagrees with it, and he is called by you a "political hack". Hackett disagees with it and you seem to be saying that Hackett says I'm the problem. Again I applaud your service, but I think you're entrenched in your position and refuse to even try to understand the viewpoint of a man like Hagel simply dismissing him as a "political hack".
I know you had a hard time reading the article that Elk posted and that some folks like Suff were kind enough to comment on. Why did you have a hard time? Because by the standard you set a while ago, my word should be infallible. I have said for a long time that whatever awards I got don't matter, but there you saw it in the Dallas Morning News, I got a Bronze Star and I commanded 154 soldiers, and we got shot at a lot and we are all home. And that drives you nuts, so you have to get on here and say I can't see the big picture. Then when I respond in a rather restrained manner for my personality you say I am trying to make this about you. I'm not - you came after me and I shot back. Your problem is I shoot better than you.
Congratulations on the Bronze Star. Well done. As to Elk posting the article. I didn't have a "hard time reading it", because I never saw the article posted by him. Elk has been on my Ignore list after his Swift Boat postings. I cannot respect a man who sides with the trashing of a distinguished serviceman for political purposes. So Isbets, contrary to your statement, it doesn't drive me nuts. Why would it? And by the I'm not trying to "shoot" you or anyone else for that matter. I beleive you see the "picture" from on the ground Iraq better than anyone here. However, when there are generals and distingushed conservative legislators and ex-cabinent officials disagreeing with you, I'm not so readily dismissive of their comments "as political" when what they have to gain is grief from their own party. Again congratulations on your medal. You've served quite honorably.
The other major airport in Iraq opened up to commercial traffic Monday. Two flight a week to start. First plane landed without incident.
Geepers creepers! How can that be, what with the streets overrun by insurgents and terrorists, no save havens, a breeding ground for terrrorism?
:confused: :confused: :jump: :confused:
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.