posted on October 16, 2003 11:10:24 AM new
I have heard, not verified, that we are attempting to turn Afganstan back over to the Taliban. D'oh
I am not happy with what is happening in and with Iraq, particularly for our troops.
The mess with the recent identical letters was a disgrace. If I was one of the soldiers, I would be so p-o'd. Soldiers aren't allowed to talk with the media, but yet they can be used to futher the war on terrorism propaganda.
If the government can do it, then so can the soldiers, we know that is not possible. So I hold the Bush Administration responsible for this misuse of power and opportunity.
I am not happy with the attitude of the Bush Administration in regards to the CIA leak.
I don't care about the spin that is being put out about the good things in Iraq, I am voting Democratic in 2004.
posted on October 16, 2003 11:20:22 AM new
clarksville -
Maybe you could share where you heard we were turning Afghanistan over to the terrorist? Or do you mean the Afghan people?
You have made a couple of statements that just aren't true. Read helens post of what our soldiers are saying to the press.
I read an explaination in regards to the identical letters. I'll try to find it and post it for you.
We have no proof as to who leaked this information, at this time. Innocent until proven guilty not working for you lately?
-------------------------
As a registered Independent, I've voting for re-electing Bush.
posted on October 16, 2003 12:00:46 PM new"Read helens post of what our soldiers are saying to the press"
From the Washington Post...
A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq by a Pentagon-funded newspaper found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist.
The survey, conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, also recorded about a third of the respondents complaining that their mission lacks clear definition and characterizing the war in Iraq as of little or no value. Fully 40 percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with their training.
The findings, drawn from 1,935 questionnaires presented to U.S. service members throughout Iraq, conflict with statements by military commanders and Bush administration officials that portray the deployed troops as high-spirited and generally well-prepared. Though not obtained through scientific methods, the survey results suggest that a combination of difficult conditions, complex missions and prolonged tours in Iraq is wearing down a significant portion of the U.S. force and threatening to provoke a sizable exodus from military service.
posted on October 16, 2003 12:08:19 PM new
clarksville - If you ever want any information you can do a 'google' search. Put in a couple of 'identifying' words and read away.
This one's from ABC News and pretty much says what most of them do. These were form letters that our soldiers read and signed if they agreed with what they said. Some soldiers were not aware of the decision to send them to the press in different cities.
Everyone in the target population, Iraq... had an equal probability of being selected. Beyond a certain minimum number, the actual number of respondents interviewed is less important to the accuracy of a poll than the process by which a random probability sample is generated. Army troops, National Guard members, Marines and airmen were covered throughout Iraq. Experts in public opinion characterized it as a useful gage of troop sentiment.
posted on October 16, 2003 01:32:12 PM new
clarksville, ooooops, your question of Who will vote for Bush?
As of now, yes, I will vote to re elect him.
There is a lot of reasons. A lot of course will disagree, but the terrorism, the Iraq situation, I think putting someone new in, will be harmful, Bush has been doing his job, and I believe he needs to be in there to continue.
And yes most of it does have to do with 9-11.
Other than those, I think he is doing a good job.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 16, 2003 03:16:16 PM new
On the other hand, I feel sorry for whoever will beat Bush. What a massive clean-up job - they will surely have their hands full!
posted on October 16, 2003 04:55:29 PM new
Who will vote for President?
Anyone with a brain?
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on October 17, 2003 08:56:05 AM new
I'll vote for Bush - to become President of Iraq. Maybe if he's over there, he'll decide to send our troops here and spend 87 billion dollars on the U.S.
I think Jay Leno said that Bush has a great plan to rebuild Iraq and if it works, he might try it here.
posted on October 17, 2003 09:10:14 AM new
yisgood - I absolutely LOVE Jay Leno's political jokes. He hits both sides of the aisle...and they are very, very funny. That's a good one you posted. Thanks.
posted on October 17, 2003 09:49:37 AM new
Thank you Helen for posting.
Linda, the Bush Administration is trying to do a spin on what is happening in the middle east and so are you.
I look at the soldiers and their loved ones. Sure, I expect them to do their job as those who have gone before them have, but there comes a time that their patriotic duty needs to be halted.
For one example, the other day, I was thinking about the testing of our H and A bombs where soldiers were allegedly used for experiments. There has been other cases other than the bombs, where soldiers and sailors were allegedly used for experiments. And could still be.
imo that goes to far.
So there are times to be patriotic, to defend the country, but then there comes a time when humanity steps in and puts a halt to the military personnel's patriotism.
Going back to when we weren't in Iraq, building up our forces, what did the Bush Administration tell us? That Saddam had WMDs and that he was behind 9/11 and has the capability to do similar attacks on us and other countrys.
Why did we go in? Why are we in Iraq?
I supported Bush and the troops, more importantly, the troops. I figured, that they knew things that we didn't so I supported going into Iraq. Well, apparently, they didn't know much. If I had known their lack of intelligence (sic), I wouldn't have supported going in.
So why are we in Iraq?
Why was there a leak at the White House that revealed the CIA operative?
To put her life and her loved ones in danger, was not the right thing to do. It was similar to "Bring it on" as stated by Bush, putting our troops in harm's way. Both incidents went over the line.
What's happening is there is an attempt to pull the boodstain wool over our eyes.
Therefore, I am voting to kick Bush out of the White House.
Linda, as for turning Afganistan over to the Taliban, I can't find the story. So it may not be true.
posted on October 17, 2003 10:59:20 AM new
clarksville - We just disagree. And, of course, we all have our reasons for supporting or not supporting a president.
That said:
On the 'spin'. I see and read the same reports that others do. I have formed a different opinion. Each side 'spins' the issues to be favorible to them....but I judge Bush to be an honest man, a man who sticks to his convictions, and I support his actions.
On soldiers doing their jobs. but there comes a time that their patriotic duty needs to be halted. To run from terrorism and those who wish to see our country destroyed, will not solve this problem. It will, imo, only be seen as a weakness on our part. binladen has said so himself when referring to clinton's inaction after the attacks against us.
And as I've asked before, which democratic candidate is calling for the removal of our soldiers from Iraq, besides Mr. K.? They aren't. Our soldiers will continue on their mission no matter if Bush stays in or not. So how's anything going to be changed that way?
I was thinking about the testing of our H and A bombs where soldiers were allegedly used for experiments. You're blaming Bush for this?
Not going to vote for Bush because....they "could" still be?
So now he's being blamed for things he didn't do, and for things that "could be"? Come on.
then there comes a time when humanity steps in and puts a halt to the military personnel's patriotism. Are you suggesting these soldiers didn't volunteer but were forced to serve? [not clear here] Or are you suggesting we eliminate our military altogether?
building up our forces. Our forces need to be rebuilt. clinton had reduced military funding for 7 out of his 8 years in office. Why do you think we're calling reserves up now? Because there aren't enough soldiers.
what did the Bush Administration tell us? That Saddam had WMDs and that he was behind 9/11 and has the capability to do similar attacks on us and other countrys. Yes, clarksville, the same thing that clinton told us in 12-98 and recently in 7-03. They both agreed Saddam had not done what he agreed to do...PROVE he had destroyed the weapons THEY KNEW he had. Clarksville, Saddam admitted to the UN inspectors what he had. That's no spin. He just would never prove he had destroyed them like he was called on to do. Clinton most likely would have allowed the inspections to go on forever, while still saying Saddam needed to be removed from power. We would have continued to feel the threat of him selling the womd to other terrorist. Then when another 9-11 happened everybody would be screaming 'why did he let this happen, why didn't he do anything', he knew and did nothing...just like we're hearing now about 9-11.
Why did we go in? Because intelligence was telling us what they were. Because he had proven to the world before he wasn't above using womd. Because his own family and defectors were telling us he had a program going. Because there had been four years where the inspectors weren't allowed to be in the country to SEE what was/was not going on. And because when given a final, final, final, final warning that we would take action IF he did not comply...he chose not to comply.
I figured, that they knew things that we didn't so I supported going into Iraq. Well, apparently, they didn't know much.
Intelligence is NOT a science. It wasn't during the clinton administration when he thought he was bombing womd factories, and they turned out to be what....aspirin/milk factories?
So why are we in Iraq? For *many* different reasons, imo. But mostly to prevent Saddam from continuing to develope his womd program. IMO, a US presense in the area will keep the other countries like Syria on their toes.
Why was there a leak at the White House that revealed the CIA operative? Guess you haven't read what I posted on this subject. Please do check it out.
Again I ask you...guilty until proven innocent now? It's still under investigation. Whoever did this should be sent to jail, but I don't form opinions BEFORE any facts, only accusations, have been presented.
"Bring it on"
Yes, better to Bring it on over in Iraq than on our soil. That statement was made because Saddam supporters were coming in from other countries to help the Saddam loyalists fight against our soldiers. Did you ever serve in the military, clarksville? Sometimes I think those who haven't have a different 'mind set'. The military is up and ready for all challenges...they don't run....they fight.
pull the boodstain wool over our eyes.
I totally disagree. If you think for one minute that we shouldn't be confronting terrorism you're sticking your head in the sand...and hoping this will just go away. It's not going away. It's like Bush told us....this is a different type of war...we're not fighting a country who has attacked us multipule times, we fighting a 'mind set'...which is bring America to her knees.
Therefore, I am voting to kick Bush out of the White House. I appreciate you sharing your reasons for voting the way you intend to. Just don't expect to see much different with any of the dem candidates that are now running for the job. Not much is going to change. It is every president's job to protect America....first and foremost.
I just don't see anyone else getting the job in 2004. Think most American's trust Bush when it comes to doing what's necessary to protect our nation.
posted on October 17, 2003 11:25:18 AM new
did it ever occur to anyone that by Saddam not cooperating with the UN he in effect was the cause for Iraqi oil not to be sold and therefor was hurting his own country.
The US followed through on UN resolutions in place, Franced, Germany were both dealing with Iraq and had many reasons not to follow through.
If their oil fields help the Iraqi people become better and at the same time helps the US... that in my book is a win-win.
President Bush is getting my full support for a second term... not one democrat has come forward and deemed themselves worthy of my vote.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on October 17, 2003 12:26:05 PM new
glad to hear that, twelve. I never would have guessed before
-------------
The one thing I know I will NEVER understand is how people can read what both Bill and Hillary have said on the subject of Iraq and womd, and still hold the opinion that Bush was lying/faking it about what weapons Saddam had.
A common statement they've both said many times: Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons[/i]."
Hillary has recently stated she spent a lot of time going over our intelligence reports herself, and with security people she trusted, before she voted to support Bush's actions in Iraq. And she agreed with his findings.
Many, many times as recently has 7-23-03 they have stated and re-stated this.....but it's just glanced over by those who hate Bush so much....for many different reasons.
posted on October 17, 2003 02:52:42 PM new
The Clintons may have lied about Iraq also, for all anyone knows. In any event, THEY are no longer President. I don't know who I will support in the election, but it will not be President Bush. The notion that he has protected us since Sept. 11 is as silly as saying Clinton protected us before it. It's like standing out on your porch and banging two sticks together to keep bears away. Don't see any bears? It must be working..Look at the airline security breach that is being reported today...I have crossed the US border with Mexico at least 25 times since Sept. 11th, and I can tell you quite honestly, NOTHING has changed procedurally. Those crossings have been at large and small border checkpoints... We aren't any safer today than we were on the 10th of September, IMO....Clinton took illegal contributions? Great, he probably did. That does not excuse the level of corporate mismanagement, cronyism and crime with which President Bush has been associated. For that reason alone, I won't vote for him.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on October 17, 2003 03:08:01 PM new
Yes but you will have to admit that Mexico has not launched any WOMD's since the border crossings were tightened up after 9/11. Just because you don't see the changes doesn't mean they're not there. Now if the Mexicans wish to fight against the US they will have to go to Iraq like everyone else!
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on October 17, 2003 03:56:53 PM new
I don't think so, Colin.
Poll question...
"If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for George W. Bush, the Republican, or for the Democratic nominee for president?"
Only forty one percent polled answered that they would vote for Bush....and that number is going down.
posted on October 17, 2003 09:56:26 PM newI plan on voting for President Bush, as do the majority of the American people
Ummm...WHAT majority exactly ???
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
said he believed in Time Travel, is he the frontrunner now?
