posted on November 3, 2003 01:46:06 AM newThe deaths of American soldiers probably does very little to diminish US Military strength, but much to reduce moral strength both there and domestically.
[much to reduce...] Yes, as I've said before, many times, this is **exactly what our enemies are hoping for**. Keep working to demoralize our troops while they're fight for our country....hoping that we'll turn and run. NOT going to happen under Bush.
And those democrats who voted against giving the President the $66B [out of the $87B], ESPECIALLY THE ONE'S WHO VOTED TO SEND OUR TROOPS TO WAR, should be hung, imo. They sent them off to war with a PROMISE that they would be given everything they need to fight this battle, and then those same people turncoat on their promise to our soldiers. The $66B was aid for our troops. ANYONE who didn't vote for that money has betrayed our fighting soldiers, imo. ---------------
And helen - while you continue posting all the hardships our troops are facing, just remember that doing so only sets the resolve of those who support Saddam's removal more firmly in cement. Doesn't make them want to turn and run, which is your hoped for result. Strenghtens our resolve.
posted on November 3, 2003 05:36:38 AM new
Linda, You do realise that you are putting forward a case for 'spin' and BS!!!
BS & kept in the dark is great to grow mushrooms but not for an informed and healthy democracy to grow.
The actions of 'the enemy' (not talking Bush here) have nothing to do with truth here or in US.
What fortune for leaders that men do not think.
- Adolph Hitler
The appalling thing about war is that it kills all love of truth.
- Georg Brandes
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts.
Abraham Lincoln
I have read a few of Abraham Lincoln’s quotes; and I must say he seems to have been a very wise man.
He understood that there could not be a healthy democracy with BS, unlike what you propose.
At least you have acknowledged a willingness to spread misinformation.
Perhaps it may one day lead to some more honest debates.
posted on November 3, 2003 06:02:38 AM new
According to the congressional resolution authorising the use of military force in Iraq, the administration is required to submit to the Congress reports of postwar planning every 60 days. The report, bearing Bush's signature and dated April 14 - previously undisclosed but revealed here - declares:
"We are especially concerned that the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime will continue to use Iraqi civilian populations as a shield for its regular and irregular combat forces or may attack the Iraqi population in an effort
to undermine Coalition goals."
Moreover, the report goes on: "Coalition planners have prepared for these contingencies, and have designed the military campaign to minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure."
Yet, on August 25, as the violence in postwar Iraq flared, the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, claimed that this possibility was not foreseen:
posted on November 3, 2003 06:07:49 AM new
The Iraqi's can win by wearing the US down day by day. If they do so long enough the public here will change leaders. The US will not wage a total war such as Lott suggested. There has never been a willingness to do so or North Vietnam would have been basically depopulated and the US would have won. If they went through the Sunni triangle and killed every living thing in sight and wiped Tikrit off the map bulldozing it flat so you could not even tell anything had ever been there it would send the message needed. Nobody here wants to be the bad guy limiting themselves to a gentlemanly war of rules. The other side has no trouble with being labeled the bad guys as long as they win.
posted on November 3, 2003 06:54:06 AM newLinda, You do realise that you are putting forward a case for 'spin' and BS!!!
Well..don't think that feeling doesn't work both ways.
Just which part of my last post falls, in your opinion, into a case for spin and BS?
Our soldiers and our military leaders and members of our congress and military families have all stated that when our soldiers are fighting it lifts their moral to know their country supports their actions.
The money issue? That's what the funds were allocated for.
Or the one's in our Congress who voted to take our soldiers to war, and now voted against providing funds to help them complete their missions?
----------------
gravid - I agree. We don't have the guts.
--------------
Very recently here there were many complaining that our soldiers were destroying the farms of these Iraqi's. There were soldiers breaking into the homes and 'scaring' the families that were suspected of providing support to these Saddam supporters. Whining about how terrible we were being to them.
Those in this triangle were Saddam's strongest supporters, some of Iraq's most wealthy because of their support of Saddam....they're the one's dancing with glee about our soldiers deaths.
But...you're right....we really won't do what is necessary to get the job done. And those who continually point out our soldiers deaths are, in my view, the same one's who want [our troops] to be play fair with our enemies. War is war....not a social event.
posted on November 3, 2003 07:12:20 AM newLinda you were promoting the case that information re US deaths or military failures should be suppressed.
That's YOUR opinion, and you're very wrong in that assumption, once again.
The deaths of our soldiers are in our media everytime they occur. Everyone gets to hear/read about them. No one is surpressing the facts, nor do I wish they be. But there are those who use these deaths as a means to further there anti-war beliefs, and that's what I object to. They seem to be under some impression that during a war, people don't get killed by their ENEMIES. Just like they appear to have some weird concept that we can talk things out with terrorists. OR they post that their own country are the terrorists. Or they post their president is a terrorist. THOSE are the statements I have trouble reading and will object to. Not surpress.
posted on November 3, 2003 07:43:52 AM new
Your response to opening up information re the deaths of American soldiers
“Keep working to demoralize our troops while they're fight for our country....”
Your efforts to suppress information is an effort to keep people in the dark.
For every one good story you write 10X, I can write 10 bad ones.
But in your popular press you keep getting the same 10 to 1.
Keeping in mind that you are the one who repeatedly states how sweet things are in Iraq.
Who is the one spreading BS.??
Got'a go.
Have a good day one and all.
Peace be with you.
ps.
tell 12, that UK are ordaining a New Gay Bishop.
go read, I kid you not.
"And helen - while you continue posting all the hardships our troops are facing, just remember that doing so only sets the resolve of those who support Saddam's removal more firmly in cement. Doesn't make them want to turn and run, which is your hoped for result. Strenghtens our resolve."
You find resolve in the knowledge of troop deaths and hardships -- to stay the course-- when that course is a failure?
Your presidents "resolve" is nothing but an ineffective and laughable public relations effort. Each weak and dumb remark is more pitiful that the last. Root em out...Seek em out, Bring em on...Stay the course. Now he is trying to sell the preposterous idea that failure is success. Without a plan, this war will stay the current administration's reckless course until he is removed from office in the next election.
From the helicopter crash alone, 19 were killed and now 11 are in intensive care.
Ironically, as failure sets your crazy resolve to continue on course, your failure sets the resolve of the American people to change the dangerous course and rid our good country of the Bush machine.
posted on November 3, 2003 08:03:57 AM new
Here are statements from democrats/liberals that also agreed with clinton, in that Saddam needed to be removed.
[begin copy and paste]
If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated)
by John Hawkins
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq yet, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is claiming that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The story being floated now is that Saddam had no WMD (or almost none) and that the Bush administration didn't tell the truth about the WMD threat.
Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same lies since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about...
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- [i]Jacques Chirac[/b], October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Nothing changed after the Dec. 1998 bombings in regards to clinton being able to assure the US that those weapons were destroyed. He said he had no knowledge if they were destroyed at all.
And a large doubt that I still hold is that Saddam could have VERY EASILY not continued playing these games with the UN and the US abter 1998, IF he wanted us to believe he was not working on a WOMD program. Very easily.
posted on November 3, 2003 08:07:44 AM new
hey helen - you going to post links to support the two statements you made that I challenged you on? You stated them as facts, and I'm asking to see links to both.
edited to be exact on your statements that I'm asking you to show proof of.
1) Clinton's statement that we destroyed all the weapons, HIS administration believed Saddam had in Dec. 1998.
and
2) The statement that the UN had given clinton it's permission to bomb Iraq in Dec. 1998.
Clinton's own words on Larry King Live around 7-03 said differently. And I've never read where the UN gave it's approval for the US to bomb Iraq in Dec. 1998. All I've read is where both France and Russia said they would veto that proposal, IF it was presented to the UN for a vote. And an article from Dec. 17, 1998 [the day after clinton started the bombing] where Russia was quoted as being TOTALLY against our aggression towards Iraq.
So....convince me otherwise but showing me differently.
Here's my proof:
On CNN/Inside Politics 7-23-03 Clinton made the following statements.
"Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq."
"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."
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 3, 2003 09:20 AM ]
posted on November 3, 2003 09:37:27 AM new
helen this is why I question the truthfulness of your statement about clinton having UN approval.....
Please note these are the same countries, our supposed allies, that you've stated Bush wasn't capable of getting to agree with our position on Iraq. Well guess what? Neither was clinton.
Taken from a Dec. 17th 1998 [the day after clinton bombed Iraq] article that's posted on http://russia.jamestown.org. Monitor - Volume 4 Issue 233.
begin copy and paste
RUSSIA CONDEMNS ATTACKS ON IRAQ. Russian diplomats last night harshly criticized yesterday's launching of air attacks on Iraq by U.S. and British forces.
In a statement issued by Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov during a visit to Madrid, Moscow condemned the air strikes as a breach of the UN charter and called for the military actions to be terminated immediately. "No one has a right to act independently on behalf of the United Nations, still less to assume the functions of a judge of the world," Ivanov was quoted as saying. "We shall demand an immediate termination of the military action, which would make it possible to resume the political process to bring about a settlement of the Iraq crisis."
Ivanov's statement also warned of the gravest consequences should Russian nationals currently in Baghdad be harmed by the air strikes. Ivanov broke off his visit to Spain yesterday in order to return to Moscow for consultations with the government (Itar-Tass, December 16).
The angry Russian reaction to yesterday's air strikes came at the end of a day during which UN Security Council members met in an emergency session to discuss the latest crisis in Iraq. It was the third time that the council had met for that reason in the past fourteen months.
Yesterday's meeting was occasioned by a report delivered to council members on Tuesday night by UNSCOM chief Richard Butler. Butler's report, which formed the basis for the decision by Washington and London yesterday to go forward with the attacks, bluntly accused Baghdad of having failed to honor a pledge given last month that it would cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
Yesterday Butler ordered UNSCOM personnel out of Iraq in anticipation of the U.S. and British military actions (International agencies, December 16).
Russia, which has long made clear its sympathy for Iraqi denunciations of the UNSCOM chief, yesterday criticized Butler harshly both for the substance of his report and for his decision to withdraw UN personnel from Iraq. In New York, Russia's UN ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, reportedly led a "line by line attack" on Butler's report during yesterday's UN Security Council meeting. Lavrov was said to have accused Butler of lying. He said that the UNSCOM chief had presented a far more positive picture of Iraqi cooperation with UN inspectors during a visit to Moscow by Butler on December 4 (International agencies, December 16; Washington Post, December 17).
Foreign Minister Ivanov had expressed optimism after that meeting that sanctions against Iraq might soon be lifted (see the Monitor, December 8).
Ivanov, meanwhile, suggested yesterday that Butler himself had been at least partly responsible for any Iraqi failures to cooperate with the UN. The Russian foreign minister accused Butler of "rudely exceeding his powers" in Iraq and of having conducted himself in a way that served "to aggravate the situation and fan up tension over Iraq." Ivanov said that Butler had exceeded his authority on previous occasions as well, and urged the UNSCOM chief to resign from his post if, in Ivanov's words, he was not up to the demands of the job (Washington Post, December 17).
Russia was joined yesterday in its condemnation of the U.S. and British air strikes by China and France. The three countries have consistently been the Security Council's most forceful advocates for an easing of sanctions on Iraq. Russia and France, not coincidentally, stand to profit handsomely from a number of major business deals with Iraq which can be implemented only after the lifting of sanctions.
Meanwhile, yesterday's air strikes won support across the political spectrum in Britain but not in the United States, where several congressional Republican leaders accused the Clinton administration of acting to divert an impending impeachment vote. Canada and Germany voiced their support for yesterday's military actions (International agencies, December 16).
So....there's my proof to back up my statements that under BOTH administrations the threat Saddam posed was felt by both administrations. And according to clinton, there was NO proof, as of the day he left office, that the weapons weren't still there.
I did not make the following statements that you have numbered 1 and 2.
FIRST ONE
1) Clinton's statement that we destroyed all the weapons, HIS administration believed Saddam had in Dec. 1998.
Linda, that would be a quote if Clinton made the statement! I did not say that we destroyed all the weapons and I did not quote Clinton.
I commented to you....
"You are simply unable to accept the fact that weapons of mass destruction existed in 1998 and were bombed into oblivion while supplies to resurrect the supply was impossible under the UN sanctions imposed while Clinton was president. THAT was a different TIME, linda... and a different situation. As I said, Clinton had international support for his bombing action. Bush only had support wrenched from Congress and obtained by false information -- to go to WAR."
NEXT ONE
2) The statement that the UN had given clinton it's permission to bomb Iraq in Dec. 1998.
I did not say that the UN had given Clinton it's permission to bomb Iraq in Dec. 1998.
I commented to you....
"In that case, it was in fact, a part of an international effort. Saddam Hussein had announced that he would no longer cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors...UNSCOM. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance."
The statements that you question are in this thread, lindak...Read it again. I suppose it should be flattering that you pay so much attention to Clinton and that you evaluate Bush based on what Clinton would say or do. That's your problem, linkak. I've tried to explain that you are evaluating an action based on a different time and circumstance. That's illogical.
posted on November 3, 2003 10:08:22 AM new "And according to clinton, there was NO proof, as of the day he left office, that the weapons weren't still there."
BUT, AHA! YOUR president told us that he had PROOF!
posted on November 3, 2003 10:19:35 AM new
helen - Use your word play all you wish.
I said: But in Dec. 1998 clinton, when clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, and gave the exact same reasons for doing so that bush has given, he did not have UN approval, NOR the approval from our congress before bombing Iraq.
Then you said: You are wrong, LINDA.
-----
The Bush war was a unilateral and reckless action. Failure is now so evident that Bush has resorted to PR efforts to try to convince Americans that losing is winning.
You also said:
[i]Bill Clinton would not send troops or air power that was not a part of an international effort with UN or NATO sanctions. AND I'M SAYING HE DID send troops without UN approval, on Dec. 16th 1998.
So I asked for your proof. You still haven't given any proof....because he didn't have UN approval. He couldn't get approval from France, Germany, China nor Russia.
I have tried to say over and over that both administrations felt Saddam and his weapons were a continuing threat to our country, and others. I have said they both felt Saddam needed to be removed, and I've offered proof of that. And I've listed some of the statements from **democrats** who also agreed he had these weapons.
Now, for hateful political reasons you and others want to re-write history, blame this President for taking action on what others felt needed to be dealt with.....because you're playing politics.
But most **fair minded** people can see that when it comes to our national security, both administrations felt Saddam, and his weapons, posed a threat. They just disagreed on how it should have been handled.
And, like I've said before...clinton made the decisions when he was in charge, now it's Bush's turn. And my bet is he'll be re-elected in 2004.
Also, this war was NOT unilateral....you were upset because Bush didn't/couldn't get France, Germany nor Russia to side with us. You went on and on and on about that when we were just in the talking stages of going into Iraq. I'm showing you it was france, germany and china who had threatened a veto in the UN when clinton was trying to get them to agree with the bombing in Dec. 1998. I'm showing you the same thing applied in Dec. 1998 when clinton couldn't get a resolution to bomb Iraq...for the same reasons..the threatened vetos that you continually **harped** on before we went to war, about 'no one in the world agrees with bush'.
Approval of Bush's management of Iraq is dropping. An ABC-Washington Post poll released Sunday
found that 51% disapprove of the way he's handling Iraq and 47% approve; 2% had no opinion.
It's the first time a majority in that poll disapproved.
Now we're getting reports of sick or injured soldiers by the hundreds
returning from Iraq to be warehoused in military bases without adequate medical care.
According to news reports, there are about 500 such soldiers at Fort Stewart, Georgia,
and about 400 more at Fort Knox, Kentucky.
One important destination for wounded GIs is Walter Reed Army Medical Center in
Washington, D.C. I'm told it's loaded with young men missing arms and legs. I wonder
how many limbs have been blown off or later amputated?
President George W. Bush has asked Congress for $87 billion to run his war in Iraq,
and apparently he's going to get it. But that money is just a small portion of the cost
of his war. The broken bodies and shattered lives of our GIs add immeasurably to that cost.
Our government does not want us to know what's going on. In Iraq, we're told, our
military has no interest in the number of Iraqi casualties. So you and I have no way of
knowing just how many Iraqis have been killed and continue to be killed.
(Our troops, when attacked, understandably spray bullets in every direction,
with the predictable result that a lot of innocent people end up dead. How many? Who knows?
Our government doesn't want us to know.)
And the government apparently has tamed the press, too. So far the press has shown
an amazing lack of curiosity about the fate of Americans wounded in Iraq. The modern
U.S. press seems to have adopted as its mantra: "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."
After 241 U.S. servicemen, mostly Marines, were killed in a terrorist attack on their Beirut barracks, Reagan went to Camp Lejeune not simply to console the grieving, though console them he did, but to do what President Bill Clinton would later do so memorably after the deadly attack on the USS Cole and the murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Nairobi -- to give voice to the national sense of grief and offer meaning to the ultimate sacrifices made.
Where is the outrage on the part of the press? Are we lapdogs? The administration in full spin control insists that the reality on the ground in Iraq is much more positive than the press reports. Yet the administration denies reality at home -- the reality of the recent heroism of this nation's fallen sons and daughters.
By official government policy,. there is no band to welcome them home. No honor guard to present the folded flag to their widow and orphan, to make certain the family knows that their loss is also their country's loss, that they do not weep alone. It is a cruel and ugly policy that robs the patriot of the glory and public honor he has earned and deserves.
posted on November 4, 2003 08:12:52 AM new
I was glad to read that both houses have passed the $87B funding for Iraq. Even without the support of those who voted NOT TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, but who had voted to send our troops over there.
It will soon be on our President's desk for his signature.
A no vote on the 87 billion dollar legislation is not a vote against supporting our troops. It is a vote to send Bush back to the drawing board. A no vote is a vote to reunite with the world to win the war against terrorism. A no vote indicates a need for a PLAN.
It's a vote to correct the Bush's blueprint for a mess and stop the troops from slogging through the quagmire to their deaths.
posted on November 4, 2003 08:57:42 AM new
It MOST certainly is helen, since $65B of that is for our military. You're the one always bitching about how our government doesn't give our troops the equipment they need to fight this war with the least risk to them. Where in the world do you think the money comes from to do so? It comes from these appropriation bills.
And this congress promised they would fully support our troops, give them everything they needed....and now those who voted for this war, aren't living up to that promise.
posted on November 4, 2003 09:02:05 AM new
Oh yes.....the plan, the plan.
Harp away. There always has been a 'plan'. But since you and other farlefties don't like it, haven't had a written statement delivered to your personal mailbox, then that means there is NO PLAN.
But....funny how you don't ask those running for the presidency in your party what their 'PLAN' is. So far, the only one I've read/heard is to withdraw our troops. And that's no plan....that's putting your tail between your legs and running.
It's amazing how you try to shift responsibility from Bush, who is the President of the United States to others such as past presidents and even potential candidates for president. THIS president needs to stop focusing on how he can fool the American public and deal with the mess that he has created in Iraq.
"The real lesson of the postwar mess is that while occupying and reconstructing Iraq was bound to be difficult, the fact that it may be turning into a quagmire is not a result of fate, but rather (as quagmires usually are) a result of poor planning and wishful thinking. Both have been in evidence to a troubling degree in American policy almost from the moment the decision was made to overthrow Saddam Hussein's bestial dictatorship."
David Rieff
posted on November 4, 2003 09:32:04 AM new
Just reported...another attack.
Multiple large explosions have been reported from Baghdad. One round hit within coalition compound where U.S. military are based.
BAGHDAD (AP) — Huge explosions rocked central Baghdad late Tuesday and smoke could be seen rising close to the compound used as a headquarters of the U.S. occupation.
