posted on March 15, 2004 02:46:47 PM new
Another quote taken from The Federalist -
"All hail the Democrats, the party of the warriors, and damnation to those weaklings who never learned to kill. And, hey, who was that Bill Clinton guy anyway?...
The whole thing is just too rich for words: the Democrats, the anti-war, anti-military party, now say that only a military man can lead them and the nation and that those not in combat are dirt. No one could make these things up." --Ben Stein
posted on March 15, 2004 03:34:19 PM new
Bear, I was referring to soldiers being killed in the name of freedom. Yes, Saddam has been captured, so the Iraqi's are probably enjoying the psychological freedom, but what other freedoms are they enjoying? What added freedoms are the Americans enjoying because of this war? What freedoms have been maintained or lost because of it? What about Prof's question?
What added freedoms are the Americans enjoying because of this war?
The freedom of knowing Saddam is no longer funding terrorism.
The freedom of knowing the "Food for Oil" program is actually feeding the IRAQi people & not Saddams bank account.
As to commenting on Prof, I never intended to do so, I was responding directly to your comments.
The Democrats ran on 'Honesty' and I told 'em at the time they would never get anywhere. It was too radical for politics. The Republicans ran on 'Common Sense' and the returns showed that there were 8 million more people in the United States who had 'Common Sense' enough not to believe that there was 'Honesty' in politics." --Will Rogers
posted on March 15, 2004 03:44:26 PM newHow about the freedom of not being gassed.Or the freedom of not being tortured by Saddams boys. Or the freedom to have computers with internet access. Or the freedom of being drafted as cannon fodder for Saddam.
OK, I get it, we're not fighting in Iraq for our freedom. So then, I guess the quote could be edited to more clearly say "these deaths are accepted as the price we pay for freedom, in Iraq."
posted on March 15, 2004 05:25:50 PM new
Basra is booming
From George Pascoe-Watson
Deputy Political Editor in Iraq
PROSPERITY has returned to the streets of Iraq, and The Sun has been there to see it.
On the first anniversary of the end of the Iraq War a new nation is under construction thanks to the tireless efforts of British and US forces.
While the world’s TV cameras focus on the darkness of the post-war problems, the REAL story is of dramatic improvement in the everyday lives of millions of ordinary Iraqis.
Some £15BILLION of British and American taxpayers’ cash is being pumped in to rebuild the country from scratch.
Wages have soared, sparking a boom in trade which has seen street stalls groaning with Western goods banned under Saddam.
Locals in Basra have dubbed one street Electric Avenue because of the stores selling new fridges, freezers, washing machines, TVs and satellite dishes.
Around a million new and used cars have poured in to Iraq since the war — with 300 A DAY arriving in Basra alone.
Hundreds of thousands have ditched their ponies and traps or primitive bangers and replaced them with modern Toyotas, BMWs and US-style pick-ups.
This prosperity is helping Iraq regain its pride in the wake of Saddam’s 30-year tyranny.
Most Iraqis are full of praise for Tony Blair and George Bush for ousting Saddam.
Yes, mistakes have been made since the war ended.
A daily diet of violence from religious extremists threatens to trigger a bloody civil war and destroy hopes for the future.
Not enough planning was done to cope with the failures in public services which triggered unrest.
But as businessman Ihsan Ali Jazie, who runs the port of Um Qasr, told The Sun: “Things are better than good here now thanks to the war. Before, the Iraqi people were dead. Now we are alive.”
And Basra doctor Fakhry Satter said: “Iraq will be a great country once more. Saddam has gone and sales are up. Wages have increased. People are happy again. We feel like we have been freed.
“We thank the British and American forces for what they did.”
Iraq is poised to begin running itself. In June, British diplomat Patrick Nixon will hand over the running of the south to an interim government.
Next January an elected Parliament will take over, with a three-man Presidency who will write a new Iraqi constitution.
The scale of the economic turnaround helps explain the desperate attempts by Muslim fanatics to destroy progress with suicide bombs in and around Baghdad.
They know they must wreck post-Saddam Iraq now or watch as the oil-rich state turns itself into a thriving democracy.
They are also fearful that, for the first time, most Iraqis can now express an opinion in public without fear of execution.
But the breathtaking pace of economic growth is not without problems. Trade is so good the market system can’t keep pace with demand and the country faces major inflation.
Motorists queue for four hours to fill their tanks because there aren’t enough petrol stations.
Engineers are braced for power cuts because the grid can’t cope with increased demand.
And the new Iraqi police force is battling to stamp out organised crime. Just one third of major cities are covered by proper sewerage systems — and poverty is a problem in some areas.
Yet above all, the country has been vastly improved. Here is The Sun’s analysis of how everyday life has got better:
ELECTRICITY/WATER/FUEL: Power plants are being renovated and new ones under construction.
Electricity is on 23 hours a day in Basra compared to just two under Saddam.
Many houses have never had running water but aid agencies have ensured there is plenty of drinking water.
British soldiers are clearing out 30 years of blockage from city sewers, including 6ft-wide pipes reduced to 6in of flow.
Taxpayers’ money is paying to hire JCBs to move tons of rotting rubbish from the streets into landfill sites. British soldiers are ensuring power is getting to schools and hospitals.
SCHOOLS: Teachers’ wages have risen from £3 a month to £40.
New schools are planned but rebuilding existing ones is a priority of the 17,000 reconstruction jobs already under way.
Some 33,000 teachers were retrained during the February school holidays and 2,300 buildings have already been refurbished. Teachers are no longer banned from teaching world history.
HEALTH: More than 50 family doctors’ surgeries have been renovated and 600 more equipped to do the job properly.
A further 65 hospitals and 32 health centres are being spruced up and 30million vaccine doses for millions of children have been delivered.
Hospitals still suffer from years of neglect but cash has been earmarked for vital medicines and equipment.
OIL: Iraq has the second largest oilfields in the world and now pumps out 2.5million barrels a day.
Every dollar from exports is going straight in to the Iraqi Treasury’s coffers — despite anti-war campaigners’ claims the money lines US pockets.
LAW AND ORDER: Some 75,000 Iraqi police are on duty. British officers are training recruits and a further 35,000 are being hired.
Police chiefs from Saddam’s reign have been sacked.
More than £1million has been spent on new uniforms and wages have risen from £12 a month to £50. New jails are being built and courts renovated.
Military chiefs and political leaders in Iraq have little doubt the country will prosper.
Of course, arguments will rage about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and whether it was right to go to war.
But Iraq will thrive because of its two most precious natural assets — its people and its oil.
US Secretary Of State Colin Powell got it right when he said the road ahead in Iraq would be long and difficult.
But it won’t be anything like as tough as the road left behind.
The Democrats ran on 'Honesty' and I told 'em at the time they would never get anywhere. It was too radical for politics. The Republicans ran on 'Common Sense' and the returns showed that there were 8 million more people in the United States who had 'Common Sense' enough not to believe that there was 'Honesty' in politics." --Will Rogers
posted on March 15, 2004 05:57:19 PM new
Right, Bear. When pictures are shown of Basra, it looks like Vegas with all the lights and the "hundreds of thousands of new BMW's" tooting around full of people out buying blue jeans and new fridge's.
posted on March 15, 2004 06:09:44 PM new
bear - I don't know if it was Basra or not, but last night I watched a TV program that pretty much showed what your article says.
They showed the schools with all the girls in class. They spoke to the teachers salaries being like 10 fold of what they were. They showed vendors on the streets saying they were getting more money for their goods and that sales were good.
There are a lot of positive changes going on there. And most important the people are free.
posted on March 15, 2004 07:37:27 PM new
Linda, that's a fact. Another fact is that that without U.S. forces none of these changes would have been possible and all the libs just cannot accept that it was the right thing to do.
The Democrats ran on 'Honesty' and I told 'em at the time they would never get anywhere. It was too radical for politics. The Republicans ran on 'Common Sense' and the returns showed that there were 8 million more people in the United States who had 'Common Sense' enough not to believe that there was 'Honesty' in politics." --Will Rogers
posted on March 16, 2004 08:19:15 PM new
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 16 — Two European engineers were shot to death in a drive-by attack on Tuesday, the latest killings in a rash of attacks on foreign civilians in Iraq.
American military officials said the two hydraulic engineers, one from Germany, the other from the Netherlands, were driving along a remote stretch of highway in southern Iraq when their four-wheel-drive vehicle was blasted by gunfire from a passing car. Two Iraqis with the engineers were also killed.
The attack came less than 24 hours after a group of American missionaries were shot in their car, in similar circumstances, in northern Iraq. Three of the missionaries were killed instantly on Monday. A fourth died Tuesday morning while being airlifted to a military hospital.
No suspects have been identified in either shooting. But last week occupation authorities arrested several Iraqi policemen in connection with the deaths of two American civilians. The two were working for the United States government and were killed in an ambush along an empty road.
The shootings have set off a spike of fear among foreign workers already on edge.
"I've been here long enough to know when there's a lull in violence and when there's a peak, and right now we're at a peak," said Bill L. Evans, a telecommunications specialist from New Hampshire who has been working in Iraq since October. "When I'm driving around, my weapon sits on my lap now, not in my holster."
posted on March 17, 2004 05:38:18 AM new
One by one the left wing media silences the positive things that happen in Iraq.
NBC forced out Bob Arnot who wrote upbeat stories about Iraq.
The left wants to only show the negative to convince American's we need to withdraw from Iraq because nothing good is happening there.
But even their on presidential candidate hasn't said he'll withdraw our troops. No....he just votes not to fund our soldiers needs then says what a terrible job this President is doing.
az-Zaman has been reporting that 12 of the Shiite members of the Interim Governing Council, including expatriate Ahmad Chalabi, are opposed to the return to Iraq of special UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. They are angry that he certified that open, direct elections could not be held before June 30, as the Shiites had wanted. And they are suspicious of his loyalties, since he is himself a Sunni Arab.
Today Brahimi struck back, saying that the UN had received a letter from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani requesting it to remain involved in Iraq. Brahimi knows that Sistani trumps Chalabi every time. Sistani's main concern appears to be to help Iraq escape from any kind of neo-colonial American domination, and he sees the UN as a wedge in that effort. Also, just on principle, he believes that a UN Security Council resolution has legitimacy in a way that the Anglo-American Coalition Provisional occupying authority does not.
Sistani's views seem to accord with those of the new Spanish president, Jose Luis Rodrigues Zapatera, who says that he needs a new UN Security Council Resolution if he is to keep Spanish troops in Iraq. (This is another thing those critics of his got wrong when they charged "cowardice." He hadn't said he would run away from Iraq. He said he would only keep troops there if international law could be upheld, i.e., if the UN SC authorized it. Even the chief British legal adviser had expressed worries that without a Security Council resolution, occupation authorities in Iraq would diverge farther and farther from the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Accords as time went on.)
Ironically, the Bush Administration, after having worked so hard for the past year to marginalize the UN in Iraq, has now made an about-face and wants a new UN resolution. Just three months ago, the Coalition Provisional Authority was reportedly "deeply offended" when the Interim Governing Council decided to approach the UN about getting involved in the transition to Iraqi sovereignty. Gone are those days.
The Bush administration is clearly petrified that its ad hoc coalition in Iraq will fall apart in the next six months. The US military is stretched extremely thin, and is reducing forces in Iraq from 130,000 to 110,000 simply because it has no more to spare. Some commentators have suggested that Spain's 1300 troops are not militarily significant. I disagree. All it would take is a handful of such countries to withdraw, and the US would be down another division. It cannot afford that. But of course the real cost of such withdrawals would be political. If it looks as though Bush's coalition of the willing is collapsing, he will risk looking like a failure in international affairs.
It would not take anything dramatic for a lot of coalition partners with small troop contingents to pull out. Some have already talked about not staying beyond mid-summer. And, some other Bush political allies are skating on thin ice. I am told by an expat in Japan that Koizumi's majority in parliament depends in part on a Buddhist party that is strongly pacifist and could get cold feet about the Self Defense Forces being sent to Iraq. There have also been controversies in Bulgaria, e.g, when their troops have been killed or wounded, about whether it makes sense for them to be there.
It turns out that Bush all along needed the United Nations and its mantle of legitimacy for the Iraq adventure much more than he realized.
Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that Zougam, one of the Moroccans suspected in the train bombings in Madrid, is close to both Imad Yarkas and a Moroccan religious leader called Fizazi, who head the Salafiyah Jihadiyah organization. It is suspected in last year's bombings in Casablanca. Yarkas appears to have played a logistical role in the September 11 attacks and met with Muhammad Atta.
Newsmen in Spain are beginning to reveal that defeated Spanish leader Jose Maria Aznar had called them and told them after the bombings that the Basque separatists were behind it. He apparently feared that if it were known to be al-Qaeda, he would be blamed for diverting Spain's energies into Iraq.
posted by Juan Cole at 3/17/2004 08:20:09 AM
posted on March 17, 2004 05:54:28 AM new
yes there's a goal for the US to strive for.
Let's be like Spain and vote in a socialist government. Let's drop our military strength and become fearful of the terrorist to the point that we let THEM decide what actions the US will take.
Yes, let's vote in kerry who will ONLY let our military make a move - no matter the threat to the US - IF we first get UN approval.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on March 17, 2004 05:59:19 AM newThe US military is stretched extremely thin, and is reducing forces in Iraq from 130,000 to 110,000 simply because it has no more to spare.
Yes, and we have the clinton administration to thank for that fact. It's clinton that reduced the military for 7 of his 8 years in office.
It's the Bush administration who has worked to increase the military.
The Bush administration will never succeed by looking for terrorist in all the wrong places and then blaming Clinton for that failure. The Bush administration cannot blame Clinton for underestimating the difficulties of a war that they chose to engage without sufficient troops or knowledge to execute or exit.
posted on March 17, 2004 06:18:57 AM new
And what does kerry have to say about the US losing one of it's allies?
-----
Kerry and Spain
The U.S. loses an ally, and the Senator has little to say.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
John Kerry could well be the next President of the United States. How his administration would fight the war on terror--especially in Iraq--is therefore of paramount importance to voters as they decide between him and George W. Bush next November.
Yet this would-be-leader of the free world has yet to tell Americans how he'd manage the war--other than that he wants the United Nations more involved, somehow.
Mr. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, and even though he opposed the $87 billion to finish the job he insists the U.S. can't afford to "cut and run." That's nice to hear, but voters want to know if he means it.
A golden opportunity to show that he does occurred this weekend with the Spanish election results. Spain is a key U.S. ally in Iraq, yet the incoming Spanish Prime Minister says he'll withdraw his country's forces there by June 30--just in time for the sensitive handover to Iraqi control. The loss of 1,300 Spanish troops is a major setback for U.S. policy. Even worse, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has spent two days claiming that U.S.-British policy was built on "lies," that the occupation has been a "disaster," and that his goal is to shift Madrid's allegiance back toward France and Germany.
All of this is a splendid chance for Mr. Kerry to step up and defend American interests. At the very least, he might call Mr. Zapatero's remarks unfortunate. He could express sympathy for the Spanish people but go on to say that all Americans, no matter what their party and differences on strategy, stand united in fighting terrorism and won't be stampeded by threats. He might also note that the war on terror will require help from all nations and urge Mr. Zapatero to reconsider his intention to separate Spain from the U.S.
Alas, so far these are all might-have-saids. Here is what Mr. Kerry did say about Spain in a speech Monday to a firefighters union. We quote in full: "I think this Administration has it backwards. President Bush says we can't afford to fund homeland security. I say we can't afford not to. When it comes to protecting America from terrorism, this Administration is big on bluster and short on action. But as we saw again last week in Spain--real action is what we need. The Bush Administration is tinkering while the clock on homeland security is ticking. And we don't have a moment to waste." Mr. Kerry then renewed his call for the federal government to hire 100,000 new firefighters.
That's it. That's the sole reference in the speech to what is arguably the largest setback in the war on terror since 9/11. Instead of addressing the issues at stake in Iraq, his instinct was to dodge them. Instead of conviction, there was the whiff of opportunism. Senator Kerry placed Spanish events not in the context of U.S. foreign policy but of American homeland security--as if the main lesson of Madrid is that we must better protect our railways.
Can't some sober Democrats out there get their candidate to do any better than this? Not only for the good of the country but for his own political sake. If Senator Kerry does become President, he won't find it easier to succeed in Iraq if our allies have cut and run. And while Spain may be able to move down on the list of al Qaeda targets, the U.S. will always be target one. A President Kerry would hardly want terrorists concluding that they can determine the outcome of democratic elections with a few well-placed bombs.
In purely political terms, Mr. Kerry needs to start sounding more like a leader if he wants any chance to win. The latest New York Times/CBS poll found that just 33% of respondents have confidence in Mr. Kerry's ability "to deal wisely with an international crisis," compared with 53% for Mr. Bush. Asked whether the candidate "is likely to protect the country from a terrorist attack," 61% said "yes" for Mr. Kerry while 78% believed Mr. Bush would do so. Mr. Kerry has a big image problem on national security.
If he wants voters to trust him with the White House, Mr. Kerry will have to do more than say the right thing about fighting terror. He will have to show that he recognizes U.S. interests and is willing to fight for them. The flap this week over Mr. Kerry's invocation of support from foreign "leaders" is so damaging mainly because it suggests the Senator puts his own electoral prospects above those interests.
Spain can afford a leader who exploits a wartime setback for political gain; the world's only superpower cannot.
So now, as usual, when you lose the argument, you change the topic with an attack on Kerry. You jump from Clinton to Kerry in a hysterical effort to excuse Bush for his failure in Iraq.
Bush is in deep trouble in Iraq and it's time for his administration to focus on the problem. This morning, CNN reported a poll which indicates that the majority of people in every conuntry in the world disapprove of Bush and his war in Iraq. Let's hope that the U.N. will be able to help.
posted on March 17, 2004 06:42:23 AM new
yes helen - I understand that you would like to see us take the same actions Spain's new socialist president is taking. But there are some people who don't see this as a dem vs rep issue. This is an issue of whether or not we're going to continuing fighting terrorists. Whether or not we should just sit back and let them come attack us. I vote for US.
-----------------
Blair says world is facing 'war on our freedom'
1 hour, 39 minutes ago
Add World - AFP to My Yahoo!
LONDON (AFP) - The world is facing "a war on our way of life, a war on our freedom" that can only be won if it unites to combat terrorism, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said.
Speaking in parliament for the first time since Thursday's train bombings in Madrid, Blair said the international community has a choice -- "to confront terrorism, or to be defeated by it."
"It is a war, it is a war on our way of life, a war on our freedom," he said, as he appealed for "the whole of the international community to stand firm" against terrorism.
posted on March 17, 2004 06:59:40 AM new
Many people are victims of Bush propaganda. They have been brainwashed to believe that 9/11 was caused by Iraq when that is not true. They believe that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda when that is not true. And they believe that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq. That is not true.
At least Blair recognizes at this late date that we need the entire international community to fight terrorism . Just think of all the good lives that have been wasted because this incompetent, greedy administration made the decision to go it alone which instead of fighting terrorism only served to increase terrorism.
The question on CNN is Has the war on terror permanently damaged America's relations with its allies?
President Bush is a failure in international affairs.
Helen
ed. increased to increase
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 17, 2004 07:03 AM ]
posted on March 17, 2004 07:05:59 AM new
Few votes are as important as supporting our soldiers in combat....and kerry voted against those funds. That speaks very clearly to his support of our military who's lives are being lost to get saddam out of power. saddam.....a leader who no one in the world wishes he were still in power.
posted on March 17, 2004 07:24:43 AM newOne by one the left wing media silences the positive things that happen in Iraq.
I can see things from both sides, there aren't many stories on the killed and injured soldiers either.
The left wants to only show the negative to convince American's we need to withdraw from Iraq because nothing good is happening there.
I don't think that's true at all. I don't believe the troops can withdraw right now because there's lots of work to be done and Iraq is still a very volatile country.
One of my biggest complaints about the war (besides that it even happened) is that the US went in too fast and they didn't have plans. They didn't send in enough troops to begin with. Iraq's basic infrastructure like much needed hospitals and schools were destroyed so now it's costly and time consuming to rebuild it all. Much of the damage could have been avoided.
I also think that some have the terrorism 9/11 events mixed up with the reasons for the war in Iraq.
posted on March 17, 2004 07:41:42 AM new
so Kiara - How would you defend the actions of kerry who votes to put our troops in Iraq and then votes against the funding which supports those same soldiers that you appear to be concerned about? That same vote also reduced the funding for the necessary rebuilding in Iraq. How do you excuse those actions?
there aren't many stories on the killed and injured soldiers either. It's on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC every single day. It's reported in all those news reports helen keeps posting.
I don't believe the troops can withdraw right now because there's lots of work to be done and Iraq is still a very volatile country. Well....then how are we ever going to be able to get out of there when kerry voted against the needed funding to do all that work?
the US went in too fast and they didn't have plans. There were plans. There always have been plans. But as with anything in life, circumstances change and new adjustments must be made according to what those changes are.
They didn't send in enough troops to begin with. Says who? The US surprised everyone with how quickly they took over control of Iraq.
Iraq's basic infrastructure like much needed hospitals and schools were destroyed so now it's costly and time consuming to rebuild it all.
First of all, the above mentioned facilities, were in pathetic dis-repair already, long before the US went in. Secondly I'm sure you've read that saddam stored his weapons right next to/in schools and hospitals.
I also think that some have the terrorism 9/11 events mixed up with the reasons for the war in Iraq. I don't think some have anything mixed up. Just like NK is a separate threat to the US's well being, so was Iraq. Regardless of whether one believes there were terrorist connections or not. A threat that needed to be removed. But as I've said before....our last THREE administrations felt saddam did present a threat.
Go read some of kerry's OWN statements about Iraq's threat to the world. It's easy with 20/20 hindsight to be critical. But even kerry thought saddam presented a threat.
posted on March 17, 2004 07:51:03 AM new
Kennedy also voted against that bill to fund the Iraq war.
Until the Administration genuinely changes course, I cannot in good conscience vote to fund a failed policy that endangers our troops in the field and our strategic objectives in the world instead of protecting them. The greatest mistake we can make in Congress as the people's elected representatives is to support and finance a go-it-alone, do-it-because-I-say-so policy that leaves young Americans increasingly at risk in Iraq.
So when the roll is called on this $87 billion legislation, which provides no effective conditions for genuine international participation and a clear change in policy in Iraq, I intend to vote no. A no vote is not a vote against supporting our troops. It is a vote to send the Administration back to the drawing board. It is a vote for a new policy – a policy worthy of the sacrifice our soldiers are making, a policy that restores America as a respected member of the family of nations, a policy that will make it easier, not far more difficult, to win the war against terrorism.
Kerry was operating under the same principles. Your allegation that soldiers would have been denied support is just more right wing sleaze.
posted on March 17, 2004 07:59:03 AM newKennedy also voted against that bill to fund the Iraq war
Yes....another hyprocrite for sure. If things had gone smoothly in Iraq they'd be the first one's to the podium to be taking credit for it too.
All the democrats who voted to put our soldiers in harms way did so because they too thought saddam needed to be removed.
Hyprocrites each and every one who has not 'flip-flopped' on this issue.
Is Kennedy calling for our troops to be removed? NO, he's not. Just blame blame blame with outrageous claims he was lied to. If he thinks he was lied to then he should be impeached. After all the years that these two ultra-left winged hyprocrites have been in office they surely wouldn't have ONLY taken Bush's word on this threat. Just like you wouldn't take my word for anything. It just wouldn't have happened.
posted on March 17, 2004 08:04:15 AM new
Linda, you are under the assumption that I am supporting Kerry. So I will say once again, loud and clear, that I am not supporting Kerry.
The US surprised everyone with how quickly they took over control of Iraq.
Why should that surprise anyone, there was absolutely no opposition whatsoever. The military commanders wanted more troops and the political leaders, Rumsfeld especially, vetoed it down. Even the ground commanders admit they weren't prepared. The roads weren't blocked from Syria and Iran and non-Iraqi fighters came in. There is a shortage of manpower.
Yes, things were in disrepair but afterwards things were made much worse.
You seem to be slightly upset. Just so you know, I'm speaking in a quiet and calm voice and don't feel the need to bold my words to get my message out there, I am very relaxed and am that way most times that I post.
posted on March 17, 2004 08:05:16 AM new
helen - I cannot in good conscience vote to fund a failed policy that endangers our troops in the field and our strategic objectives in the world instead of protecting them.
So you also support not funding our troops. Great...figures. And yet you have the gull to continue to list their deaths and blame them on Bush? What a hyrocrite you are.
If you had the power to vote, and with your above statement about NOT funding our troops, then their deaths are on YOUR hands, helen. Because it doesn't matter who put them there, what matters is their safety.
And you'd vote to let them hang out there without any support [funding].
posted on March 17, 2004 08:19:37 AM new
Kiara - First of all you can quit repeating yourself and just say if you do or don't support kerry. That would clear things up very quickly.
I understand you have not directly said you support him, but your constant criticism of this administration is very clear.
Why should that surprise anyone, there was absolutely no opposition whatsoever.
But that's not what everyone was saying BEFORE we went in. Go back to previous threads and newsreports, the left was constantly making statements about all the chemical weapons that were going to be used on our troops.
The military commanders wanted more troops and the political leaders, Rumsfeld especially, vetoed it down. There is always disagreement between those who didn't want our troops sent in vs those who were in charge of making those decisions. History shows the number of troops that were sent, worked out well.
Yes, things were in disrepair but afterwards things were made much worse. As happens in most wars, Kiara. They are now back to pre-war levels.
You seem to be slightly upset. My manner of posting is 'rougher' than some. I don't feel upset at all.
But I am tired of all those who blame this administration for everything that has gone wrong OR CRITICISE this administration for our soldiers deaths....WHEN THEY VOTED AGAINST funding for those same troops. Like they think our invasion somehow would have been different under a democrat, had one been in office. The dems voted for this war too or it wouldn't have happened.
Now they use and focus only on the negative issues for their own political gain. Not appearing to consider what's in the best interests of the US.
and don't feel the need to bold my words to get my message out there. We each are individuals and have different ways of expressing ourselves. You post the way you wish and I will do the same.
Read this again....It's Kennedy's statement which I agree with.
"Until the Administration genuinely changes course, I cannot in good conscience vote to fund a failed policy that endangers our troops in the field and our strategic objectives in the world instead of protecting them. The greatest mistake we can make in Congress as the people's elected representatives is to support and finance a go-it-alone, do-it-because-I-say-so policy that leaves young Americans increasingly at risk in Iraq."
"So when the roll is called on this $87 billion legislation, which provides no effective conditions for genuine international participation and a clear change in policy in Iraq, I intend to vote no. A no vote is not a vote against supporting our troops. It is a vote to send the Administration back to the drawing board. It is a vote for a new policy – a policy worthy of the sacrifice our soldiers are making, a policy that restores America as a respected member of the family of nations, a policy that will make it easier, not far more difficult, to win the war against terrorism."
Please read my comment before you make assumptions. Kennedy wanted Bush to produce a better plan which included international participation - a plan which at this late date, Bush is beginning to realize is true. Also a plan which would have been in the troops best interest.
It was Kennedy's belief that the vote for the Bush plan would endanger the troops. The mess that we are in right now and the number of killed and wounded prooves that both he and Kerry were right.
Helen
ed. to remove a superflous word.
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 17, 2004 08:33 AM ]
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
