posted on March 17, 2004 09:22:48 AM new
helen - Your allegation that soldiers would have been denied support is just more right wing sleaze.
Yes helen....I understand that you think that voting against funding our troops with the supplies they need to fight this war is right wing sleaze. It's a figment of your ultra-left wing imagination.
Fact is it's the truth. You, for one, were SCREAMING about the soldiers not having proper vests to protect them, save their lives. But then you support those who voted against those funds being provided to purchase those same vests.
You're playing both sides of the issue and it's clear for all to see. While you continue to blame Bush for the deaths of our soldiers, while you call for admitting defeat and pulling out of Iraq, while you support kerry, who also voted to take us to war....you also support his/their NOT FUNDING the needs of our soldiers.
posted on March 17, 2004 09:49:30 AM new
There is breaking news of a huge explosion in Baghdad and it destroyed a hotel near to where some of the foreign contractors are housed.
US soldiers are on the scene and trying to maintain order.
You still are not reading my comment and instead continue to make up viewpoints that I do not have. I said that I agreed with Kennedy on his reasons for voting against the bill. Why is it necessary for me and others here to repeat our positions over and over while you twist our thoughts over and over. I am not the only poster here to complain about that.
I'll repeat one more time....
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.
He supported sending the Bush administration back to the drawing board. Why can you not understant that? It was not a final veto but rather a protest against THAT particular bill.
I don't "scream" or become hysterical about these issues, linda. Your interpretation of my concern is incorrect. I simply pointed out that the vests were not ordered in a timely manner resulting in a lot of troops without bullet proof vests. It was not a lack of funds that caused this problem but lack of *planning*.. That problem had nothing to do with the approval of the bill.
When you say such silly #*!@ about me, you are losing sight of the fact that others here know me and they know that I am not the type of person who would deny troops everything that they need. I am on their side and that side is not pro Bush.
Helen
typo ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 17, 2004 11:08 AM ]
posted on March 17, 2004 11:05:19 AM new
In Baghdad now there are at least 27 deaths reported, perhaps 40 wounded.
You're using their deaths to further your anti-war agenda, imo.
I'm mentioning this here because it shows that the conditions in Iraq are more dangerous now than when the war first started.
Some Iraqis tried to push away the US soldiers who were helping the injured, they were very hostile.
There is "open season" on all Western civilians and the insurgents will do anything they can to undermine the efforts of the reconstruction. This is a reality.
posted on March 17, 2004 11:29:29 AM new linda, I would like to use fenix's post to you below as my signature line when I reply to you. ROTFLOL
Fenix posted as neonmania 5/03
"LInda - I give up. You don't want to hear what I say, your don't seem to care. For some reason you are bound and determined to believe that because I don't believe in bombing every country that does something we don't like that I have no support for our country. You believe that holding the lives of citizens of other nations in the same regard as the citizens of our own means that I support the actions of their government as well."
"You actually have the unmitigated gall to continue to accuse me of possessing beliefs that I have repeatedly stated I do not hold."
"I'm sick and tired and defending myself against your baseless accusations and I'm sick and tired of your knee jerk patriotism that screams TRAITOR whenever someone says something that you don't like."
"Accepting that some people may be able to find fault in this countries actions while still approving of the final goal seems to take you too far outside of your comfort zone for you to accept and I'm tired of it."
"Call me whatever the hell makes you sleep better at night Linda, I simply don't give a damn."
"You've made it impossible to debate actual issues. Everything turns into a person attack. I enjoying debating the details and ins and outs of both sides of action. Somehow though it always ends up with with me having to defend my patriotism. It's annoying, it'ds demeaning, it's childish and it's over." fenix
posted on March 17, 2004 11:49:07 AM new
ROFLMHO - You must have missed her post yesterday where she said that while she doesn't agree with me on almost all the issues....she enjoys debating with me.
---------
Can't have it both ways helen. Those who voted against the needed funding for our soldiers....voted against it. That's the fact of the situation.
This country is so lucky that there aren't many ultra ultra-liberals like kennedy and kerry.
Because they're the one's that voted FOR this bill and gave the funding needed to our soldiers.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 17, 2004 11:50 AM ]
posted on March 17, 2004 12:02:16 PM new
Fenix was very gracious but she says it so well.
Actually she said,
"So this is just a bash and smash forum? If you want to do nothing but bash have at it - I just find it boring. There are no discussions or comparison of ideas. Back in the employment thread you kept inisisting that Kerry had put forth no opinions on job creation and stabilization, you kept insisting over and over that there was nothing so when I dropped in and posted his views from the website you stopped posting. You called outfor the info, I am assuming retty sure that you would not get it and when you did, you had no comment on it. This is not meant as a an attack on you BTW - it's just a single example. I actually enjoy debating with you even though we disagree on just about every subject I can think of."
Now use your little smiley faces as bullets and carry on as usual. Fools don't take advice.
posted on March 17, 2004 12:06:51 PM new
Seems to me if we werent in a war in the first place we would need more funding?
Maybe then they could concentrate on improving living condtions for military personnel and their families. (The housing is old asbestos ridden and junky.) Also, plenty military families are on food stamps, but that doesnt get much attention. I suppose we need to contract for more missals or spend 9 billion more than necessary for a halaburtion contract for MRE's or some such.
posted on March 17, 2004 12:09:50 PM new
Washington -- The House and Senate easily passed versions of President Bush's proposed $87 billion emergency appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan Friday, and the fight now switches to the Senate's insistence that Iraq repay half the $20 billion set aside for rebuilding there.
In the House -- where the rules allow the majority to limit debate -- the number of votes against increased to 125 from the 12 members who opposed last March's $65 billion in extra spending for the Iraq war. Most of the Bay Area's House members voted "no'' on Friday and were on the losing end of the 303-125 vote. However, all maintained that they support the troops serving in Iraq.
That contention was testily denounced by House Republican leaders.
"The old debating tactic of 'I support the troops but...' isn't going to cut it this time,'' House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told the House, his voice rising.
"To those who have feigned offense about their patriotism being questioned, this isn't about your patriotism. It's about your judgment,'' said DeLay, whose majority either ruled out of order or voted down proposals to make all or part of the money for rebuilding Iraq a loan rather than a grant.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, who voted against the bill...
But Pelosi's 206-member Democratic caucus was sorely divided. Eighty- three Democrats, including Pelosi's second-in-command, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., joined 220 Republicans in voting for final passage.
Among those who joined Hoyer was Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, one of only two Bay Area House Democrats who voted last October to give Bush permission to go to war. "It is with a heavy heart that I vote for this bill,'' she said in a statement.
Tauscher, who has become a tough critic of Bush's handling of Iraq since Hussein fell, added, "Nearly $65 billion in this bill is for our troops who are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they desperately need it."
-------------
posted on March 17, 2004 12:14:36 PM new
neroter - The fact is they had already voted to put our troops over there. Both the republicans and the democrats. This wasn't about whether or not to send them. This was about giving them the needed funding while they were already there.
And yet they profess to be so concerned about our soldiers.....right.
posted on March 17, 2004 12:15:07 PM new
Linda, seems you are really hung up on the fact that Kerry voted for the war. So what? At the time, just like your beloved President, it was presented to all of them as the right thing to do.
If he voted against more funding maybe its because of pilfering that contractors are conducting and the money is getting wasted.
posted on March 17, 2004 12:25:22 PM new
The troops desperately needed support from the international community and they desperately needed a plan too. Money doesn't cover everything, linda. Senators like Kennedy and Kerry who voted against that bill recognized the lack of support for the troops in Iraq. By not voting for the funding bill, they were attempting to send Bush and his team back to the planning table. In exchange for 87 billion dollars was a request to see a workable plan too much to ask in return?
posted on March 17, 2004 12:39:00 PM new
neroter - I'm hung up [lol] on all kerry's flip-flopping. But no, not on his voting against the war alone. Everyone has the right to vote their position and he did. Since then he's flip-flopped, like he has on almost all the things he's voted for.....now he's against them.
The issue I have on this subject is that those, both elected reps and those here, who voted for or supported NOT funding our soldiers once they were already there are claiming they 'really support our troops'. In words only it appears.
posted on March 17, 2004 12:57:03 PM new
from NRO -
January 26, 2004, 8:38 a.m.
[b]Kerry vs. Kerry
Running against his record[/b].
MANCHESTER, N.H. — John Kerry has surged into first place here, proving his oft-repeated contention that he is a "good closer." Kerry has long said that he is a great fighter. If he completes his miraculous comeback to win the Democratic nomination, he will indeed have the fight of his life on his hands — against his own legislative record.
Kerry, of course, has struggled with his vote in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war. "We did not empower the president to do regime change," Kerry said of the resolution on Meet the Press last summer. Actually, the Kerry-supported resolution specifically cited regime change as a goal, and Kerry also voted to make regime change U.S. policy in 1998. That's two Kerry votes in favor of regime change, but who's counting? The Massachusetts senator has similar trouble with other prior votes, making him the first candidate in U.S. history to run a presidential campaign against himself.
posted on March 17, 2004 01:20:59 PM new
Have you chosen not to answer this question too, linda?
The troops desperately needed support from the international community and they desperately needed a plan too. Money doesn't cover everything, linda. Senators like Kennedy and Kerry who voted against that bill recognized the lack of support for the troops in Iraq. By not voting for the funding bill, they were attempting to send Bush and his team back to the planning table. In exchange for 87 billion dollars was a request to see a workable plan too much to ask in return?
posted on March 17, 2004 01:39:50 PM new
And they are still digging out bodies of the dead in Iraq ...sifting through debris with their hands. Help from Americans has been rejected by the Iraqis.
posted on March 17, 2004 02:48:17 PM new
I think the time has come that the major cities should be divided into zones so to find out who belongs and who doesn't with enough adequate checkpoints in all areas to control vehicle traffic. No vehicles should be allowed to be parked near any public buildings until this is brought under control.
It's critical that Iraqi police and firemen are trained and equipped so they can be on the forefront of this with enough backing by coalition troops.
Need way better protection for the police as they are wide open to attack. Buildings need to be beefed up to keep mobs out.
The borders with syria and Iran must be better maintained to keep the non Iraq "fighters" out!
This will take a long time no matter who is in the White House. June 30th is just not enough time....a pipe dream.
posted on March 17, 2004 03:00:28 PM new
IMO, Bush should not have acted like a hog with the other countries. Were we on better terms with some of them, the funding could come from their assistance as well. Linda, I understand your qualm, but this country, USA, will be buried in debt from this Iraq fiasco, and there are still PROBLEMS HERE to pay for.
posted on March 17, 2004 03:08:53 PM new
That's the strategy that should have been used, trai.
Obviously at the beginning there weren't many plans to do this and now they lack troops and funding so many of the Iraqis hate the US and blame them. They're angry because there is hardly any security, many are also angry because there are no jobs.
Linda said
History shows the number of troops that were sent, worked out well.
For someone to say that, it makes it sound like they think this is all over with. History is unfolding as we speak and things may get a lot worse yet. It's been mentioned that no Iraqis have been seen cheering over their "freedom" and it's been a year now. People over there don't seem happy at all, they live in fear.
posted on March 18, 2004 11:30:58 AM new
Kiara said: "People over there don't seem happy at all, they live in fear."
---
A Socialist's Idea of a 'Disaster'
A constant refrain of the pro-Saddam left is that those of us who supported the liberation of Iraq were blinded by "ideology," in contrast to the realists who favored keeping Saddam in power. The evidence, however, suggests precisely the opposite is true.
"The war has been a disaster; the occupation continues to be a disaster," Spain's prime minister elect, Jose Luis Rordiguez Zapatero says or Iraq. "It divided more than it united, there were no reasons for it, time has shown that the arguments for it lacked credibility, and the occupation has been poorly managed."
But the BBC reports that a new opinion poll finds that "most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago":
Seventy per cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.
And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war. . . .
About 15% say foreign forces should leave Iraq now, but many more say they should stay until an Iraqi government is in place or security is restored.
posted on March 18, 2004 12:39:54 PM new
One BBC poll doesn't prove anything. How many told the truth and where did they find the people who answered it?
I don't see the rosy picture that some are so focused on. I'm not saying it's all bad there but it's far from good and far from safe. There was always fear and now there is a fear of the unknown.
Iraq's hopes split along class divide
After an opinion poll finds most Iraqis say their life has improved since the war last year, the BBC's Barbara Plett takes her own soundings on the streets of Baghdad.
You see them all over Baghdad: men with furrowed brows and tired eyes, standing in lines, sitting in groups on the pavement, waiting for jobs.
Always some are huddled outside the blast walls at the edge of the palace complex from where the old regime used to rule, and where the new one has its main headquarters.
Their view of the past year is coloured by where they stand.
"We can express ourselves the way we like now, we couldn't do that before," says one man.
"But it's for nothing. Because millions of people need jobs. We've been waiting to be employed for a year. It's worse now than before."
To understand how Baghdad feels one year after the fall of Saddam Hussein you need only climb its class ladder. The higher you go, the better it looks.
"But the Americans came and controlled our riches. I don't think anything good will happen unless Iraqis themselves can take things into their hands. Otherwise, the current situation is worse than before."
```````````````````````````````````````````
It is true that she and her husband Zohair Radwan are making more money now and they did not like Saddam Hussein.
But they were not persecuted by him, and they are strong Iraqi nationalists. The talk here is about the loss of a national authority, and the moral codes by which people lived.
"I don't feel secure in my home," says Intisar. "Because there is nobody to protect us. There's no law, nobody respects the police.
"We expect anything. Any time, any minute, you are sitting in your home, somebody could come and kill you, nobody cares."
"Life for me is going better," Zohair admits. "But for Iraqi society it's getting worse. Now I get better jobs, I'm better off financially, I can express my thoughts easily and freely, but generally speaking the society collapsed."
posted on March 18, 2004 08:28:15 PM new
kiara - It's not from a BBC poll. BBC reported on the ongoing poll that the Oxford foundation is doing in Iraq. They polled 6,000 Iraqi's for different media.
posted on March 19, 2004 03:16:22 AM new
Helen I am curious as to why you are so hung up in international help?
When it is quite evident that most internationals depend on the US for the help they need.
I am thinking what bothers you the most is that we have done it alone and that scares your little world into knowing that we can operate without the support of the rest of the world... we are after all the ONLY Super Power remaining and in fact we don't need anyone else's help.
UN has proven over and over how ineffective they are... left seems to be overlooking the fact we also sent troops to Hati...
War is death... it has been this way for centuries... we have people die here everyday for less honorable reasons than those in Iraq...
