Blinded, without legs or arms - casualties beyond our imagination are returning from Iraq but we hear nothing about the wounded. The dead are hidden and the wounded are not mentioned. Shame on the Bush administration for all the casualties of this needless war!
Thanks to Spazmodeus for posting this story on OTWA...from first page, New York Times.
A Soldier's Return, to a Dark and Moody World
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
LAIRSVILLE, Pa., Dec. 24 — Jeremy Feldbusch joined the Army to travel the world. Now the only place he can go by himself is the 40 steps from his bed to the reclining chair in the living room.
The stucco walls guide him, past the bathroom, kitchen and closet, past the photographs of him in football jacket and wrestling singlet, past the coffee table, where he sometimes stubs his toe. At last, he finds his chair.
"Mom!" he yelled on a recent day. "I want a drink of some drinky stuff!"
"How about water?" his mother said back.
"No! Mountain Dew!"
"O.K., Jeremy, O.K."
Sgt. Jeremy Feldbusch, a fit, driven, highly capable Army Ranger, left home in February knowing the risks of combat. Two months later, he came home blind.
A growing number of young men and women are returning from Iraq and trying to resume lives that were interrupted by war and then minced by injury. Sergeant Feldbusch, a moody 24-year-old, is one of them, back in a little town in western Pennsylvania, in a little house overlooking trees and snow-blanketed hills he cannot see.
"What happened to my plans to become an officer? Gone," Sergeant Feldbusch said. "Can I ever jump in my truck again and just take off? No. Do I always have to be with my mom or dad now? Yep."
Since the war started, more than 2,300 American soldiers in Iraq have been hurt in combat, many by artillery shells and homemade bombs that spray shrapnel. Bulletproof vests and helmets protect vital organs. But as the insurgency continues, doctors say that severe facial injuries, along with wounds to the arms and legs, are becoming a hallmark of this war.
"There's that little area between where the helmet ends and the body armor starts," said Dr. Jeffrey Poffenbarger, an Army neurosurgeon. "And we're seeing a lot of guys getting hit right there, right in the face."
Back home, one little piece of metal can turn an entire household upside down. Charlene Feldbusch stopped working to take care of her son. She rubs cream on his face in the morning, helps him pick out his clothes, fixes him meals and gives him pills at night so he does not shake.
His father, Brace, started writing a book about him. "He's been such an inspiration to me, accomplishing more at 24 than I have my entire life," said Brace Feldbusch, a former coal miner who lost two fingers to a coal cart before he lost his job. He ticked off the chapters, his son's greatest moments: winning the state freestyle wrestling championship; bench-pressing 405 pounds; graduating from the University of Pittsburgh, a biology major, the only member of the family to finish college; becoming an Army Ranger.
His two brothers, Shaun, 25, and Brian, 17, sometimes feel left out.
"But they understand our entire world has changed," Ms. Feldbusch said. "Somebody has to be with Jeremy all the time. But that's O.K. I'm his mom. And that's what moms do."
During the two months Jeremy Feldbusch spent recovering at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, his parents lived at his bedside. Charlene Feldbusch remembers one day seeing a young female soldier crawling past her in the corridor with no legs and her 3-year-old son trailing behind.
Ms. Feldbusch started to cry. But not for the woman.
"Do you know how many times I walked up and down those hallways and saw those people without arms or legs and thought, Why couldn't this be my son? Why his eyes?"
Artillery shells make a certain sound when they are coming right at you. Not a looping whistle, but a short shriek.
On April 3, Sergeant Feldbusch, a 6-foot-2-inch, thickly built mortar man, heard the shriek. He and his platoon of Rangers were guarding the Haditha Dam, a strategic point northwest of Baghdad along the Euphrates River, when a shell burst 100 feet away and a piece of red hot shrapnel hit him in the face. The last thing he remembers was eating a pouch of chicken teriyaki.
The inchlong piece of steel, part of the artillery shell's casing, sliced through his right eye, tumbled through his sinuses and lodged in the left side of his brain, severely damaging the optic nerve of his left eye and spraying bone splinters throughout his brain.
Two weeks later, at the Brooke Army Medical Center, doctors removed the shrapnel and reconstructed his face with titanium mesh and a lump of fat from his stomach in place of his missing eye, so the hole would not cave in.
For five weeks, Sergeant Feldbusch remained in a coma. When he came out, it was still black.
"I could hear my parents' voices," he said. "And I thought, What are they doing here? Am I dreaming? What the hell is going on?"
His mother knelt by his bedside and sang softly into his ear, "When I wish upon a star."
Then she asked him, "Jeremy? Who do you love?"
True to form, he whispered, "Brace." He was joking.
Two weeks after he came out of the coma, his parents broke the news. He was being awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. But there was very little chance he would see again.
"I thought there's no way this is happening to me, there's no way I'm going to go through life as a blind man," Sergeant Feldbusch said.
One day, as he lay in bed with tubes and wires and needles sticking out of him like he was some sort of science project, his father looked at him and said, "Maybe God thought you had seen enough killing."
Jeremy responded, "But Dad, why did he have to take my eyes?"
The inch-long piece of shrapnel not only took his sight and dulled his sense of taste and smell, but it took some of his brain, too. It left him quick to lose his temper and acutely sensitive to pain. When he got out of the hospital, it hurt his skin when the wind blew.
It also left him prone to seizures. Right before Christmas, he had his third.
"We're just holding on," said his father. "It's like we're living in a bubble."
His moods flash like the bits of color that sometimes glitter in the mine shaft he lives in. Sometimes he sees red, blue, a bright yellow. Sometimes he is angry, then sad, then suddenly playful.
On a recent night, Brace, 49, asked: "In your mind, Jeremy, if there's an image, if there's a picture in there, buddy, what do you see?"
His son growled back: "I see you getting off your butt and going to the store and getting me some icy-pops. I'm hungry."
Lately, his parents say, he has been more sarcastic.
This month, he was invited to speak to a sixth-grade class. His mother told him the children would like to see his uniform. Instead, he wore sweat pants.
One boy asked about the weather in Iraq. Another asked Sergeant Feldbusch if he had made any new Iraqi friends.
"I didn't make any Iraqi friends," he said.
And at the end of the talk, the school principal asked, "Jeremy, can you say something in Iraqi?"
Sergeant Feldbusch replied, "Something in Iraqi."
The children looked at the principal, who stared at Sergeant Feldbusch who grinned back at her.
"That's just how I've always been, a wisecracker," he explained later.
But then he said, rubbing his finger on the pink splotch by his right eye: "When you look at me, you see this little scar. But people forget that I had this piece of metal go through my eye and bounce up and down in my face and get stuck in my brain."
Dr. Poffenbarger, who operated on Sergeant Feldbusch, explained that his personality may have been affected by damage to the brain's frontal lobe, which controls social skills and behavior.
"When you get a frontal lobe injury, you tend to be more emotionally aggressive," Dr. Poffenbarger said. "A lot of young men with these injuries seem to be angry."
Charlene Feldbusch, 47, said she was concerned about "what's going to come out in Jeremy."
"I know he's a big-hearted person," she said. "But it's just that now he's, he's," she searched for a word she could live with. "Different."
Sergeant Feldbusch said his attitude was evolving. "I'm fine with it now," he said. "I'm going to learn Braille. I'm going to get a cane. I'll survive. There's more to life than seeing. "
Even in his dreams, he no longer sees. And he has stopped trying to picture faces.
"When I was first in the hospital, I tried to think of what the doctors and nurses all looked like," he said. "But then I stopped. I'm blind. I figured why am I doing this? I'm never going to see them."
He went on: "It's not that I don't allow myself to get upset. I don't think about it. I had a job. I got hurt. Now I'm blind. My day is my day now."
He spends most of his time in bed or slouched in the reclining chair in the corner of the living room, absorbing his favorite television shows like "Sanford and Son" and the news. At first, he had a lot of visitors and friends. Blairsville, an old coal-mining town of 3,600 people, even had a parade for him this summer and the mayor proclaimed Sept. 20 Jeremy Feldbusch day.
He talks about going back to school and getting a master's degree. And hitting the weights again. He used to be really into that.
But the antiseizure medications make him sleepy. He naps a lot.
"Yeah, I get bored. And I miss the guys," he said. "Ever since I was 5, I was part of some team. Now I'm alone."
Sometimes that gets him into trouble. This summer he slipped off the deck. He also slammed his face into a door frame one night, nearly knocking himself out.
But he had no problem sawing down the family's Christmas tree last week, after his father got it started for him. And when the first snow of the season came, he stood on the lawn with his mother and held out his hand.
Once he retires and receives his medical discharge, Sergeant Feldbusch will be eligible for veterans' benefits that will most likely exceed his current $1,800-a-month paycheck.
On a recent night, his family took him to a wrestling meet. He sat at the edge of the mat with his father, who described each twist, turn and body slam. The gym was alive with the squeak of shoes and the hot press of a full crowd.
"Dad, what's going on now?" Sergeant Feldbusch asked.
"Well, Jerm, the kid with the tattoo is on top and got this boy in a figure four or something," Brace said. "The other kid's nose is bleeding."
"I'm rooting for the bleeder, then," Sergeant Feldbusch announced.
A minute later the bleeder was on his back. Some girls in the crowd screamed for him to get up.
"What's going on, Dad, what's he doing?" Sergeant Feldbusch asked.
Before he could answer, the referee smacked his hand flat like a pancake on the mat. The bleeder had been pinned.
The boy ran out of the gym crying. Brace shook his head.
"See, you got to take winning well and you got to take losing well," Brace said. "Look at Jeremy. He's got every reason to sit in a corner and be depressed. But he's not."
Most Americans haven't seen the growing legion of wounded troops returning from Iraq who are cared for at military facilities sealed off from the public. The media, in turn, have focused on the hit-and-run guerrilla attacks that claim one or two GIs in Iraq almost daily. Little attention has been paid to the long, difficult and very personal struggles that ensue in wards at BAMC and Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.
"They come here 19, 20 years old and when I see them leaving, missing limbs -- I've seen up to three limbs gone off people, and I don't think in our generation we've seen this amount of harm done to young people," [Maj. Gene] Delaune says.
Explosions shatter and sever legs and arms. They char flesh and drive debris deep into the soft tissue that remains. Unattached muscles, nerves and tendons dangle. Red-hot shrapnel sometimes punctures torsos below waist-length body armor, ripping bowels and bladders. Concussions bruise skulls and brains. Soldiers thrown into the air are injured again when they hit ground.
In the Persian Gulf War, about three troops were wounded in action for every fatality. In Iraq, about seven are being wounded for every one killed.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Northwest welcomes home some of the most severely injured soldiers from the war in Iraq.
And researchers there have gained tremendous insight into traumatic brain injuries, which they say are occurring at a higher rate than in previous wars.
The Washington Post reports, 62 percent of soldiers examined at Walter Reed between August and December suffered brain injuries in combat.
Memory Hole
posted on January 10, 2004 09:23:47 PM new
Right... A needless war drummed up with LIES and now, we've lost over 500 soldiers and counting, thousands of seriously wounded, hundreds of billions of dollars and generated hatred all over the world aganinst our country for NOTHING.
"We really think there's an effort to hide the true cost in life, limb and the mental health of our soldiers," Lessin said. "There's a larger picture here of really trying to hide and obfuscate what's going on, and the wounded and injured are part of it."
posted on January 10, 2004 11:44:48 PM newThe most important Iraq result, however, has been the demonstration of U.S. public support. Even amid the worst of the casualty reports in November, some 60% of Americans said the war was worth fighting.
This support is all the more remarkable because it has held despite the loud and relentless opposition of most of the country's liberal elite.
As we worried before the war, most American journalists and academics have broadcast premature defeat several times along the way: at the lack of a U.N. blessing, during the first week of the war, at the failure to find stockpiles of WMD, in distortions about intelligence before the war, and most recently at the strength of the insurgency before the capture of Saddam. In fairness, these voices do represent a large U.S. minority that has found a champion in Mr. Dean's antiwar candidacy.
Yet most Americans have kept their faith in U.S. purposes despite the worst casualty figures since September 11. The public seems to understand implicitly that Iraq is integral to the war on terror, indeed that failure in Iraq will only embolden al Qaeda and the likes of North Korea's Kim Jong Il.
This determination is nowhere more evident than among the men and women actually fighting in Iraq. Many--reserves in particular--have had to endure long tours that they didn't expect and under the harshest of climates and physical danger. Many have suffered. Their consolation, and that of their families, is that their sacrifice is every bit as important to American freedom and security as those made in World War II, Korea and, yes, Vietnam.
posted on January 10, 2004 11:57:47 PM new
Thank you, Helen. It's very painful to read.
I can't even imagine what it's like for all the families and friends of these injured soldiers.
I've thought about all of them for months now and it bothers me that it's seldom shown on TV and my friends and family notice it also. I think it was 60 minutes that recently profiled one injured soldier and showed how he was coping.
Each time it's brought up here someone will jump in and give empty statements like this is the cost of war, people die, people get injured, we have to expect this and all the other blah, blah stuff.
This time when one of them starts with that rhetoric I'd like for them to tell me if they've ever fought in any war. Have they got a permanent injury from it? Do they care for someone with a permanent war injury? If so, do they still think that war was worth it?
Edited to add that I've seen the dedication of the troops and I admire them.
posted on January 11, 2004 02:14:44 AM new
Lets see what the Democrats did in their war. 211,455 wounded. Over 58,000 killed. 1 in 4 Marines killed or wounded and for what Helen!! So the left could kick them in the ASS as they came Home.
I get the feeling the left could care less about how many are wounded or killed in Iraq, as long as it keeps increasing, so the can push the I told you so button. Shame on those for giving aid and comfort to those that want to kill our young men & women and using it to push their own political agenda. They did it during Vietnam and are doing it during this War.
posted on January 11, 2004 02:52:19 AM new
I agree, they use our wounded soldiers and their deaths for political gain. Completely tossing aside our National Security.
Click on my link to see how the angry left really feel about our soldiers they are so concerned about.
Our soldiers were honored by being given the cover page on TIME magazine. But look at how the angry left really see's our fighting men and women.
posted on January 11, 2004 05:41:06 AM new
Fred, you beat me to it... yep just replace Iraq with Vietnam, but the left didn't really care about them either... or now for that matter....
That's disgraceful Linda.... they should be damned glad they live in the US where they can do things like that..
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jan 11, 2004 05:44 AM ]
What in the hell does the "left" have to do with an illegal war in which the Bush administration lied to whip the American people into a war frenzy. Aren't you ashamed and embarrassed that you were so easily manipulated by a warmongering regime? The Bush administration is putting our National Security in jeopardy...NOT the Democrats or the "left".
To keep on topic, why do you believe that the dead are hidden from public view and the wounded are not counted or mentioned?
I suppose to live with yourself, you have to search feverously for some justification that so many good soldiers are sacrificing their lives while even more are losing arms, legs and eyes. If anyone is NOT angry about such needless carnage to our young people, they must be brain dead.
And don't give me the BS about the overwhelming need to get rid of a "bad" man. Right now, we are cozying up to the worlds most repressive regime - giving militarty aid to Uzbekistan...a regime that makes Saddam look sweeeet. They boil their disidents while the U.S. looks away. President Islam Karimov has become Washington's new best friend in the region.
posted on January 11, 2004 08:03:22 AM new
Clinton 12/16/98 Saddam Hussein threatens World with nuclear arms, poison gas and bio weapons.
PBS ^ | July 22, 2003 | The Eagle has Landed
Posted on 07/22/2003 8:52:16 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN. When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.
For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.
Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price.
We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military.
The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.
If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that.
May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America
posted on January 11, 2004 08:09:04 AM new
Reported Jan. 9, 2004
Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction:
Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
posted on January 11, 2004 10:23:24 AM new
Oh, boy, here we go with Clinton again. Got anything better? If it were a democrat that got us into this mess, we'd be just as angry. Being right or left has nothing to do with it.
Right. The president of the United States today is George W. Bush...unfortunately.
Clinton is not the leader of the United States today. Hillary is just a Senator but in that capacity she was recently blamed by someone here for the flu vaccine shortage. LOL
posted on January 11, 2004 10:54:06 AM new
Cheryl - Just pointing out, once again, that both presidents were in agreement that Saddam presented a threat to the world and to our nation, and that they both felt regime change was necessary.
Kind of makes statements that this President lied to us, about Saddam/WOMD/etc., when the previous president said the same thing, look VERY foolish.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 11, 2004 10:56 AM ]
posted on January 11, 2004 10:55:51 AM new
Both were not presidents at the same time.
Whatever Clinton knew or did not know should have no significant bearing on wheather or not we should go to war during Bush's term.
Bush had the benefit of current intelligence from all government agencies, and the Pentagon. The fact that he misused that information cannot be blamed on Clinton.
posted on January 11, 2004 11:05:26 AM new
Helen - You were the one who argued that all the WOMD were destroyed in 1998, by the clinton air attacks. Obviously neither clinton agreed with you. She voted to give Bush war powers too.
And if you read up on your so called anti-war democratic candidate, Dean, you will see he was willing to go to war in Iraq too. He just wanted to add another 'rule' before voting yes. But that provision wouldn't have prohibited Bush from taking this country to war.
hmmmmmm.....so many elected democrats voted for the war.
After trying to pin the blame on five fall guys do you remember the final 'fessing up in a White House statement delivered on July 7, that Bush should not have used the uranium allegations in his address.
He used it deliberately, to whip the country into a war frenzy - knowing that it was false. He lied.
I said that there was a possibility that Clinton destroyed weapons of mass destruction during the daily bombing.
I'll repeat some history.
The problem, lindak is that you want to justify Bush actions such as his bungled preemptive war with beliefs that Clinton had in 1998. Nothing that Clinton did resembled what Bush has done. Not only was the situation different in 1998 but Clinton's method of dealing with the situation was different. As surprising as it may be to you, I'm not defending Clinton for the daily bombings of Iraq and the sanctions placed on Iraq which affected the poor innocent people more than it did Saddam Hussein.
The problem is that whenever a Bush manuever fails, you attempt to excuse it by blaming Clinton. When will you hold Bush responsible for his acts. Bush is the president and he should be able to think and act independently of previous presidents.
For example, you said previously,..."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."
That's true. But then Bush became president and according to what he told Congress and America Saddam did have WMD...Clinton had doubt as your statement indicates. Bush had no doubt and in fact stated that the the weapons were ready to use. There was a rush to vote to give Bush the authority to INVADE Iraq.
One president had no knowledge if they were destroyed.
The other president knew without a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had WMD ready to fire.
One president dropped bombs.
The other president invaded a country at a cost of over 91 billion dollars with no exit plan.
posted on January 11, 2004 11:32:32 AM new
The world knows that Bush lied. Even Republicans know that Bush lied. The question now is do we want it to happen again by reelecting George W. Bush??? Not only did he lie but he went to war without a plan. Soldiers had to risk their lives without appropriate training and equipment resulting in the number of dead and wounded that we have discussed in this thread.
posted on January 11, 2004 12:57:17 PM new
Helen don't want to hear about reality. Just her own little agenda. She will find links to stories that are discredited more than a Clinton has been caught in a lie and force her opinion as the truth. Get a grip and get a life. Then she says this is an illegal war. Go put your head in the sand and wake up. You are an embarrasment to everyone who ever serve in our armed services. As a veteran myself, I pitty you.
posted on January 11, 2004 01:24:33 PM new
If you're a veteran, stonecold, I pity you for your closed-minded attitude. As far as Helen is concerned, she has more of a grip on things than most people I know. Why don't you try joining in on the discussion(s) instead of bi+ching about people that don't carry the same views as yourself?
posted on January 11, 2004 02:38:35 PM new
stonecold
You need to work on consistency....spelling, sentence structure etc. and you need to maintain that consistency here and on Ebay Outlook. Otherwise, some here might believe that you are a troll.
I'm flattered that you bother to follow me and only me around. It's rather exciting. Reminds me of a song...
Everybreath you take
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you
Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be watching you
Oh can't you see
You belong to me
How my poor heart aches with every step you take
Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
posted on January 11, 2004 03:37:35 PM new
Double LOL now, Helen.
The "exciting" comment was hilarious but now I just read the *do me* on that other thread. Is there something you're trying to tell us? Like you're here to seduce all the guys with your secret messages?
How long has this been going on or is this a New Year's strategy? ROFL
posted on January 11, 2004 04:22:05 PM new
An even scarier idea that is perfectly believable is that both of the past presidents had such aweful useless information feed to them that they both beieved Iraq had all these weapons and it was all a bunch of crap.
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jan 11, 2004 05:44 AM ]