I've looked at Barack's voting record, though, and don't see that.
Posted By: I wish I did, truly. sm on 2008-09-02
In Reply to: reply - Minos
He talks change, sure, but I want to see evidence that he truly takes action toward change. And not just NOW, now that he's running for POTUS. I want to be able to look back and see a consistency and I just didn't see that with his voting record. Not saying McCain is the answer, either. I really can't back either right now, and as stated, I truly wish I felt differently. I'm quite apprehensive about the future of this country. I want my children to enjoy freedom and freedom as I knew it when I was a child no longer exists, so I am very fearful what their adult lives will be like. Someone has to change THAT, and I don't see much from Barack about that issue. Personal liberties need to be restored and upheld and politicians need to stop bowing to individual groups that claim to be working toward "the greater good" when their eyes are really on the prize, which is always money in their pockets. Is Barack going to stand up and do that for US citizens? I really don't know. Words are easy to say. Sure, we can vote again in 4 years if he doesn't live up to the hype, but will this country survive 4 more years with the wrong person at the helm? Again, not saying it's McCain either. I actually kinda feel like there's no good choice right now and we're doomed no matter what! Again, I know I'm not alone in this line of thinking because I've talked to many, many others who feel the same way that I do.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Voting Record
Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).
But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.
This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the "Double Talk Express". But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.
In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.
September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.
July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.
March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.
February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.
June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.
May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.
April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.
October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.
April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.
August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
So there it is. John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?
It means that JM's voting record shows he has...sm
voted against veteran's interests the majority of the time.
obama's voting record on taxes
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html
Obama is superliberal by his voting record....
well documented.
Same could be said for Barack. Many are voting for
because he is any more experienced than SP (who is only running for VP, lest we forget-McCain's not dead yet, though some like to exaggerate he's teetering on the brink of death). Like it or not, POTUS is partially a popularity contest. Personally, I prefer to vote for someone who isn't seeking the popular vote and who doesn't put on a front to earn it. However, if you're going to shoot people down for liking SP, it won't work because just as many have sided with Barack for the same reason.
Those of you who will be voting for either Hillary or Barack
Would you like it if they were a political twosome this November? One for Prez and one for V.P. no matter who has which spot? Or would you rather have one totally without the other? Like you can take Hillary but no way Obama, or the other way around?
Race is not a problem, voting record is a problem. sm
His votes for FISA, the bailout, and billions in some UN bill left no doubt he will be going along with the status quo, same as McCain, and we need more huge government like a hole in the head.
to make myself extremely clear, it looked as if the baby was unconscious, was limp and looked to be
@
Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. sm
The 2 main choices are horrible. They only offer a continuation of the status quo. Nothing on bringing the troops home (now not 5 years from now), no sound monetary policy, reinstating our civil liberties, etc. Third party candidates have better platforms. People should be voting principles over party, or you deserve whatever you get.
Many repubs voting for Obama in my experience..OR NOT VOTING ..only
only a few stragglers left, like the 26 percent who don't hate Bush.
Most people voting for Obama are voting on emotion...sm
You may be the exception.
All that matters is hope and change. At what cost, my friend, at what cost, will your hope and change come at.
He will try to change the very foundation of this country, the constitution, and our very way of life.
If I wanted that, I'd move back to Russia where some of my ancestors came from.
I can recognize socialism and Marxism, even if half the country cannot.
They only care for hope. And change.
Voting present and not voting, who has
the highest record in DC of simply not voting - McCain. Yes, Obama is up there too but ole' McCain is #1 for no votes.
Just for the record
I felt the same way about the war before he was killed. It is wrong, its based on lies, and its immoral. So okay to lie about reasons for going to war, not okay to lie about sex, okay to let the perps of 09/11 go free, not okay to try the perps of the first World Trade bombing and let em rot in jail after a trial as that is not tough enuf on terror, okay to spy without warrants on Americans..okay to sit and eat cake and play guitar while New Orleans drowns, Then tell Brownie heckuva job while people die in the Superdome...I mean whats it gonna take?
And yes, I did rather explode at the Xmas isnt treating me nice comment..that hit a nerve bigtime for me.
And also for the record, I would be just as upset were Bush a dem or green or libertarian..this administration has done more damage to this country than I thought was possible. This isnt about political parties,this is about America and our constitution, our ideals and everything this country is built on.
For the record, neither am I....
Just an American married to an Iranian refugee who fled political persecution under the current regime. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize.
This post is not "news" but rather a brief yet accurate description of the complex nature of Iranian politics. No sources you can try to attack. Sorry about that.
Not quite sure what you mean when you say you "know" politics every which way and that you "kick butt at it."
It comes as no surprise that you would not be interested in any viable information on this subject, since you seem to be perfectly comfortable in characterizing US-Iranian diplomatic initiatives as dealing with madmen who hate America for its freedoms (gag me). Sounds like sound byte mentality to me...again nothing new under heaven, coming from an Ann Coulter wannabe who thinks that former POW patriots are automatically qualified to be president.
By the way, throwing around a bit of sarcasm about radical Islam and infidels does not exactly qualify as a total butt kick. So I'm like you...not interested in futher pursuit of this nonsense.
Thank you so much...I will...and for the record....
I don't care what you think, nor do I care if anybody cares what I think. The babies need a voice. And why that irritates all of you so much....hmmmm.
For the record -
While I am a supporter of Obama, I want to emphasize that I am not a coldhearted murderer, that I do not advocate watching babies die, that I do not go out and actively support abortions of any kind (early or late).
I also do not feel that Obama is sitting there right now saying to himself, I wonder how many babies I can let die today. I think that the relationship he has with God is worked out between him and God and if he has worked this issue out in his own mind and feels comfortable with his decision, then that is his personal decision. I do not think that he is the be all and end all in the decision making process for the rest of us. I think that he has just decided that it should be an individual choice for a woman to decide what to do with her own body...
I do not want to see abortions once again be illegal in the United States. How many young, naive, and stupid girls (children mostly) died when they chose to have an illegal abortion rather than go to their families and admit that they had made mistakes and ask for help? How many women died or were permanently mutilated and could never have children again because after they were raped and became pregnant, they could not face having that child, and they chose to have an illegal abortion?
I don't believe in abortion, I didn't choose to have an abortion when I got pregnant at 15, but I do believe that every woman should have the right to choose what she does with her own body - if she does not want to carry a child, then she should not be forced to by the government.
Now, I think we can go on and on about this forever, and we will never agree, or we can remember that abortion will not be outlawed by any president that is elected, and go on to argue the issues that will be on the front burner for the next couple of years and decide who will serve us best there.
For the record........... sm
I do have filtered internet access at home for my kids, and I have taught them that looking at pictures of naked women/men is unacceptable, but what happens when my 12-year-old son goes to the public library to check out a book and happens to walk behind someone who is accessing p*rn on the free access library computer? How do I protect my child against that? And what happens if that person happens to be a pervert who exposes himself to my child? Am I supposed to lead my child around the library with a blindfold on his eyes? Whose rights are being trampled on there?
Behavioral problems? No, friend. It is natural curiosity of a 12-year-old to learn about the opposite sex, what they look like unclothed and that is nothing new. Naturally, they won't cop a look at mom getting out of the shower because that would be wrong on so many levels for a young boy, but they will look at anonymous women on the internet, given the chance. We need to take that chance away from them until they are more grounded in their moral beliefs and can control such urges themselves. If the government allows free access to objectionable material at school (where I can't hold his hand all day) or in the public library (where he should be able to check out a book without fear of glimpsing something objectionable) then I really have to wonder at the moral base of our government. As someone pointed out, they work for me, not the other way around.
I think he's going for the record for...(sm)
number of lies in one speech
For the record
1. I'm not a Republican, but a conservative who votes for the candidate of either party I think will do the job properly. This often is a Republican, but not always.
2. I did not realize board space was rationed, or that any of us was taking more than our share. Please explain these guidelines.
3. When you see a post under a moniker that usually upsets you, feel free to skip reading it. That way you will not be offended. And if you don't read it, you will not respond to it and maybe the thread will die out.
4. When something is broadcast that I feel will raise my blood pressure, I use one of those little on/off/channel thingies to eliminate the threat. I don't holler that it has no business on the airwaves. Try to think of this board in the same way.
5. However, if you wish to debate an issue, bring it on. That's my understanding of what this forum is for.
Thx & Sorry.... I should have looked it up! :P
c
Don't you think they would have looked into this?
 - Don't believe everything ya' read...
I did, too. I wish I never would have looked at this
FEMA coffins, too. I'm going to stop watching these now
Okay - I looked for it -
my curiosity got the best of me - I cannot find anything that says Obama lied about anything. Can you point me in the right direction? I am still trying to work and also get my new information for the day... Thank you!
You know, I looked and looked
and could not find the mistake they accused me of making. I am sure that I made such a mistake, but it must have been days ago. Not really sure why I care, either.
So, I just went and looked at that...(sm)
and here's the deal. O'Reilly made fun of the woman and called her a witch. SNL made fun of Palin. So, O'Reilly is making the case that if SNL can do it he can too. HELLO!!!! SNL is a COMEDY show. Fox is SUPPOSED to be news. That's the difference.
You know....I looked the other way
when Obama said that we aren't a Christian nation. I don't really agree with that given the number of Christians in this country and the fact that all of our money has In God We Trust on it....but whatever. I understood that he didn't want to tick off the secular part of our country because, as we know by the hate stated on this board, many non-believes truly hate believers.
However, when he said that we are a Muslim country.....I was like.....excuse me? We aren't a Christian nation but we are a Muslim country? Why couldn't he have just said that we are a country with many different religions and we have the freedom to practice whatever it is we choose or don't choose. I would have respected that a lot more than....we are not a Christian nation......we are a Muslim country.
I understand trying to make ties with Muslims who aren't extremists and want us dead, but to say something like that.....total BS. I just don't know what games our President is playing. You would even think that some of the atheists on this board who hate Christians would have a problem with Obama calling us a Muslim country too....but since Obama said it and some of them love Obama.....I'm sure they will, once again, give the big O a free pass as always.
Not at all. Just trying to set the record straight. sm
 As to what the board monitor REALLY said, since the left sometimes has comprehension problems and all.
Record speaks for itself.
Been there, done that, and agree with OP - Cons have been grossly hypocritical about demanding dissenters leave their board, then sneaking over here to post nasty comments.
He's trying to break a record you know.
Cutting his vacation short due to the Katrina disaster could have affected his record! Must be nice to have over a year of vacation time in only 7 years, and a war-time president at that. I'm not surprised though. I almost don't want to talk smack about him anymore because it is just too easy. It helps to vent though, I suppose.
Maybe cuz it's the same old "broken record"?
Yup, it's that same old broken record.
X
just for the record, that wasn't me!
LOL
and for the record, I think it is always wrong (sm)
I do believe abortion is murder no matter what stage of development. But I can't see how ANYONE could even argue a case that partial birth abortions are right. We are not talking about medical emergencies here but are talking about elective abortions. And even in the case of an emergency, if the mother was someone who wanted her baby, everything would be done to try to keep the baby alive. Partial birth abortion is a horrible heinous crime that should not be acceptable to any intelligent, feeling human being.
Just for the record....I am not a far right person.
Secondly....what in the world does your post have anything to do with mine. I want to know why we aren't doing something and you give me this huge lecture about how Bush is evil and to blame for every single thing, etc. Truthfully, I am tired of you and your far-left rantings. I'm tired of people refusing to see that this crisis has been coming on for a long time. You people refuse to see that Clinton had any hand in this issue either even though he was the one who forced banks to give everyone loans whether they could pay for them or not. I'm tired of the right vs left BS. They are all guilty in my opinion, some more than others. I personally wanna puke every time I see Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, Reid, etc.
I know things are bad....trust me....I know. You don't have to preach to me about tent cities, etc. Also, Bush is gone and I know Obama got a mess when he stepped into the White House, but he is the commander in chief now and blaming Bush for everything doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with what Obama is doing now. We are spending money where we shouldn't and we should definitely be looking into more energy resources as that will create jobs as well as stop sending money out of the country for as much foreign oil.
he looked awful
He looked like something was wrong in the news video I saw..I did not state it was alcohol. I stated you never know cause something looked wrong..his face was hanging, his eyes were puffy, he was inattentive..definitely something was not right..Believe me, I do not wish this disease on anyone..I have seen what it can do..
Oh, you looked in the mirror, then?
Oh, don't stop now! Keep talking, keep the accusations rolling! Keep proving my point.
I have looked at "my" guy
and I've looked at McCain. I wouldn't vote for McCain if you paid me. Did you not HEAR him say he's the biggest free trader ever?
<groan" only 1 more day.
YOU have not looked at the facts.
nm
I looked at the article but I would like you to know
more abortions go on under a republican leadership than democratic. You probably will think this is not true, but just do the googling for yourself. Regardless of what is signed, regardless, women have for years and will continue to have abortions, whether he is president or someone else. There does not have to be any law at all for women to have these. I know because I was born back in the 40s and abortions illegal when I was a young teen but girls/women still had them. This is a radical based article you are looking at. I would take this article with a grain of salt.
I think those things will be looked at...
but the impetuous is on stimulating the economy RIGHT NOW. And, with the stimulus package as it stands..........it will not work. Tax cuts do not work. It's been proven over and over again.
If you looked really close to
Nancy Pelosi you would have seen the large brown on her nose. That is what that was all about. Look at me.....I'm Obama's right hand woman and I'm going to applaud and give a standing O for every little thing he says whether it is stupid or not. Woo hoo! Personally, I'm surprised the dems didn't do the wave or something. I wonder what kind of kool-aid they served last night. Hmm.
ROFL! I never looked at it from that...
point of view!
Yawn same broken record
that keeps sticking on the same note.
Just for the record, I have never called anyone a racist.nm
x
Setting the record straight.
It is not spinning someone else's thoughts to ask them a question about those thoughts. I asked you how you felt about Mrs. King. Spinning is saying something like, you HATE Mrs. King. Courteously, I did not do that. You did however do that to me by assuming I hate Bush. By the way, what posts were those in which you expressed your admiration for Mrs. King? You referred to them but I don't see them here. Maybe you were singing her praises on the Con board? Might be why I missed them, as I don't go there.
Talk radio all abuzz about the impropriety? LOL!! We know what type that is. The story hardly got a slight clip on any of the network news stations - that right there ought to tell you that they were very squeamish about how bad it made Bush look. Had it been anything like a true classless act by Democrats, Rove would have made sure it was network news 24/7 for two weeks.
And what is this about implying that I said Repubs were to blame for ruining Wellstone's funeral? I said no such thing. What Repubs did (in their perpetual terror of ordinary people banding together to express sentiments that uplift the soul and give them hope) was to try to spin the whole thing as a bash fest against themselves and the deceased - much as your favorite radio host is doing now with Mrs. King's memorial events. THAT was the connection and deliberately trying to misunderstand it is lame.
Don't really give a hoot if you admire people of both parties - I think I was pretty clear that I rather admire GBI myself. Anybody taking in the whole scene and using good judgment is going to find traits they admire across the board. Which Dem did you say you really admire? I missed that. Let me guess - Zell Miller? Hahah!
And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I just believe he's an enabler who has no respect either for the working people of this nation or for our founding priciples and therefore has no business being in the White House.
They all sound like a broken record.sm
I think they all learned this from Hannity on Fox. They call everyone asking questions conspiratory theorists, or if they cannot shoot the message they focus the blame on Clinton. The one thing they never do is answer THE QUESTIONS. Here is a link to an article on Hannity's histrionics on 911.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/10/23/hannitys_hackneyed_histrionics_over_911.php
For the record, Teddy/Taiga....
the rest of the post said when it wasn't in response to what had been thrown at me first. Methinks you are very guilty of what you always accuse me of....cutting and pasting out of context. Teddy is taking over again.
Bremer's bio, just to set the record straight....
Born in Hartford, Connecticut, Bremer was educated at New Canaan Country School and Phillips Academy. He graduated from Yale University in 1963, and went on to earn an MBA from Harvard University in 1966. He later continued his education at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques DE Paris, where he earned a Certificate of Political Studies (CEP).
That same year he joined the Foreign Service, which sent him first to Kabul, Afghanistan as a general officer. He was assigned to Blantyre, Malawi, as economic and commercial officer from 1968 to 1971.
During the 1970s, Bremer held various domestic posts with the State Department, including posts as an assistant to Henry Kissinger from 1972–76.[2] He was Deputy Chief of Mission in Oslo from 1976–79, returning to the US to take a post of Deputy Executive Secretary of the Department of State, where he remained from 1979–81. In 1981 he was promoted to Executive Secretary and Special Assistant to Alexander Haig.
Ronald Reagan appointed Bremer as Ambassador to the Netherlands in 1983 and Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism in 1986.[3] Bremer retired from the Foreign Service in 1989 and became managing director at Kissinger and Associates, a worldwide consulting firm founded by Henry Kissinger. A Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, Bremer received the State Department Superior Honor Award, two Presidential Meritorious Service Awards, and the Distinguished Honor Award from the Secretary of State. Before rejoining government in 2003, he was Chairman and CEO of Marsh Crisis Consulting, a risk and insurance services firm which is a subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., a trustee on the Economic Club of New York,[4] and a board member of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Akzo Nobel NV, the Harvard Business School Club of New York[5] and The Netherlands-America Foundation. He served on the International Advisory Boards of Komatsu Corporation and Chugai Pharmaceuticals.
Bremer was appointed Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism by House Speaker Dennis Hastert in 1999. He also served on the National Academy of Science Commission examining the role of Science and Technology in countering terrorism. Bremer and his wife were the founders of the Lincoln/Douglass Scholarship Foundation, a Washington-based not for profit organization that provides high school scholarships to inner city youths.
In late 2001, along with former Attorney General Edwin Meese, Bremer co-chaired the Heritage Foundation's Homeland Security Task Force, which created a blueprint for the White House's Department of Homeland Security. For two decades Bremer has been a regular at Congressional hearings and is recognized as an expert on terrorism and internal security. Some of Bremer's published work includes "Warfare & Defence Military Science Alliance Response to Nuclear Weapons Proliferation", "The Alliance Response to Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Deterrence, Defense, and Cooperative Options", and "Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism: Report from the National Commission on Terrorism", a New York Times article "What I Really Said About Iraq", and his first book, "My Year In Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope".
Bremer is awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, December 14, 2004Bremer was awarded on December 14, 2004 the Presidential Medal of Freedom,[6] America's highest civil award for "especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." "He was also presented with the Department of Defense award for Distinguished Public Service and the Nixon Library[7] honored him with the "Victory of Freedom Award" for "demonstrating leadership and working towards peace and freedom."[8]
He does have extensive experience. So that part of the movie is an untruth. This is the point that Bremer makes about dissolution of the Iraqi Army...
On May 23, 2003 Bremer issued Order Number 2,[28] in effect dissolving the entire former Iraqi army and putting 400,000 former Iraqi soldiers out of work.[29]
The move was widely criticized for creating a large pool of armed & disgruntled youths for the insurgency to draw recruits from. Former soldiers took to the streets in mass protests to demand back pay. Many of them threatened violence if their demands were not met.[30][31]
Bremer called this argument of disbanding the Iraqi army a cat-like issue with nine lives. In his Fox news interview on July 31, 2006 he repeated again what he said before "...And no matter how many times I answer with the facts, it still comes back. But let's look at the facts. Let's take a minute. There was no Iraqi army to disband. The Iraqi army basically self-demobilized, as the Pentagon said. There wasn't a single unit standing anywhere in the country. So the question was should we recall the army. Now, let's think about what the army...".[32]
It was widely asserted within the White House and the CPA that the order to disband the Iraqi Army had little to no practical effect since it had "self-demobilized" in the face of the oncoming invasion force. This however was revealed to be false insofar as the CIA had conducted psychological operations against the Iraqi's which included dropping leaflets over the Army's positions prior to the invasion. The leaflets ordered the Iraqi Army to abandon their positions, return to their homes, and await further instructions. In the defense of those involved in the decision making process, it was apparently unknown to them at the time that the CIA had done this.[citation needed]
Regardless of what messages the CIA may or may not have tried on the old Iraqi army, the truth is by the time "Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003" the previous Army had demobilized, or as Bremer puts it "had simply dissolved...." The issue of disbanding the old Iraqi Army found itself, once again, the center of media attention with two articles explaining why Bremer did not make the decision on his own.
The first press release by the New York Times included a letter written by Bremer to President George W. Bush dated May 20, 2003 describing to the President the progress made so far since Bremer's arrival in Baghdad, including one sentence that reads "I will parallel this step with an even more robust measure dissolving Saddam's military and intelligence structures to emphasize that we mean business." Readers of the New York Times article will assume Bremer interpreted the President's response to the progress report as a "go".
The second press release dated September 6, 2007 was submitted by Bremer as an Op Ed piece for the New York Times. Titled "How I Didn't Dismantle Iraq's Army", Bremer discusses why the decision was not made on his own, and how the decision was reviewed by "top civilian and military members of the American government"; which included General John Abizaid who briefed officials in Washington "'there are no organized Iraqi military units left'".
Bremer’s article goes into further about how the Coalition Provisional Authority did consider two alternatives - to recall the old army or to rebuild a new army with "both vetted members of the old army and new recruits." According to Bremer, General Abizaid liked the second alternative.
Bremer also details the situation he and the major decision makers faced; especially when the large Shiite majority in the new Army could have had problems with the thought of having a former Sunni officer issuing orders.
Furthermore, Bremer reveals again how he received a memo from Donald Rumsfeld on May 8, 2003 that said "the coaltion 'will actively oppose Saddam hussein's old enforcers - the Baath Party, Fedayeen Saddam, etc...'we will make clear that the coalition will eliminate the remnants of Saddam's regime'". According to Bremer, the memo was also sent to both the national security adviser and the secretary of state at the time.[33]
There are two sides to every story. In all the people listed for the movie who were asked to contribute but did not wish to, I did not see Bremer among them. I wonder why.
Again, I agree mistakes were made. I also believe that this documentary had an agenda, that it was very narrow and targeted one particular part of the Iraq situation, and as usual...there is a lot of the story left untold.
I am looking into the other principles who had input into the documentary...and what I am finding is not at all surprising.
I think we can stop beating the dead horse, tho...annother issue we will never agree on, that being you take it on face value and I don't. :-)
Have a good day!
This is like listening to a broken record! (nm)
It just keeps skipping back and repeating the same thing over and over and over. Do have these comments set up in a word Expander to save time and keystrokes?
Well just for the record, my vote has nothing to do with race. sm
In fact I started out pro-Obama. And I am still not terribly fond of Palin. I would hate to think in this day and age race would have anything to do with who wins this election. I am sure it will influence a certain number of votes in each direction, because there are racists of every race, but I do not believe it strongly influence who wins.
That claim is SO old. Anyone playing that old record
.
|
