That's what the troops are supposed to be doing
Posted By: Hattie on 2006-08-06
In Reply to: That is an overstatement by the writer...sm - Democrat
The key word is *securing.* It's an extreme exaggeration to say that the U.S. was supporting Hezbollah by making sure a Suni and Shiite combined rally did not get out of hand, but it's par for the course of for the dramaticists known as the mainstream media. Poor and misleading reporting is what they specialize in.
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
So Christians aren't supposed to political? Or we aren't supposed to let our morality, faith
our conscience guide us politically?
I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make. My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am. I vote my conscience. I want political leaders who reflect my morality. I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me. There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial. There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial? The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!
Thank God our troops
Okay...so you are okay with troops in ...
Afghanistan...just not in Iraq...?
Yes, has nothing to do with the troops.
And no, it does not make her a resident expert. Explain the differences of opinions amongst our own troops. Not all of them believe what they are doing is justified. Not every mother believes it either. It has nothing at all to do with being prideful of our sons and daughters. My point being is that their job is done. My brother is a gunny and is doing his job, but he no longer feels justified in doing it, and he is not alone. And I believe HIM. If the other poster is a resident expert because her son is in Iraq, then I guess that makes me a resident expert as well, no?
Yes, Liberal Thinker, and proud of it. I have not abandoned compassion. My agenda is to stop this needless war. My compassion is expanded to all not just a few. It started in my brain, and I am letting it spill out my mouth.
Yes. I criticize that with which I do not believe. That is our right is it not?
And last time I looked, this is a political forum, and a liberal forum at that.
It has nothing to do with our troops.
Why are you taken it so personally? You must realize that for every picture of sunshine your son sends you there is one that depicts suffering and starvation and death. I have family fighting it Iraq. It's doesn't change my stance that I feel that they are there unjustly. That's the real deal. Not quite sure how having family there makes you the resident expert. The point to my post was that we shouldn't be there anymore. Our troops have done what the Bush administration wanted done on the initial invasion. Now we are there fighting for an ideal that doesn't exist. So, in that perhaps you don't have a clue. If you son dies at the hands of an insurgent, those same insurgents who benefit from keeping unrest in the country and keeping it destabilized, a situation that our government and you refuse to recognize or better yet do anything about, I wonder if you will feel the same? Would his death be justified then? We are not fighting terrorists anymore in Iraq. They've moved on to other countries. What happens if there is another strike? Our troops are too thin and they are tired. Draft? Getting on your patriotic horse isn't help us end this war any sooner. There is no pride in this war anymore, if there ever was.
We have been paying Pakistan since 2001 to help fight terrorism. They haven't done much with our 10 billion dollars have they? If Al- Qaeda is to blame for Bhutto's death, then Pakistan should deal with it, and I don't believe we should be sending them anymore money. We shouldn't have been sending them money to begin with.
This is a widespread virus of Islamic extremism that we have concentrated mostly in Iraq while Al-Qaeda has gained strength in other countries while our military is being depleted. It is to their benefit this war continues because it destabilizes OUR country. Unless we have a full coalition from other countries to help fight this war, it cannot be won and we are wasting our time and our money on a pipe dream.
We do not have infinite resources to fight a civil unrest that will probably never be rectified. This war was handled poorly from the beginning and it is getting worse by the day.
I don't think YOU are paying attention to what is really go on in Iraq. Do you want your son there indefinitely? How about your son's son? This is a religious war for them, it will never end unless we end it.
And I was supposed to know this how exactly?
You assume I know this by what means? Osmosis. Of course, this is a tragedy. I have know tragedy. Again, I ask, what makes you think we cannot relate? Your gross overreaction is disturbing to the extreme. How, in fact, does one extend condolences without knowing the circumstances? And why do you and Carla assume no one else has tragedy? Who owes who an apology?
They are supposed to be. nm
z
And I am supposed to take ....sm
"Just the big bad" to be a reliable source? You are anonymous, why should I trust you? But, I will do a little more checking around and see what I can find.
FWIW, I don't believe I have ever mentioned the LA Times before this prior post as I really do believe that a journalist has the right to not divulge their source. HOWEVER, I do not believe that any politician has the right to squelch potentially incriminating evidence from the public. This, in my opinion, is government getting bigger by the minute.
You are supposed to be an MT
and supposed to know how to spell
So, exactly how is anyone supposed...(sm)
to distinguish you in particular as not being a pub when you use no moniker?
Well how else was he supposed to
pay for all the spending his administration is doing? I hope this is the final nail in his coffin so to speak. Remember when Bush #1 said read my lips...no new taxes and he went back on the promise and wasn't re-elected. Well....let us hope that the 95% of Americans that he professed to not have ANY kind of taxes raised on them will get p!ssed and we can say goodbye to Mr. Obama in 2012.
Say thanks to the troops...(see link)...sm
nm
Oh, so that is your message to our troops...
Go to work and do your job. Just live with the protesting and ignore it?
Somehow, I don't think our troops see things that way. sm
I don't think that is a good analogy.
The troops speak
Replying to a post below, I thought this would be a good link in a separate message in case people skip over it below.
The US Military troops speak and here is what they say - 68% for McCain, 23% Obama. Here is the link below.
http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/
So if you take that, plus Obama has a 5 point lead over McCain in today's polls, plus the 11% who are not decided it is a very close call. November 4th is going to be an excited day for sure.
Yes, hurrah for the troops.....sm
I saw this the other day, and while I do not hold much stock in the mainstream polls that poll the dems 3 or 4:1, I was very heartened to see this story. Of course, I could only find it on Fox, and another military website.
Seems the mainstream media didn't want the rest of the American public to know about it, which is hardly surprising.
At any rate, since I believe the majority of those polled for this study are older military, who most likely are Republican, of course they support John McCain. They know that he is the most able leader for our country in times like these.
I'd also like to post this video again. Dear Mr. Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
I agree with you about the troops.
I also believe that the REAL disgrace was for them to be sent into a war based on lies and the blind ambitions of the imperial wizard and his henchmen. I also do not believe that a policy based on "saving face" is worth sharing one more drop of blood over...on either side.
Sorry. This was supposed to be in response to LOL
Someone should actually read an article before saying untrue things about it. But that doesn't surprise me. It's in line with the way this administration lies about everything.
Was supposed to say didn't see any
//
Yes, and I thought they were supposed to be
And these are supposed to be our allies...nm
what in the world is this supposed to mean? nm
??
Exactly......since when is RICH supposed to be
xx
Aren't you supposed to be
working right now for the worst Transcriptionist company in the world, MQ/Cbay? Get back to work and spare us your opinion.
Whoops...supposed to be a lot
of people and not I lot of people.
And these are supposed to be grownup
adults, working MTs. I have never in my life (and that be 6+ decades) seen so much hate and bitterness rolled up in someone! I sure hope they don't be transcribing my medical records while in this state of mind!! And, just for the record, I am a registered Democrat, not that I am proud of it, nor that I voted it. These posts, however, have nothing to do with politics, just personal attacks, childish at that.
Well we were supposed to be "privy"
but that didn't happen, remember? Didn't have anytime at all to read those 1200 something pages.
Isn't that the way it's SUPPOSED to work?
Obama outlines the mission to his military leaders, relies upon their input, and, if in his judgment the plan sounds good, he says "okay."
During the last eight years, Bush (who had his "mission" in mind long before 9/11 happened) insisted on invading and occupying Iraq, and every single military leader that advised AGAINST Bush's plan was fired by Bush, right down to Rumsfeld at the very end. This is NOT how it's supposed to be. The Bush way was the wrong way, which is one of the reasons people were (still are) so upset with him.
Okay...so all this money is supposed
to help us. So when does it start? Where has all that money gone? So far I've seen nothing but our government take control of more and more things and want to institute more government programs to tell us what we can do with our money. That is what YOU don't seem to get. As for the GOP....they are crooks just like the crats. None of them care unless they are in power and that is all either party wants and that is something that amazingly both pubs and crats don't see because they are too blinded by their party lines.
And for the last time....I understand that this didn't just happen during Obama's watch. In fact, a lot of this crap started way back in ole Bill's administration but all you seem to remember is everything is Bush's fault. I admit....he had both greedy hands in the cookie jar but if you are going to hold him accountable, you need to look at so many other politicians than just him because a lot of them had their grubby little hands in the cookie jar of greed.
You have people like Barney Frank who made money off of Freddie and Fannie and him telling us that they were completely sound right before they took a huge nose dive. Then we have Dodd who got money from AIG, got sweetheart loans through them and slipped in the bonuses for AIG for congress to pass. You have Clinton who pushed for high-risk loans, etc. There are just so many people who you can point the fingers at here.
As for these bailouts and pork bills that are supposed to help us, how in the dickens are we supposed to pay off this deficit? The only way is to raise taxes and you can't just do it on the rich because even they can't afford it all. Obama will raise everyone's taxes....mark my words. He may want to help others by healthcare, but he is going to cause many more to go under when he gets cap n trade passed like he wants to. That will hurt so many people.
I'm tired of Obama going to every country and apologizing. What the heck do we have to apologize to the French for? It if wasn't for us, they'd be speaking German right now. I mean.....come on.
As for the liberals outnumbering the conservatives.......I highly doubt that considering that Fox News ratings are way higher than any liberal media's ratings are.
And exactly what is this supposed to demonstrate? (sm)
There's a huge difference between a demonstration and the real thing. Hannity goes in knowing he won't be killed and that the situation is controlled. However, prisoners of a foreign country who do not speak our language and are already scared don't have that luxury.
So let me guess....After Hannity does this, he'll turn around and say there can't be anything wrong with it because I'm okay. What a moron.
You just blew your pro troops facade. sm
but you are pretty easy to read. It isn't about the war or Cindy Sheehan or the price of gasoline. It's about your virulent and soul destroying damnable hatred for George W. Bush that even goes so far as to extend to his family. You, and those like you, put this country and our troops at risk every single day. Why not do the right thing since you hate this war so very much. BE A HUMAN SHIELD. As if.
So much for caring about the troops. You are a joke. nm
I think you would be very surprised at how the troops see you, Lilly.
I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I never said I didn't support the troops!
You took what I said way out of context. I support the troops, I just want to know when it will be over. I want to know when our government will start to pay attention to OUR country instead of going around trying to fix everyone ELSE'S problems. I have a brother in the military...in Iraq. I never said I didn't support them. Unfortunately for them, they don't have a say in what they are having to do.
Implanted Chips in Our Troops? sm
Implanted Chips in Our Troops?
A Florida company wants to get under the skin of 1.4 million U.S. servicemen and women. VeriChip Corp, based in Delray Beach, Fla., and described by the D.C. Examiner as one of the most aggressive marketers of radio frequency identification chips, is hoping to convince the Pentagon to allow them to insert the chips, known as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips under the skin of the right arms of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen to enable them to scan an arm and obtain that person’s identity and medical history. The chips would replace the legendary metal dog tags that have been worn by U.S. military personnel since 1906.
The device is usually implanted above the triceps area of an individual’s right arm, but can also by implanted in the hand if scanned at the proper frequency. The VeriChip responds with a unique 16-digit number, which can correlate the user to information stored on a database for identity verification, medical records access and other uses. The insertion procedure is performed under local anesthetic, and once inserted it is invisible to the naked eye.
The company, which the Examiner notes has powerful political connections, is in discussions” with the Pentagon, VeriChip spokeswoman Nicole Philbin told the Examiner. The potential for this technology doesn’t just stop at the civilian level,” Philbin said. Company officials have touted the chips as versatile, able to be used in a variety of situations such as helping track illegal immigrants or giving doctors immediate access to patient’s medical records.
On Monday the Department of State started to issue electronic passports (e-passports) equipped with RFID chips. According to reports the U.S. government has placed an order with a California company, Infineon Technologies North America, for smart chip-embedded passports.
The Associated Press said the new U.S. passports include an electronic chip that contains all the data contained in the paper version name, birth date, gender, for example and can be read by digital scanners at equipped airports. They cost 14 percent more than their predecessors but the State Department said they will speed up going through Customs and help enhance border security.
The company's hefty political clout is typified by having former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, on its board of directors.
Thompson assured the Examiner that the chip is safe and that no one — not even military personnel, who are required by law to follow orders — will be forced to accept an implant against his or her will. He has also promised to have a chip implanted in himself but could not tell the Examiner when.
I’m extremely busy and I’m waiting until my hospitals and doctors are able to run some screens, he told the newspaper.
Not everybody agrees with Thompson, the Examiner reported, noting that the idea of implanting the chips in live bodies has some veterans’ groups and privacy advocates worried.
It needs further study,” Joe Davis, a retired Air Force major and a spokesman for the D.C. office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, told the Examiner.
And Liz McIntyre, co-author with Katherine Albrecht of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID, said that VeriChip is a huge threat” to public privacy.
They’re circling like vultures for any opportunity to get into our flesh,” McIntyre told the Examiner. They’ll start with people who can’t say no, like the elderly, sex offenders, immigrants and the military. Then they’ll come knocking on our doors.”
In an e-mail to the Examiner, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote: If that is what the Defense Department has in mind for our troops in Iraq, there are many questions that need answers. What checks and balances, safeguards and congressional oversight would there be?” Leahy asked. What less-invasive alternatives are there? What information would be entered on the chips, and could it endanger our soldiers or be intercepted by the enemy?”
The company, the Examiner wrote, is also unsure about the technology. According to company documents, radio frequencies in ambulances and helicopters could disrupt the chips’ transmissions. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, VeriChip also said it was unsure whether the chip would dislodge and move through a person’s body. It could also cause infections and adverse tissue reactions,” the SEC filing states.
But Philbin downplayed the danger of the chips.
It’s the size of a grain of rice,” she said. It’s like getting a shot of penicillin.”
Newsmax.com
The difference between civilians vs troops...sm
I hear what you're saying and took some time to think on it. If I stood behind my CEO and felt that he had the best interest of the employees and patients (in my case) at heart then I would continue to do my job and even challenge the opposition. If I felt my CEO was slighting the hospital, I would leave. Troops don't have that option until their time is up.
And some troops who otherwise would have stayed enlisted have left because of the war. I know a few personally.
Add a support the troops magnet
to your car and you have my vote! Oops, aren't they made in China?
McCain does not support our troops
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?
McCain does not support our troops
by Phillip Butler, PhD
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.
John’s treatment as a POW:
1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A dam good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.
3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.
4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.
Senator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.
by Phillip Butler, PhD
Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/25/why-i-won%e2%80%99t-vote-for-john-mccain/
IED threat was known before war but troops not protected
I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this. Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.
Report: IED threat known before war |
By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON —— Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.
The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) …… and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.
The report is to be made public today.
Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.
Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.
The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.
When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.
The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.
Two U.S. senators —— Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri —— demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.
"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."
USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.
Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.
The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.
MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm
I never said I was speaking on behalf of the troops
What I said was "I, as many others, do believe our troops will not be safe under an Obama regime. Just look at his voting record and how he says he will handle the war. He voted "NO" on ensuring that our troops serving in harms way remain Americas top budget priority by ensuring full funding. That means he voted no on the funding to ensure our troops would remain safe. I would say Gov. Palin has it correct. You cannot ignore the facts".
That is an opinion of mine and many others. No where does that statement say "on behalf of the troops". However, I have listened to what the troops say (and I am former military myself). So I don't speak for them, they speak for themselves and here is what they say (link provided below).
68% are for McCain, 23% are for Obama. Here is the link...
http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/
First KBR gives our troops contaminated water and now...
we discover that KBR (a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton) knowingly exposed United States soldiers to toxic materials in Iraq.
Please watch this video. It's only three minutes long, and it's heartbreaking. Don't our troops deserve better from a commander-in-chief that claims to care about them?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CBS_KBR_knew_dangers_of_toxic_1223.html
You expected him to withdraw all troops on Day 1 ? nm
bn
Bringing our troops home would also.....
save our country a sh&tload of money.....
Isn't he supposed to be the commander in chief
of the troops? And his love affair with war is the entire reason they need to be recruited in the first place.
Too bad you think it's just fine and dandy to recruit handicapped people. Speaks volume about the kind of person you. The despicable kind that doesn't deserve any further response from me.
Now hurry along and don't forget to kiss King George's ring as you kneel at his feet, worshipping a false god. What a fool.
The media are supposed to be acting as sm
civil and political watchdogs, not government censors and apologists.
AAMT was supposed to be our voice
in Washington. I finally dropped my membership in disgust at their lack of action. All I saw them do was puff themselves up, making up all sorts of education and standards wish lists that have never been applied to the field which certainly would have helped keep work on shore and our wages more in line with our knowledge and services to the medical community.
Is that supposed to be scarey? We're already there.
nm
Shhhh! That's supposed to be a secret.
Do you know how much it costs, in today's economy, to snooker one billion people?
Their messiah hasn't spent all those millions and millions of dollars on advertising for nothing.
If they know he's a blowhard fluke with a goose egg for experience, how will he win the election?
It's best just to keep them in the dark. Like cattle lining up to have a bolt shoved through their brains.
This Joe the Plumber is supposed to represent
Well this is a quote from Joe the Plumber.
"The media's worried about whether I've paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America," Wurzelbacher told the former Republican presidential hopeful on his show, "Huckabee."
This is what is so funny. In Joe's eyes "taxes" are silly things. So, you see he's not worried at all about his taxes being raised IF he were to purchase a company. He thinks taxes are silly and have nothing to do with America. So, you don't think we're footing this Joe the Plumber's bill already????? He can't even pay his own taxes. How will he ever purchase a company worth more than $250,000.00 with an "outstanding" bill?
|