This is my first time hearing protestors against the Iraqi war...sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2007-02-12
In Reply to: What if the protesting is getting them killed. sm - Brunson
getting soldiers killed??
This is not Vietnam. We are not trying to stop communism from spreading (not that I would have agreed with that then). This is supposedly to stop WMD, then to spread democracy to the Iraqi people, and now because there was a connection to al Queda.
The loss of live was tremendous in Vietnam compared to the Iraqi war. If we had lost the number of troops we did in Vietnam, I would be in Washington sitting on the lawn myself.
Not sure this answered your question, you have to explain your question further??
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
Obviously, the protestors do not agree with you. sm
I have never posted my specific views on this board before, so I do not know how you would know what they are. I have taken the time out to educate myself and I am fully aware of US/Israel history. You would be wise to do the same. Even though it goes back further, 1913 would be a good year to start.
It was more of an attack of the protestors by the
xx
Oh, I feel you. I don't know which is better for the Iraqi's, b/c what is usually reported is sm
the military casualties, not the civilian casualties in Iraq.
Fox News did report this week about a military man whose family was murdered, wife and children while he was out working. That's awful, that's terror. When I hear stories like that I do think of the terror the people are experiencing due to this war, but they did have it bad under Sadaam. They're in a catch 22.
Iraqi death toll....sm
See link for full article below.
*According to the graph, Iraqi civilians and security forces were killed and wounded by insurgents at a rate of about 26 a day early in 2004, and at a rate of about 40 a day later that year. The rate increased in 2005 to about 51 a day, and by the end of August had jumped to about 63 a day.
Extrapolating the daily averages over the months from Jan. 1, 2004, to Sept. 16 of this year results in a total of 25,902 Iraqi civilians and security forces killed and wounded by insurgents.*
Detained Iraqi children
Okay, this is about as disturbing as it gets. I came across this thread on the Democratic Underground website:
Source: AFP
Agence France-Presse
BAGHDAD -- US troops are holding nearly 950 children and teenagers in a military prison at a Baghdad base, some as young as 10, a top commander said Monday.
Brigadier General Michael Nevin of US military police said many of these youngsters, mainly 15, 16 or 17 years of age are illiterate and have been detained for planting bombs and even for "picking up a gun and firefighting."
...
"These juveniles have been involved in something that is perceived as a security threat to Iraq or coalition forces," Nevin told Agence France-Presse during a tour of Camp Cropper.
...
"In January we had around 100 juveniles. Now we have around 950," Nevin said.
...
One of the commanders at Camp Cropper, Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm McMullen, said the juveniles were now part of a wide-ranging educational program launched by the military.
"Many of them come from broken homes with no education," he said.
So, curious as to what type of educational program launched by the military, as I thought it funny this little tibit of information was left out, I came across this:
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2007/11/10/9066.shtml
I think we need to dig further.
Obama and Iraqi oil for food...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html
The Iraqi war has further destabilized the middle east. It has....sm
But obviously you don't think so so tell us how it has helepd to stabilize the region?
A blog by an Iraqi about his homeland and Democracy. sm
I read this every day until he stopped posting. It's very informative and not something seen in the MSM. There are other links there that are still active.
Iraqi terrorist training camps?
Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commission and the Pentagon. There was never any real proof of training camps in Iraq. As far as terrorists having been in Iraq at one time or another....it's a middle eastern country.....they were way down toward the bottom of the list of terrorist hang-outs.
Iraqi Soldiers Speak Out in Favor of Murtha
On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).
The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.
But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.
Here are some excerpts.
John Brumes, Infantry Sgt. US Army:
Everything that the Bush Adminstration told us about that mission in Iraq is absolutely incorrect. Furthermore, I'd like to say ... I came home to no job, no health insurance. Until we take care of this war, we can't take care of the problems that matter like health care.
I've witnessed both ends... Congressman Murtha, I implore you to keep doing what you're doing.
John Powers, Capt. 1st Armored Division, served 12 months in Iraq:
The thing that hits me the most is the accountability. ... Where is the accountability for those men [who took us to war], as well as where is the accountability for Paul Bremmer, who misplaced millions of dollars and claims to keep accountability in the war zone?... I know that if we lost $500 we would be court marshaled. So where is the accountability for this leadership?
Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:
My question is also about accountability. The soldiers that you see, Congressman Murtha, at the hospitals... those are my friends. After coming back, being a veteran, my question is why? Why did we go to this war, why the hell did it happen, why are we in this condition. A lot of soldiers are debating whether this war was fraudulent to begin with. And there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. A lot of Americans now are debating the fact over whether or not the war was fraudulent in the first place. How come there hasn't been an investigation on the fraudulent lead up to the war by this Administration?
C-SPAN has the full broadcast here.
Iraqi Colleagues Killed U.S. Soldiers, Military Says
And 19 Republican senators and a conservative poster crashing this this board think that monsters like this should receive amnesty for killing our soldiers. Unbelievable.
Iraqi colleagues killed U.S. soldiers, military says
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Two California soldiers shot to death in Iraq were murdered by Iraqi civil-defense officers patrolling with them, military investigators have found.
The deaths of Army Spc. Patrick R. McCaffrey Sr. and 1st Lt. Andre D. Tyson were originally attributed to an ambush during a patrol near Balad, Iraq, on June 22, 2004.
But the Army's Criminal Investigation Command found that one or more of the Iraqis attached to the American soldiers on patrol fired at them, a military official said Tuesday. (Watch a mother's quest for truth -- 1:26)
A Pentagon spokesman knew of no other similar incident, calling it extremely rare.
The Army has conducted an extensive investigation into the deaths but declined to provide details out of respect for relatives of the soldiers, spokesman Paul Boyce said Tuesday evening.
It was unclear whether the investigators had established a motive or arrested any suspects.
The families of McCaffrey and Tyson were to be briefed on the report's conclusions Tuesday and Wednesday by Brig. Gen. Oscar Hilman, the soldiers' commander at the time, and three other officers.
When they come I have my list of questions ready, and I want these answers and I don't want lies, McCaffrey's mother, Nadia McCaffrey, said.
Soldiers who witnessed the attack have told her that two Iraqi patrolmen opened fire on her son's unit. The witnesses also said a third gunman simultaneously drove up to the American unit in a van, climbed onto the vehicle and fired at the Americans, she said.
Nothing is clear. Nothing is clear, she said. Her son was shot eight times by bullets of various calibers, some of which penetrated his body armor, she said. She believes he bled to death.
Nadia McCaffrey has become a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, and said her son had reservations about it, too, though he served well and was promoted posthumously to sergeant.
I really want this story to come out; I want people to know what happened to my son, she said. There is no doubt to me that this (ambushes by attached Iraqi units) is still happening to soldiers today, but our chain of command is awfully reckless; they don't seem to give a damn about what's happening to soldiers.
Iraqi forces who had trained with the Americans had fired at them twice before the incident that killed Patrick McCaffrey, and he had reported it to his superiors, she said.
Boyce said the U.S. military remained confident in its operations with Iraqis.
We continue to have confidence in our operations with Iraqi soldiers and have witnessed the evolution of a stronger fighting army for the Iraqi people, he said.
Patrick McCaffrey joined the National Guard the day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, his mother said.
Tyson's family could not be located, and a message left with his former unit was not immediately returned.
McCaffrey, 34, and Tyson, 33, were members of the California National Guard. Both were assigned to the Army National Guard's 579th Engineer Battalion, based in Petaluma.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, pressed the Pentagon for answers about the case when Nadia McCaffrey was unsatisfied by explanations from the military.
Mrs. McCaffrey is set to receive a briefing from Pentagon officials (Wednesday) afternoon in California, during which we hope they will provide her with a full report of the facts surrounding Sgt. McCaffrey's death, said Natalie Ravitz, a Boxer spokeswoman.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
|
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/21/soldiers.ambushed.ap/index.html |
|
Raped Iraqi woman feared US troops...sm
I don't usually post reports of the bad side of US soldiers in Iraq because I believe the most of them are doing their jobs with integrity, so even after reading this it is still hard to believe. Thanks to the brave soldiers who spoke out against their comrades. This story reminds me of some of the bad stories I've heard of Vietnam.
Please somebody say it aint so...
------------------------------------------
Raped Iraqi woman feared US troops: report
Mon Jul 3, 2006 07:06 AM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A woman apparently at the center of a rape-murder probe by the U.S. military in Iraq was only 15 and voiced fears about soldiers' advances before she and her family were killed in March, the Washington Post said on Monday.
Quoting the mayor of Mahmudiya, near Baghdad, an unnamed hospital official and neighbors of the alleged victims, the newspaper named the woman, her parents and 7-year-old sister as having been killed in their home in the town on March 11.
The paper did not affirm the woman, Abeer Qasim Hamza, was killed by Americans, but local people quoted appeared to believe the dead family was the one involved in the U.S. investigation.
A U.S. military official in Baghdad told Reuters details of the incident they described were at odds with U.S. documents in the 10-day-old investigation of at least three soldiers. U.S. officials had the rape victim's age as 20, he said. However, he added, he was not aware of any other such cases in the area.
The U.S. military has given few details publicly. Officials say at least three soldiers are under investigation over the alleged rape of a woman and the killing of three relatives, including a child, in their home at Mahmudiya on March 12.
Two are suspected of rape and one of these, since discharged from the army, is also suspected of murder, officials said.
The Washington Post quoted Omar Janabi, who said he was a neighbor, saying Abeer Qasim's mother had told him on March 10 that the young woman had complained repeatedly about advances made toward her by U.S. soldiers at a nearby checkpoint.
Janabi told the newspaper he was one of the first people to arrive at the family house after the attack. He said he found Abeer sprawled dead in a corner, her hair and a pillow next to her consumed by fire, and her dress pushed up to her neck.
DEATH CERTIFICATES
The paper said death certificates from Mahmudiya hospital identified the victims as Abeer Qasim Hamza, 15, shot in the head and burned; her mother Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin, 34, killed by gunshots to her head; her father Qasim Hamza Raheem, 45, whose head was smashed by bullets; and Hadeel Qasim Hamza, 7.
The inquiry was launched after two soldiers from the 502nd Infantry Regiment came forward last month to make allegations about comrades. The killings had previously been recorded by the military as the work of guerrillas, U.S. officers say.
Local residents and officials in the area, one of the most dangerous and violent in Iraq, have offered Reuters reporters conflicting accounts of incidents involving U.S. troops.
Two years after the scandal over U.S. prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib jail and coming after a string of murder charges against U.S. troops and accusations over the killing of 24 people in the western city of Haditha, the rape allegation is potentially incendiary in Iraq's conservative Muslim society.
Iraq's main organization of Sunni Muslim clerics, long hostile to the U.S. occupation, said on Sunday the Mahmudiya case revealed the real, ugly face of America.
In recent months, officials say, commanders have cracked down on rogue soldiers in a bid to gain the trust of ordinary Iraqis and of their new government after three years of growing resentment that U.S. officers say risks fuelling the insurgency.
Iraqi PM says Reckles soldiers should stay home.
So much for all that *winning their hearts and minds* talk.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060706/wl_nm/iraq_maliki_dc_2
Reckless soldiers should stay home: Iraqi PM
By Ibon Villelabeitia
Thu Jul 6, 1:41 PM ET
Iraq's prime minister urged the U.S. military on Thursday to keep reckless troops from serving in Iraq in order to prevent abuses like the alleged rape and murder of a teenager and her family by U.S. soldiers in March.
Expanding on calls for an independent inquiry and a review of foreign troops' immunity from Iraqi law, Nuri al-Maliki said commanders should do a better job in preparing their soldiers.
There needs to be a plan to educate and train soldiers, and those who are brought to serve in Iraq shouldn't bear prejudices nor be reckless toward people's honor, Maliki said.
The U.S. military is investigating a group of its soldiers over the rape and killing of a family of four in Mahmudiya, south of the capital, in a case that has strained relations between Washington and Baghdad.
Former private Steven Green, 21, has been charged with rape and murder in a U.S. federal court. He had been discharged from the army because of a personality disorder before the case came to light.
At least three other soldiers are being investigated in the case.
The Mahmudiya incident and other incidents before that ... produce sadness, pain and condemnation from Iraqis, Maliki said.
IMMUNITY
Maliki, facing pressure from Shi'ites and Sunnis to hold Americans accountable, has slammed a U.S. occupation authority decree that grants immunity from Iraqi law for the 140,000 or so foreign troops in Iraq, saying it emboldens soldiers.
I think this matter has become necessary to review and solve, either by reviewing the issue of immunity or reviewing the nature of the investigating committees, he told reporters in Baghdad, a day after he first called for a review of the law.
The rape and murder case is the fifth in a high-profile series of U.S. inquiries into killings of Iraqi civilians in recent months and has outraged Iraqis.
American commanders, keen to repair the military's tarnished image after three years of complaints from Iraqis that U.S. abuses go unpunished, pressed murder charges against 12 military personnel last month. Marines are under investigation for the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha.
Iraqis have complained of Americans' lack of cultural sensitivity -- including searching women's rooms during raids or not taking their boots off when entering. Commanders say they are improving such procedures.
Though heavily dependent on America's military muscle, Maliki faces delicate negotiations with its main ally Washington over how to regulate the presence of the U.S.-led forces in Iraq, now under a U.N. mandate that expires in December.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
|
Where was the concern of anyone when Saddam was killing the Iraqi people?
I must say, this is one of the most egregious of all arguments that is made in this country, or any country. Saddam tortured, killed, maimed and raped his own people for decades and not a word was said. Now with a chance for a free Iraq, this concern surfaces. Where was it all these years?
Afghanistan - war on Al Quaeda and Taliban; Iraqi FREEDOM - kill Saddam Hussein
Two different wars based on entirely different premises.........
hearing a lot
Reporters do hear a lot. What they don't do is think a lot. A corporation, lobbyist or politican speaks, and they faithfully write it down without ever questioning the truth or intent of the information they've been given (scrunching up your brow to look like you're "asking the tough questions" doesn't count). They're the best transcriptionists in the business!
One of the reasons you are not hearing as much sm
about the Republicans, especially the current administration, is that they have been very effective at almost completely shutting up any voices of dissent. When Clinton was in office we heard about him nonstop.
I'm hearing that a lot today
I've been all over the internet today and everywhere I go I'm seeing woman who feel like McCain is being condescending to women by throwing out this nobody who is ruby red as they come and expecting to get women voters just because of it, especially Hillary followers. These women are insulted and now finally have both feet firmly on the Obama train.
I read this too after hearing that he had...sm
orchestrated the negative ads this last week, now he is saying he disapproves? Maybe this is a tactic to deflect our attention? Very suspicous. Since when does he have a consious?
Well, instead of hearing why don't you read
xx
sick of hearing he was
only 8 years old when Ayers was making bombs. I was about 8 when Charles Manson and his goons killed Sharon Tate and others. I don't feel like sending old Charley a birthday card let alone sitting in his living room or jailcell in his case.As far as I am concerned Ayers should be in jail too!
Actually, what I remember hearing about was ....sm
that it would be like our own personal savings account. I would much rather have that, than have the govt have their hands in my SS pocket, using my SS as they have been doing, and putting the IOU away in a drawer somewhere.
Not sure what his current plan is or if it has changed, but if I get to control my own SS money, I'm all for it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/17/mccain-social-security/
There is no hearing today.
Your statement here is patently inaccurate. The SC is not taking the case. For the sake of not wasting too much time on this fairy tale, I am posting this article link that can explain that better than I can.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/supreme-court-not-considering-obamas-birth-certificate-case/
You will notice that the article clearly states that the merits of the claims will not be heard (essentially because there are no merits).
For an excellent explanation on the Supreme courts porn king/sexually harassing above-the-law judge's motivations for his "lone wolf" move to attempt to shove this nonsense down the throats of his fellow jurists, read this:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/83953
Here is an excellent article that discussed the underlying pathology of conspiracy theorists:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/
You are mistaken about the timing of this "knowledge." Unfortunately, the citizens of this country learned of this lunacy long before the Nausea or vomiting 4 election. In fact, Berg's lawsuit emerged the minute it became apparent that Hillary was not going to win in the primaries (08/22/2008). Andy Martin's failed action occurred 10/17/2008. Steven Marquis' impotent attempt occurred on 10/18/2008. David Neal's action fell flat on its face 10/24/2008. Your delusional statement about "many people" is a fabrication that I notice you have not backed up with any sort of credible source.
There is no truth to fight for, fool. The conspiracy theorists who are the driving force behind this abomination are scam bags who are picking your pockets to keep this stupidity alive....and you are marching lock-step alongside one another and coughing up.
The rest of the stuff you have included in your post is nothing more that regurgitation of garbage that has been answered at least a thousand times already. My advice to you is not to hold your breath waiting for the SC justices to show the same sort of self-serving interest in usurping clean and legitimate election results as Clarence the porn king Thomas has in these actions. Out of 842 cases in the last 8 years, they have dismissed 782 of them and heard only 60....and not all of those heard succeeded.
If that was true then there would be no hearing
"The Supreme Court does not want to touch this with a 10 foot pole"??????
Hellooooooo, are you keeping up on current events. They are taking this case on. They are listening to the people who have the lawsuits in action. They are demanding that Barry show his original vault BC (which he has sealed so nobody can see it) and he is defying the Supreme Court.
The citizens of this country did not find out about all this stuff until the election was over, and a lot are saying if we knew this back then, we would not have voted for the guy.
It's time to wake up, just because you don't want anything to happen and want your god in there there are others who don't. Others who are fighting to find out the truth.
All they keep saying is "If you are legal and were born in Hawaii SHOW US YOUR CERTIFICATE". He has not done so and he had it (along with school records and other stuff) legally sealed. That speaks volumes in telling the public there is something seriously wrong here.
I myself will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court. BTW, just in case you haven't heard the news, they are meeting about it and listening to the cases. And if a certain number of the justices believe there is validity to it then the electorates will not be allowed to vote until the issue is resolved.
I have been hearing that O plan
of sharing the wealth will put us in the GREAT DEPRESSION just like back when Hoover was in office, exept this time, it will be worse because many more people make more than 100,000 a year than they did years ago. So basically it will be spreading the wellfare around.
I"m hearing it and why shouldn't they
get money for a bailout? Wall Street and the banks did, but WS and the banks are HOLDING ONTO the money for BONUSES, not to bail themselves out. GM and Chryler need it to KEEP JOBS.
The bailout was wrong in the first place because everyone would want money, but that's the only thing they could come up with at the time. What's done is done but I don't think we ought to keep throwing money out there. NP and Barney Fife are too free with money that's not theirs and they should be thrown out of office.
I'm tired of hearing about this.
It was brought to a vote and that is that. We come from a place where it was once taboo to be gay. You had to hide your sexual orientation. Now you can go out with your partner and live your life for all to see. I don't agree with that kind of lifestyle, but they are free to choose what kind of lifestyle they wish to live and who am I to judge. However, I feel that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. To redefine marriage, I think, is wrong. If they want to be life partners and have a small ceremony joining them in some sort of civil union.....go ahead but marriage should be left alone as a man and a woman. I am sick and tired of redefining everything to make it politically correct so every minority group is happy. You can't make everyone happy. I personally feel that redefining marriage to include marrying anyone whether it be same or opposite sex could be confusing to children in general and I don't agree with it.
I don't have a problem with them protesting their viewpoint, but when I see them rip a cross out of an old woman's hands and stomp on the cross as she was protesting her opinion.....that is just wrong. First of all, you don't go after an old woman and secondly....she was sharing her opinion just like they were....so don't get mad at us for our opinion because we are entitled to it as well.
I'm tired of hearing about it too.
If gays want to marry, have at it. I personally don't care what they do. We had a vote in Arkansas whether to allow unmarried couples to adopt or foster children )meaning gays although it wasn't p.c. to word it exactly that way. I voted against it as did the majority. I guess it would solve the abortion issue over time. If George marries Carl and Sue marries Edith pretty soon there wouldn't be any unwanted pregnancies, in fact, no pregnancies at all. Kids imitate what they see, if they have a mother and father BOTH of whom are male or female, what do you think they are going to end up thinking is "normal." We sure don't need to redefine marriage IMHO.
Where are you hearing this mess? It's
absolutely not true. What, 1 or 2 whackjob republican electorates are nervous about it? LOL.
The BC is a NON-ISSUE, he won by a large margin, and he will be inaugurated. This has all gotten so SILLY.
They obviously are hearing voices.....
their take on the President's speech last night had some pretty funky twists......
Personally....I'm tried of hearing it from
both sides. I'm tired of the name calling from both sides. This debate is getting nowhere and yet some of you people just cannot let it go and just agree to disagree. There will never be a middle ground found on this discussion. So let's just drop it and stop all the vicious attacks.
First I'm hearing of a divorce. What's your source? And, sm
if her protesting is ending her marriage, there wasn't much there to begin with.
Bush's hearing problem.sm
THE DIAGNOSIS
Maybe it’s the newly appointed speech writer. Maybe Peter Feaver has been locked away in some windowless sub basement of the White House, without access to the outer world. Maybe he can do little more than recycle earlier speeches about the war in Iraq. Maybe he and everyone else in this administration have become trapped in a bizarre and crippling time warp. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s that George Bush is hard of hearing.
That has to be the explanation. After listening to his delirious portrayal of progress today and of victory tomorrow in war-torn Iraq, there is only one conclusion: the President of the Untied States is nothing more than a deaf man, talking.
It’s not as if anyone in this administration has ever listened with a discerning ear. Standard operating practice at the White House has been to listen only to those who furthered their agenda, and to absolutely no one else.
But this time, the man at the helm of a sinking nation has gone a bit too far. This time he has gone stone, cold, deaf.
George W. Bush and his handlers have a lengthy history of hearing problems. For more than five years, they selectively closed their ears to those who knew things they chose to ignore. For more than five years, they dismissed the advice of the experienced, and the knowledgeable. They heard nothing that was critical or challenging. They heard nothing that questioned their ill fated policies or their inaccurate conclusions. They heard nothing but their own applause.
George Bush developed a severe hearing malady early in his presidency. From day one, he turned a deaf ear to warnings that his policies were dangerous and destructive. Fortunately for the administration, the corporate media under-reported or simply ignored the advice of experts with as much disdain as the White House.
Just think about how the President absolutely and intractably refused to listen when:
Scientists warned about teaching Intelligent Design
Educators warned about serious flaws in No Child Left Behind
Environmentalists warned about pollution and global warming
Health experts warned about the dangers mercury levels
Economists warned about an inquitable tax policy
Researchers warned about cutting stem cell projects
Ecologists warned about deforestation
Engineers warned about New Orleans levees
Civil libertarians warned about the Patriot Act
AIDS organizations warned about ignoring condom education
And yet, George Bush chose to hear the words of the most extreme voices on the religious right and the most self indulgent arguments of corporate America. His selective hearing set the standard for every one of his regressive and injurious domestic policies.
No matter. George Bush was president and he knew better even without his hearing. He had the answers before the questions were ever raised. He was right. Everyone else was wrong. He had no reason to listen.
It was an outrage for the President and his henchmen to totally ignore the advice and expertise of anyone who disagreed with their self-serving agenda. It was, in effect, an irresponsible surrender to special interests and supporters who would help keep George Bush in power. But, perhaps, it was politics as usual.
Perhaps it was. Domestic policies often deteriorate into partisan food fights, regardless of the toll on the people at large.
But in the wake of 9/11, George Bush’s hearing took a far more serious turn for the worse. His festering malady became a chronic affliction. In time, his condition became more and more noticeable and more and more debilitating.
Looking back, we now can see that 9/11 was the prelude to a long planned war against Iraq, When it came to the attacks or to the march to his war, George Bush found himself unable to hear a great many voices. Once again, the media were cooperative and complicit by selectively underreporting the warnings as well.
Consequently, among the voices that went unheeded by the President were:
Intelligence sources who warned about impending attacks on US soil, using hijacked airliners
CIA insiders who warned of the increased ‘chatter’ in the summer of 2001 that signaled that something was brewing among Al Qaeda operatives
Families of 9/11 victims who demanded an independent investigation into the attacks
Intelligence reports discounting any connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda
Weapons Inspectors in Iraq who insisted there were no WMD’s, but begged for more time to complete their mission
Experts who knew the Middle East and warned that a war against Iraq would foment civil war and instability in the entire region
The major nations of the world, with the exception of the UK and the bribed coalition of the billing, who warned about the consequences of an illegal preemptive or preventive war against a non belligerent nation.
Millions of people around the world who marched in protest to the impending invasion
A bipartisan group of US Military and Diplomatic experts who warned about the recklessness of a war against the people of Iraq
The Army War College experts who warned that GW Bus was “…on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States.
Experienced military men such as Generals Shinzeki and Zinni, who openly criticized the poorly laid plans for invasion and the horrific management of the occupation.
Any an all voices in opposition to the Bush/PNAC dream of global domination.
Instead, George Bush listened intently to the words of his PNAC partners who had waited so patiently for the chance to invade Iraq. And yet, he listened to Ahmed Chalabi, a felon convicted of embezzling millions in absentia, who said that an invasion of Iraq would be a cake walk. Instead, he listened to people who had no clue as to the realities of war, or the cultural and tribal entanglements of the Iraqi people.
Instead, he went to war. And the war became a quagmire. And the quagmire became a nightmare. And the nightmare began to show in the polls.
And so, something had to be done. That something was another series of speeches by the President to shore up support for his war. That is why George Bush came before the American people once again to introduce a redundant and meaningless National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.
When George Bush gave the first of his scheduled speeches, his otic infirmity could no longer be hidden. Sadly, his second address to the nation simply reinforced the obvious: the President of the United States is completely and totally deaf.
No matter how he tried, there was no way to conceal it. In his effort to regain public support for his invasion and occupation of Iraq, George Bush made it perfectly clear that he was incapable of hearing anything even remotely related to reality. In order to distort his failed war policy, he turned a deaf ear to the devastation and chaos that define his war of choice. He closed off any and all warnings that a military victory in Iraq is not possible.
But, in a really bad move, he also turned a deaf ear to the American people.
The American people are asking questions, and George Bush refuses to hear them. Instead, he offers public relations sound bites to a nation that is beginning to demand the truth.
So far he has refused to give the nation any explanations about what is really happening in Iraq. So far, George Bush has refused to address:
the failure to plan for our role as occupiers in Iraq
the chaos and bloodshed that intensify every day
the lack of water and electricity for the people
the failure of any significant reconstruction
the daily kidnappings and rampant crime
the mass exodus of doctors and other professionals
the use of torture by both Americans and the new Iraqi regime.
the widespread corruption and missing billions
the terrible effects of depleted uranium
the illegal and devastating use of white phosphorus
the fundamentalist government that is now in charge
the lack of body and vehicle armor for our troops
the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died at his hand
the claim by his own man, Ayad Allawi, that things are worse in Iraq now than under Saddam.
the five billion dollars a month being spent on the war
And George Bush refused, above all, to present a cohesive and specific strategy for ending the terrible war he began.
People all across this nation wanted to know what went wrong and why. And they wanted to know how their President planned to fix it. But George Bush has closed his ears to the growing concerns of a majority of Americans. He simply refuses to hear them.
He has chosen, instead, to revert to type. He has chosen, instead, to remain deaf to facts that had been revealed about his war. He has chosen, instead, to ignore the truth about the tragic and deadly catastrophe that was the war in Iraq. He has chosen, once again, to lie.
George Bush speaks only before courteous audiences. Assured of applause at appropriate intervals, he can comfortably hold both hands over his ears and refuse to acknowledge that he had led the nation into an endless morass.
He cannot tell the truth, we know that. So he did what he does best. He lied. But, the irony of it all is that more and more Americans are on to the lies by now. Just for starters, they know that:
There is no connection whatever between the invasion of Iraq and his trumped up war on terror. And yet, George Bush opted to use the word “terror” FIFTY TIMES his first strategy speech, and continued to the same harangue in the second.
The insurgency in Iraq is composed of dozens, possibly as many as 100 cells working independently. And yet, George Bush identified only three sources of insurgent activity – and placed much of the blame on “the brutal terrorist, Zarqawi – al Qaeda’s leading operative in Iraq.”
American marines, not Iraqi security forces, led the incursion into Tal Afar. And yet, to make them appear battle-ready, George Bush gave full credit to the Iraqi security forces for leading the attack.
Former supporters of the war, such as Vietnam veteran John Murtha, are convinced that a military victory in Iraq is not possible. And yet, George Bush repeated his old, weathered war cry, “There will be no withdrawal without victory.”
General William Odom has called the war in Iraq a failure. And yet, George Bush touts the “amazing progress” of the occupation.
More than 2130 Americans and 200 coalition troops have died for his illegal and immoral war of choice, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead as well. And yet, George Bush still insists that he has “taken the fight to the terrorists,” and that his bloody war will “lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.”
Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of buildings being rebuilt after being destroyed by US bombs. Instead, that is exactly what George Bush insists is so.
Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of cell phones being used. And yet, that is how George Bush measures it.
Oil revenues are not going to the Iraqi people, but to foreign oil companies. And yet, George Bush claims that increased oil production was a sign of progress.
There is no definable victory possible. And yet, George Bush insists there is.
But George Bush has no clue about what the public knows. The man is as deaf as a door post. But his impairment is one of choice, not affliction. He believes he can use his hearing loss as a cover for his ineptitude and his obstinacy. In his world apart from reality, George Bush continues to believe that he can fool all of the people all of the time.
But this time, the American people are not buying it.
THE REMEDY
We are approaching day 1,000 of this outrageous war, and the mood of the nation is changing. The winds of opposition are gaining strength across the vast expanse that is America. George Bush and his PNAC handlers are pretending not to hear the calls for an end to this terrible war. But they hear it. They really do.
The turning point, of course, was triggered by Congressman John Murtha, whose opinions can no longer be countered by the usual rhetoric from the White House. Murtha spoke with the tacit encouragement of his close friends in the Pentagon who cannot speak out personally, but who fully understand the hopelessness of ‘staying the course,’ His message clearly signaled the beginning of the end.
But it won’t be easy. There will be distractions in the form of token withdrawals, and the war will go on. More people will die. The mayhem will continue. But the voices of protest will get louder and louder.
And George Bush will continue to make speeches. He will recite the words of his new speech writer with gusto and sincerity. He will continue to sell his war as if it were a product on the open market. And he will remain deaf to those who oppose and those who criticize and those who demand that the war must end.
He can do this because the voices of protest are still muted. They will only be heard if they become loud enough to penetrate the ears of the deaf man who is in charge. George Bush is the Commander in Chief. He calls the shots. He sits in the safety of the Oval Office and sends people to their death.
The tragedy is that right this minute, as he still dreams of a glorious victory in Iraq, he doesn’t hear a thing.
Maybe one day soon, before thousands more die, if their outcry is loud enough, George Bush will hear the voices of the people he once swore to serve; then again, maybe not.
Me too...I thought I had lost my hearing or..
my mind, but a while back I started to find myself agreeing with Buchanan as well. I have put a link at the top of the page that I think is explanatory of this aberration of all kinds of un-like-minded people suddenly (not really, probably more slowly over time) becoming like minded. I even agreed with Newt Gingrich the other day on a couple of points and what was even more weird, he and Biden were on Meet The Press and saying pretty much the same thing. Myabe there is a silver lining in this fiasco after all; maybe this administration will alienate so many people that we find ourselves banding TOGETHER (what a concept!!!) to try to take our country back and bring it back to the status of a knowledgeable and compassionate super power who truly have the well being of all its citizens as its first priority and who respect and appreciate our friends and allies abroad. Anyway...check it out.
I am so sick and tired of hearing...
how republicans are at fault for everything. Yes, President Bush is republican but don't we have a democrat congress? What have then done to help better things?
I'm neither republican or democrat. I always try to pick the person I feel is best for the job. However, I learned a long time ago that a politician will say almost anything to get elected. Yes, Obama has many plans, but realistically how many of these plans will actually work, be put into works if he is elected, or just a bunch of smoke he is blowing up our rear ends to get elected.
I was watching a show on TV the other night that showed politicians during an election year and one of the things consistently brought up by many was the need to decrease our dependency on oil. This went all the way back to even before Carter was president. After these politicians were elected, not one of them did anything about decreasing our dependency on oil. Politicians will bring up any subject worth bringing up during an election year to get the backing of people, but once they win.....they don't have to do half of what they promised to do.
I am hearing on the radio that it was her husband, not she...
who was the member and it was several years ago. The jury is out on that one.
Obama went to the dailykos convention and spoke to them. Does that mean he approves of the smarm on that website?
Wright said God dam* America. Obama was in his pews for 20 years. Are we to attribute that comment to Obama?
You can't have it both ways.
JM may be planning but we're not hearing about it
Every day in the news is talk of Obama's $2M party.
I am sooo sick of hearing...
that Obama will do things "because he's black." What kind of reasoning is this? Did we forget that he's just as much white as he is black? What makes him more black than he is white? Did anyone notice that he was raised in a white environment, with little contact with his father? Is he not a product of his environment? Calling this man black OR white discredits his heritage and does nothing but show the racism that is so obviously alive and well in the US!
Tax break? I have been hearing we will all be taxed.
I have been hearing on the news, what about the middle class? Well, we will be taxed.
I remember hearing about him- some kind of nut, eh? nm
.
I too am sick of hearing all this - see message
Okay, I'll be the first to admit. This is important (I don't consider it historic - it is just basically important. Well now that I think of it I don't think it's important, it is just that its the first time a black man has been given (no not voted in...given) the job). Okay, so...this is notable that we have a soon to be (tomorrow) black president. Should there be a celebration. Yes. Should there be a celebration each time a new president is elected. Yes. Should Obama be treated differently than a white man who would take office. No he should not. That's where it should stop. The disgust that I feel when our country is in a recession (soon to be depression) and he's spending what? 170 million on his coronation. This is outrageous and a disgusting display of self-indulgence.
On Thursday I started seeing stations reporting on the coronation. Then Friday more and more stations. Even HBO has the corononation of Obama.
So here you have it. A country full of people who have lost their jobs, are in the process of losing their jobs, states (California in particular) that can't afford to pay the citizens their tax refunds and are sending them I.O.U.'s, people losing houses, people who can't even afford to buy food or medicine they need and here comes along our newly appointed president who is supposed to be for the people and he's spending over $170 million on himself. If he cared about the country at all he would say, hey, let's keep it to $100 million and take the other $70 million and put it back into the economy. At least it would feed a lot of people in the soup kitchens, help people stay in their houses a little bit longer, etc, etc, etc. (Can't he have a decent coronation on $100 million?) No instead he's sitting back revelling in the fact that everyone is making a big deal about his race.
Excuse me, but when he was campaigning against Hillary and John he kept saying, it's not about race, it's not about race. It's about you. He kept trying to take the focus off his race and put the focus on us. Now he's elected and all I hear is race, race, race, and it's all about me. Me, me, me. I'm the first black man, this is historic, my black ancestors, black, black, black, me, me, me. Every single speech he has given he's talked about his race.
Can you tell I am just sick, sick, sick of it.
This is supposed to be an inaugeration (not a coronation), and this "inaugeration" should be the same as any other newly incoming president. Would we have seen this if Hillary was elected. No. Well we would have to some extend but not like this. Would we have seen it if McCain/Palin (the first woman ever to become VP) - Do you even have to ask. That would be a big NO! Heck they'd probably even make her pay for everything herself.
I didn't vote for either. I voted for Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party). So I was not happy with either choice and it's not like I wanted one over the other. I knew Chuck Baldwin had no chance whatsoever of winning, but I didn't want either so it was a vote against both of them.
However, back to the original point. I am so sick of the constant coverage invading the TV set that the TV is not even going on. I've got lots of books I want to catch up on and I've got a good library of DVDs to watch.
So, we're in a recession/depression. People losing jobs, home, can't eat and here we have Mr. Obama spending $170 million. The most expensive inaugeration in history. Which means we will now have increased our deficit by at least $170 million. That's right who's going to pay for this. Who else - the taxpayers. Way to go Mr. Obama, haven't stepped foot in and you've already increased our deficit. But I know, I know....it's Bush's fault.
Anyone else tired of hearing about Miss USA?
It is just a beauty pageant. LOL! Sheesh. Miss California was asked, I believe, a loaded question but that is to be expected from the likes of Perez Hilton. I do not believe that her answer cost her the crown though. However, the attacks on her for stating her opinion are just ridiculous. Every one is entitled to their opinion and whether or not you agree with them........IT IS JUST A BEAUTY PAGEANT. LOL...Sheesh. I'm so tired of hearing about this.
Miss California is beautiful and seems nice but she didn't lose because of her answer. However, the personal attacks on her are just uncalled for as well. I think both sides are taking this too far.
I've been hearing from people she debated against that
She's a real tiger and I'm watching it and hoping that is true. We shall see.
I'm getting tired of hearing the word "maverick"
x
I just get tired of hearing "It's my body, I can
do what I want to with it." I had a second child totally unplanned for and totally not expected (my first only being 7 months old when I got pregnant), but the thought of abortion never crossed my mind. That baby was a human being, not just a fetus to me. That child is now 26 years old and expecting her first child. She has brought so much joy into my life that I can't even bear to think what it would be without her. Had I chosen to abort her, I would have missed one of the greatest blessings I had ever been given. It wasn't just my body that was involved. The only choice I made was taking the risk for an unwanted pregnancy. If I didn't want to be pregnant, I probably should have been more careful. Now, I'm so happy that I wasn't very careful. She is a beautiful young woman that I treasure dearly.
by the way, backwards typist - I like hearing your viewpoint -
I am not bashing anybody - I respond sometimes to comments with my own opinions, but I respect that you have the right to yours also.
I never call anyone a liar on this board - but if I see something I think is incorrect, I will try to correct the information if I can...
Also, I agree with the issues needing to be discussed and not bashing - for example, I asked who would vote for SP in 2012 and it turned into "she's better than him" or "he did this" below. I truly wanted to know who would vote for her in the primaries.
But, I don't think it is just the dems tearing down the pubs - I am standing on the fence (neutral to party sides) and I see it going both ways...
We get angry and defensive because we are tired of hearing..sm
the same-old same-old and the suspicions and negative remarks over and over again.
I'm sick to death of hearing the unfairness
When the majority of crimes committed in our community are by the black population, what should we do? Say, oh my goodness, you're black....we'll just pretend you didn't just kill someone on the corner in a driveby shooting or enter your elderly neighbor's house and shoot them dead cause you want what ain't yours....or a real good one....hide in the bushes of my neighbor's house, he drives up from work, and has a gun put to his temple and forced back into his car to the nearest ATM, where he was so fortunate to escape and run into a nearby store. To which, our black police chief hid the information and the local TV/paper didn't even know this happened until another neighbor call the TV/newspaper and gave them the details.
Or the AT&T cell phone center that just opened only to have OVER $20000 worth of phone stolen by several black men, who were seen running from the store by other blacks who reported them to the police. No, I'll just put my head in the sand and pretend I don't know the facts simply because we now have a black president. BTW, when many blacks attending COLLEGE were asked who they think would have the greatest influence on the young blacks would be, Obama or a black rapper, guess what their answer was? Clue: It WASN'T Obama. Yea, Obama will just turn those folks right around and show the bad ones the correct way to live. IN YOUR DREAMS!
Yeah, and you cant handle hearing the truth.
nm
I am hearing the exact opposite about unemployment
I think what you have posted is absolute rubbish, scare tactics once again. I am hearing not just on the local news but national news about the work situation picking up. I think most repubs are literally cringing inside seeing just what a good job Obama is doing. I just heard from my husband yesterday his job has posting on the board his company is buying 2 additional companies which means more employees, heard about a company in the state building new plant that will hire about 600 people. Like I said, rubbish.
Are you illiterate, dyslexic, have ADHD or hard of hearing?
The question is about republicans and taking personal responsibility. The issue at hand in this thread is the Troopergate investigation and the McCain campaign's attempt to slay the messenger, claim bias and shift responsibility to Obama's camp. No where in there did anybody say anything about Barack Obama, his associations, terrorists or anything remotely related to republican hate mantra.
Sarah Palin was up to her eyeballs in this investigation for ethics violatins before McCain's VP pick announcement. The investigation was conducted in accordance with Alaska State Legislature protocol. They were holding hearings, presenting evidence, hearing arguments pro and con, questioning, examining and drawing conclusions aimed at an official response. This is how the State of Alaska conduct legitimate inquiries into allegations of misconduct. There was nothing covert about it. It was all above board. These are the facts, not the spin.
What they discovered led them to the conclusions found in that report. The report findings raise all kinds of other legitimate issues with regard to Paiin and her own past record of conducting ethics investigations aimed at her personal political detractors against whom she sought to exact revenge and her hypocritical position as McC campaign attack-dog-in-chief assigned to head up the Obama smear fest / hate machine.
There is more on this subject which I will post directly below about pubs who abuse power. I am wondering if you can help me understand the McC campaign statement that came out last night that tried unsuccessfully to accuse the Obama campaign for Palin's Troopergate woes.
If you are able, please stay on task and answer my question directly. Sarah Palin has been found to be in violation of Alaska State Ethics law all by her own ill-advised actions and exercising her very own poor judgment. How pray tell is Obama responsible for Palin's screw up? Keep in that we are not attacking Obama here. We are having straightforward dialog about Sarah Palin and the McC campaign's attempt deny her culpability in official finding of ethic violations. Please confine your response to the subject at hand.
|