The UN, US and Iraq IV

So would most of Europe.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The poll results you cite could as well have applied to Churchill in 1936. I'm not suggesting Bush is a Churchill, but rather that popular views can change very fast in a changing situation.

If you mean Sir Winston Churchill, I can't quite understand this comparison, especially the naming of the year 1936. :wink:
(Quoting from the Britannica:)

Quote:

When Baldwin became prime minister in 1935, he persisted in excluding Churchill from office but gave him the exceptional privilege of membership in the secret committee on air-defense research,thus enabling him to work on some vital national problems. But Churchill had little success in his efforts to impart urgency to Baldwin's administration. The crisis that developed when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 found Churchill ill prepared, divided between a desire to build up the League of Nations around the concept of collective security and the fear that collective action would drive BenitoMussolini into the arms of Hitler.

0 Replies

Walter,

I'm suggesting that in 1936 Churchill wasn't particularly popular with either the government or the public in Britain, however, several years later that situation was reversed.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hell, Walter, anyone can see that particular type of shoe comes in neither your size nor your style.

You said this, back a few pages, Timber. Good comment.

0 Replies

I've had occasion to scatter that one around in a variety of wordings across a number of threads, Kara, and no doubt here-and-there more than once on a given thread. And thanks. Glad you noticed, and I appreciate your comment.

0 Replies

Before they take it down, go to this page on the Fox News website. Then scroll down to the link with Wes Clark's picture and the caption "Setting the Record Straight."

It's a six or seven minute clip. But it's worth watching through. The Fox host tries the same old mumbo-jumbo on Clark and Clark goes ballistic and doesn't back down. Good for him.

Late Update: Here's a direct link to the video feed.

DIRECT LINK

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Bush visits families at LeJuene.
They don't have to die to get a visit from Bush. He pays homage to the families of all who serve.

Eh. The point made, I think (and I should know, cause I made it first) was that Bush hasnt visited a single family of a soldier who died in Iraq. Attended no funeral, no ceremonial tribute to those who fell, nothing like that.

And the interpretation of that was that Bush apparently considers it more important to avoid the bad visuals that would yield, in terms of selling thw war, than to personally express his condolences or respect to those who fell in the war he commanded.

Your citation of how Bush did visit the soldiers who still live - visits "military installations" where family members of those who fell are neatly submerged in the crowds of still living, still fighting soldiers, therefore really is neither here nor there. It refutes nothing about what was raised here.

(Have to admit the "they don't have to die to get a visit from Bush" is a very clever, if astoundingly cynical, spin on his refusal to visit the families of those who died, though.)

Sofia wrote:

Will find another.

'K. Perhaps one thats actually about what was alleged - his attitude vs those who died, rather than towards those whom he's still to deploy?

0 Replies

nimh,

It might be useful if you would point out more presisely just what is the meaningful inconsistency you find in Bush's behavior on this? Frankly I don't see anything either significant or meaningful in all this.

I think you are reaching too far.

0 Replies

Eh - I dont particularly mind "inconsistent".

The inconsistency - of how he is visiting the families of British soldiers who died when he's apparently never visited any family of American GI's who were killed - merely served to bring something to my attention that I do find typically offensive.

Namely: the latter of those two things. I hadnt actually known, before, about how there'd been a seemingly deliberate effort to downplay any potential public attention to the families of those who served, fought and died. How Bush hadnt visited any of them, how ceremonial tributes over coffins with the American flag have - if I remember this correctly - been replaced by more discrete "personal deliveries" of the - what are bodybags now called? "Transfer tubes"?

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am, nevertheless.

0 Replies

Why is he going ?????????

Quote:

Comment
This visit is a liability

Bush needs Blair to lend him credibility, but neither Blair nor the British people needs Bush, writes Jeremy Corbyn

Monday November 17, 2003

This week President Bush arrives accompanied by a massive entourage of advisers and security staff. London will be more disrupted for this state visit than for any other.

The Stop the War Coalition has organised a whole series of meetings, film shows, debates and demonstrations to enable the ordinary public to express their feelings.

The contrast could not be greater: of a president being feted (at a cost of £4m) and refusing to answer a question or debate anything, while the peace movement has had to argue every inch of the way for the right to hold marches and demonstrations. Since 2001 we have had constantly to assert our right to be heard against those who would silence us.

The strange question is why Mr Bush is coming at all. And whose idea was it to invite him?

No US president has ever had a state visit before, only as head of government. As a first-term, controversially appointed head of state, Mr Bush should hardly be the first choice.

Mr Bush and Mr Blair are defined politically by the Iraq war. It is clear that Mr Bush needs Mr Blair so that he can claim some international support for his lawless activities, his open contempt for the UN and for the legal processes relating to the incarceration of prisoners.

Quite what calculation has led Mr Blair to need Mr Bush so much is less obvious. After September 11 there was understandable shock around the world, followed by a short period of taking stock. Then Mr Bush pronounced a war of retribution against Afghanistan, followed by the "axis of evil" speech.

Mr Blair's initial reaction was similar to that of most other European heads of government, but then it went much further. As the build-up to the Iraq war began, Mr Bush arrogantly assumed that he could do what he liked. After all, he is commander in chief, and in international affairs, unlike nationally, he has a pretty free hand.

Mr Blair's position, on the other hand, is much tighter. He has had to answer questions at least once a week and thus provide some rational explanation for the campaign against Iraq. This has been his undoing as even his most ardent supporters have had trouble following the shifting sands of WMDs, missiles, al-Qaida links and reinterpretations of history.

Tony Blair got his vote in March, and lost his credibility in foreign policy at the same time. With perhaps 10,000 Iraqis dead, US soldiers dying at an alarming rate and international organisations and "allies" pulling out fast, one asks: where are we going now?

Far from making the world a safer place, Mr Bush has learned no lessons from history, appears incapable of understanding the world's cultural diversity and thinks crony capitalism is synonymous with democracy.

On Sunday night I watched the film Born on the Fourth of July in the company of Ron Kovic, its hero in real life. The story is that of a man's journey from unquestioning patriotism and faith in military strength, via dead children in Vietnamese villages, horrific injuries and contemptible treatment of Vietnam veterans to his destination as an indefatigable peace campaigner.

Mr Bush looks and sounds more like Nixon did in the 1970s, as the US people gear up to oppose him. This visit will be seen as a strange mistake - it is now of no benefit to Mr Blair or Mr Bush, but has been a huge boost to the transatlantic peace movement.

· Jeremy Corbyn is the MP for Islington North

SOURCE

0 Replies

nimh, I have thought a lot about this issue in recent days. Why would he -- or why would he not? -- meet, talk to, console family of dead soldiers, or be seen comforting the wounded? I am puzzled about this. Is it that there are too many and he cannot do them all? This does not work for me. He handles multiple obligations every day, most of them symbolic. Why not the dead from this war that will define his presidency?

I try to see this from the angle of others who have posted here, but I find no reason there. It is as if the dead have not existed or are a fungible in the arena of war. And the wounded? They are in the thousands.

0 Replies

Quote:

So he really does something in the UK, he hates?

LOL, Walter.

0 Replies

I am not talking about the bitten-lower-lip stuff that Sofia talks about. I am not looking for big media events. If Bush went every week or even twice a week, to meet for a few minutes with a grieving family or ten of them, or to walk through Walter Reed or one of the wounded intake centers, shaking hands with the wounded. It wouldn't take long. And it would not have to appear on TV! Wow, is that a new concept or what? What if we found out about it from a "leak"?

0 Replies

Kara, you gorgeous morsel goddess of A2K beauty, maybe it's because he has stuff like this to worry about.

Italian group backs Iraq fighters

Excerpt

A group of Italian anti-war militants is raising funds to support the armed Iraqi resistance, the BBC has learned.
The discovery comes as Italy mourns 19 men killed in a suicide attack in Iraq last week.

The "Antiimperialista" organisation's internet campaign asks people to send "10 Euros to the Iraqi resistance".

Nineteen Italians were killed in last week's suicide attack in Nasiriya
They say they have collected 12,000 euros ($14,165) in the past eight weeks and admit the money used could be used to buy weapons.

The Antiimperialistas are a group of European anti-war and anti-globalisation supporters.

They are currently organising an anti-war demonstration in Italy next month, and it remains to be seen whether news of the fund-raising activities will deter more moderate anti-war activists from attending.

The organisation's Italian branch says the money will be given to an Iraqi resistance group known as the Iraqi Patriotic Opposition.

Independent Iraqi sources in London say the leaders of this group have a long history of association with the Baath party and are now back in Iraq supporting the armed resistance.

Full story

0 Replies

Gel, lots of folks who saw Wes and Tim fencing this morning were more than a little taken with the impression that Wes was more hothead than hero ... I suspect he'll take some heat for that venture into near intemperance from among The Other Eight.

Here's a personal editorial comment on a different note:

Quote:

Veterans Day Ceremonies Reflect Grief

... Bush laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns during a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. With casualties mounting in Iraq, he said the country is bringing a chance for freedom and democracy there.

``Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away in the heart and center of their power so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America,'' Bush said after visiting the cemetery.'' The president has said that he grieves for all soldiers lost in all wars, but on Tuesday Bush expressed grief especially for those lost in the Iraq conflict.

``We have laid to rest young men and women who died in distant lands,'' Bush said. ``For their families, this is a terrible sorrow, and we pray for their comfort. For the nation, there is a feeling of loss, and we remember and we remember and we honor every loss.'' ...

Quote:

Bush carrier footage in Kerry Veterans Day ad
From John Mercurio
CNN Political Unit
Tuesday, November 11, 2003 Posted: 12:08 PM EST (1708 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hoping to refocus voters on his military background, Sen. John Kerry chose Veterans Day to air a new TV ad in Iowa and New Hampshire that, for the first time in the Democratic primary campaign, features footage of President Bush during his May 1 speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

Quote:

Democrats Use Veterans Day to Attack Bush

Monday November 10, 2003 10:31 AM
By NEDRA PICKLER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidates are leading up to Veterans Day by attacking President Bush's treatment of former service members and outlining their own plans for improving benefits.

Now, Veterans Issues are a vulnerability for The Current Administration, no question. Serious deficiencies demand redress, which is in scant evidence. Still, who honored veterans on Veterans Day, and who sought to politicize the day?

0 Replies

That's BX, BrandS Laughing

Not even a fly on his windscreen.....

0 Replies

Quote:

lots of folks who saw Wes and Tim fencing this morning were more than a little taken with the impression that Wes was more hothead than hero .

This is an issue that has bothered me about Wesley Clark. I'd like to know more about why he was suddenly decommissioned.

So do you like any of the Dem candidates, Timber?

Memo to self: Ask not and you shall not receive.

0 Replies

Timber

Quote:

Gel, lots of folks who saw Wes and Tim fencing this morning were more than a little taken with the impression that Wes was more hothead than hero ... I suspect he'll take some heat for that venture into near intemperance from among The Other Eight

Timber, could you put more of a face than 'lots of folks' on your rheoric? Why the **** is it that republicans think that just because they utter it ..... its true? Back up what you claim for gospel just once ... give a source !!!!!!

DAMN Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Another real stupid comment from Shrub

Quote:

``Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away in the heart and center of their power so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America,'' Bush said after visiting the cemetery.''

The center of their power? WTF does this mean? Before the US invasion their were no terrorist attacks in Iraq on any Americans. The "terrorists" he speaks of were located in other countries.

How does this moron GW know that we will not be facing those "terrorists" in the heart of America?

One country where there are many terrorists is the USA. These terrorists were ordered by GW to terrorise many countries.

GW is the most dangerous person on this planet.

0 Replies

Kara, in answer to your Clark query, there's lots. Here's just a teaser:

Quote:

ELECTION 2004
Gen. Shelton: Clark 'won't get my vote'
Former chair of Joint Chiefs says Wes has 'integrity and character' issuesPosted: September 24, 2003
2:28 p.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Retired Gen. H. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark has some "integrity and character issues" and won't be getting his vote.

Shelton, who was Joint Chiefs chairman on 9-11, made the comments at a celebrity forum at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, Calif., earlier this month, the Los Altos Town Crier reported.

After a presentation reviewing the historic events of his 38-year military career, Shelton took questions from the audience.

One question came from Dick Henning, moderator of the event: "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate?"

According to the report, Shelton took a drink of water before answering.

Said Henning, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"

"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton, according to the Los Altos paper. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Gen. Wesley Clark

Clark was supreme allied commander of NATO forces during the Clinton-era bombing campaign against Serbia. Shelton relieved him of duty in 2000, several months earlier than Clark expected.

Another retired four-star general told the Washington Post recently: "There are an awful lot of people who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later. The people who have worked closely with him are the least complimentary, because he can be very abrasive, very domineering. And part of what you saw when he was relieved of command was all of the broken glass and broken china within the European alliance and the [U.S.] European Command."

British General Sir Mike Smith, commander of ground forces in Kosovo under Clark, is quoted as having said, "Sir, I am not going to start World War Three for you" in response to an order from Clark that Russian troops, which had skillfully exploited an unexpected tactical opportunity allowing them to sieze and occupy Prstina Airfield well before Clark had planned for its capture, gaining both a strategic and PR advantage, be ejected, "by force if nescessary". Clark was very angry that he himself was not allowed to deploy ground troops in the conflict, and considered, and voiced that he considered, it an insult. Numerous irregularities surround his two prior commands, including both morale issues, fudged training reports, and indifferent execution of administrational paperwork. While much of that is not directly attributable to Clark himself, it occurred under his command, and subordinate officers claim Clark brushed off complaints and emphasized "looking good". Following a tour as NATO Commander, a US 4-Star General would be expected to continue to climb the carreer path. Clark, on the other hand, had his tour cut short, was assigned to replace a 2-Star General as Commander of US forces in South America, following which he "Elected" to retire. Among other recommendations, Col. Dave Hackworth dubbed Clark a "Perfumed Prince". Many say Clarks key military qualification was his longstanding relationship with a home-town Little Ruck boy and fellow Rhodes Scholar, Bill Clinton.

Of the current Dems, I guess I see either Lieberman or Gephardt as least objectionable.

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know