THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Foxy
Because I can not believe anything that issues forth from this adminstration. IMO They have lost all credibility.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Foxy
Because I can not believe anything that issues forth from this adminstration. IMO They have lost all credibility.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Who has not lost credibility?

The Kerry Campaign who was quick to blame Bush wrongfully, it appears?

Does CBS have any credibility with you?

0 Replies

Ticomaya
Neither CBS,CNN,FOX nor any other news media is seeking my vote. Bush is. And I find what is issuing from the Buwh administration misleads and colors the truth much to often.
I should note my opposition to Bush is not solely his actions relative to the mid east. In fact where it concerns Israel I can only applaud his support of the Jewish State.
However, I disagree with his policies and actions in the areas of. Taxes,Social Security,Environment, Health care, Gun control, Energy policy, Gay issues, Abortion, Stem Cell research, Religious agenda and just about every other issue.

0 Replies

Does that mean I'm not going to be able to convince you to vote for Bush? Cool

0 Replies

I agree with Bush policies re the war on terrorism and national security, taxes, social security, education, environment, healthcare, gun control, gay civil union, abortion, tort reform, and faith based initiatives. I disagree with Bush on immigration, prescription drugs for Medicare, and allowing excessive spending for pork.

I agree with Kerry on the days he agrees with Bush. That's quite a lot actually, but he just isn't consistent sticking with his position when he hits a good one.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I believe that if it turned out that Bush was a murdering serial killer you guys would say, "yea, but what about Kerry, how will he be any better..."

Bush is an occasional blunderer.

Kerry is a slandering swindler.

I ask how will Kerry do better?

0 Replies

Ican, do you think you could defend either of those points?

(not asking you to do it, suggesting that you think about what you post on occasion)

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Ican wrote

Quote:
I've been around on this planet long enough to realize that government in general and our presidents and other elected and appointed officials in particular have committed numerous serious blunders that have led to great harm to our people. It seems to go with the territory. George Bush has proven himself no exception. As a senator John Kerry has proven himself no exception.

That is a fallacious statement. While it is true that Bush has a proven record of errors, blunders and missteps that have brought this nation to the brink of tragedy. Kerry on the other hand has not. He has never been in the position to do so. Whatever you believe regarding Kerry is purely speculation on your part.

No, it's not at all fallacious statement. Kerry while a senator did support the communist tyrants in Nicaragua, did vote to reduce our defense and intelligence capabilities, and did choose to run a slanderous campaign for president. All of which caused or are causing our nation great harm.

Before he was a senator, Kerry let us all know what we could expect from him. After he left Vietnam he slandered his fellow troops in Vietnam by accusing them of committing atrocities they did not commit. Kerry later commented about those slanders: "that was a little over the top."

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Ican, do you think you could defend either of those points?
(not asking you to do it, suggesting that you think about what you post on occasion)

Yes, I can defend them both! However, if you think Bush is either not a blunderer or you think him a frequent blunderer, let me know why you think that? And then, "if you ask me nicely" I'll be happy to tell you why I think what I posted is true.

I think about everything I post?

Do you think about everything you post?

0 Replies

Ican wrote

Quote:

No, it's not at all fallacious statement. Kerry while a senator did support the communist tyrants in Nicaragua, did vote to reduce our defense and intelligence capabilities, and did choose to run a slanderous campaign for president. All of which caused or are causing our nation great harm.

Before he was a senator, Kerry let us all know what we could expect from him. After he left Vietnam he slandered his fellow troops in Vietnam by accusing them of committing atrocities they did not commit. Kerry later commented about those slanders: "that was a little over the top."

As usual you see everything with a jaundiced eye. And have fallen hook line and sinker for the Bushite line.
The Republicans the party of dirty tricks ran the dirty campaign. Instead of attempting to defend the accomplishments of their last few years they opted for character assassination. Why. because there were no accomplishments to crow about.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Ican wrote

Quote:

No, it's not at all fallacious statement. Kerry while a senator did support the communist tyrants in Nicaragua, did vote to reduce our defense and intelligence capabilities, and did choose to run a slanderous campaign for president. All of which caused or are causing our nation great harm.

Before he was a senator, Kerry let us all know what we could expect from him. After he left Vietnam he slandered his fellow troops in Vietnam by accusing them of committing atrocities they did not commit. Kerry later commented about those slanders: "that was a little over the top."

As usual you see everything with a jaundiced eye. And have fallen hook line and sinker for the Bushite line.
The Republicans the party of dirty tricks ran the dirty campaign. Instead of attempting to defend the accomplishments of their last few years they opted for character assassination. Why. because there were no accomplishments to crow about.

I think you are accusing Bush and associates and the Republican Party of exactly what Kerry and associates and the Democratic Party have been doing for almost a year. That most definitely includes your last sorta sentence.

But, I suppose some Democrats may think requiring a super majority rather than a simple majority vote (as the Constitution requires) to consent to federal appelate judge appointments is an accomplishment.

I call it an impeachable offense.

0 Replies

You are correct a super majority is only needed when the democrates are the majority. Right? Sad

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

You are correct a super majority is only needed when the democrates are the majority. Right?

In the year 2001 (yes, it was in the year 2001), the Democrats originated, without a Constitutional Amendment, the brand new requirement for a super majority to consent to the appointment of federal appellate judges. Until that time only a simple majority was required for consent to the appointment of federal appellate judges. Democrats accomplished this by filibustering such appointments for the first time in the history of the United States. A 60 vote majority is now required in the Senate to terminate a filibuster and to compel a senate vote on the appointment of federal appellate judges. Only after that can a simple majority consent to appointment of federal appellate judges.

This brand new requirement invented by the Democrats violates the following Constitutional provision [emphasis added by me]:

Quote:

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789

Article II
...
Section 2.
...
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

0 Replies

And ever since the Pugs have redone the closure and committee rules, Bush has been able to
1 crap up wetlands

2allow dredge dumping into streams

3raise limits for dust in mines

4increase truck drivers hours between rests

5release your medical records without your permission

6allow logging on an additional 60K acres of specific old growth national forests

These are only a few that I can think of off the top of my head most of them affect my business in some fashion so Im kept informed. They all occured without vote, discussion, or committee actions.They just showed up in the Fed Register. When we comment we are sent these gratuitous letters of"thanks for your interest"

Yeaah ican, wallow in your delusions that Bush and Bush's handlers arent malevolent bunches of old 'ironmasters".

The myth of Bush as a truly "honest man" is beginning to crumble. And its in the hands of his own agencies , like the FBI, isnt that ironic? The whistleblower in the Halliburton investigations is a govt contracts agent named greenhouse. imagine, Bush could be pulled down by 'The Greenhouse Effect"
Hes a slug ican, a goddam activist moronic slug who hides behind his religion as a phony crutch and screws us all.

YOUR signature line sums it up quite well, perhaps you should get closer to the issues. 45K feet is a bit far away to really understand things firsthand

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

And ever since the Pugs have redone the closure and committee rules ...
Yeaah ican, wallow in your delusions that Bush and Bush's handlers arent malevolent bunches of old 'ironmasters".
....Hes a slug ican, a goddam activist moronic slug who hides behind his religion as a phony crutch and screws us all.
...

YOUR signature line sums it up quite well, perhaps you should get closer to the issues. 45K feet is a bit far away to really understand things firsthand

Perhaps you should get closer to reality.

Don't forget the first statement in my signature line.

Quote:

I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action.

It is my first hand experience on the ground and in the air that vitriolic accusations like you made here are probably manifestations of pathological and not objective testimony.

0 Replies

are you kidding?
you are a poster child for the hook line and sinker acceptance of the duplicity of this administrations bogus foreign policy especially when its come to Iraq. youve tried to assert that Iraq had a connection to Alqaeda, although the 9/11 commission stated emphatically that they
"found no evidence..."

Youve failed to realize that, as Greg Theilman stated.
that he" was surprised at the deception and distortion forwarded by members of the administration regarding the rguments used to engage us in this war which will cost thhe lives of so many of our sons and daughters"

Maybe you feel , like 62% of the population of the US, who, even after learning that ALL the other arguments for going to war were distortions and outright untruths, still beleive that Iraq had Al Qaeda connections and 42% of us actually believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

I find that , with the certainty and forensic evidence presented that has outed the administration, you are standing there , unarmed with any arguments fella.
Youre engaging in some kind of verbal masturbation for your own onanistic pleasure.
youre not being convincing at all, in fact your arguments are kind of like a last ditch effort to wrench some tiny bit of credibility for Mr Bush and his cohorts. Lemme know when you come up with something cause the facts are staring you flat in the face, you just fail to accept them.

As far as my style of argument, deal with the substance of it, dont try to psychoanalyze it. Thats about as creative as when you post dictionary definitions or try to use math expansions as evidence

You are predictable , I must say that

My comment about bush being a moron , and an activist moron, was a lift from Paul krugman. I thought it clever so I used it. I just thought you would have recognized the lead-in line. Of course the part about the slug, that was mine, thank you very much.
aS far as your sigs first line, its kind of a statement that celebrates the obvious. i hope you werent going for profound here.
I admit, I was and am engaging in vitriol a bit. its because you seem to be stuck in this groove of unquestioning acceptance of the Iraq war, to the exclusion of all recent evidence and facts.

In that fashion you are like your hero GWB, you stick to your argument, even when its been disassembled by so many others.

'Beware a man who makes decisions without understanding the underlying facts. He is not to be trusted" guess who said that.

0 Replies

Watching C_SPAN this AM I realized that alternative news sites are of short supply. Here are four of what I consider to be reasonably fair and accurate sources with an inherent Islamic slant ... still better than total ignorance or partisan rhetoric. Smile

http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml

http://www.iraqinews.com/home.shtml

http://www.debka.com/

http://www.jihadunspun.net/home.php

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

0 Replies

PROTECTING TROOPS

Along With Prayers, Families Send Armor

By NEELA BANERJEE and JOHN KIFNER

Published: October 30, 2004

hen the 1544th Transportation Company of the Illinois National Guard was preparing to leave for Iraq in February, relatives of the soldiers offered to pay to weld steel plates on the unit's trucks to protect against roadside bombs. The Army told them not to, because it would provide better protection in Iraq, relatives said.

Advertisement

Seven months later, many of the company's trucks still have no armor, soldiers and relatives said, despite running some of the most dangerous missions in Iraq and incurring the highest rate of injuries and deaths among the Illinois units deployed there.

"This problem is very extensive," said Paul Rieckhoff, a former infantry platoon leader with the Florida National Guard in Iraq who now runs an organization called Operation Truth, an advocacy group for soldiers and veterans.

Though soldiers of all types have complained about equipment in Iraq, part-timers in the National Guard and Reserve say that they have a particular disadvantage because they start off with outdated or insufficient gear. They have been deployed with faulty radios, unreliable trucks and, most alarmingly for many, a shortage of soundly armored vehicles in a land regularly convulsed by roadside attacks, according to soldiers, relatives and outside military experts.

After many complaints when the violence in Iraq accelerated late last year, the military acknowledged there had been shortages, in part because of the rapid deployments. But the Army contends that it has moved quickly to get better equipment to Iraq over the last year.

"War is a come-as-you-are party," said Lt. Gen. C. V. Christianson, the Army's deputy chief of staff for logistics, in an interview yesterday. "The way a unit was resourced when someone rang the bell is the way it showed up.

"As we saw this become a more enduring commitment, those in the next rotation had full protective gear, like the newest body armor," he said. General Christianson acknowledged, however, that more work needed to be done to protect vehicles in particular and that broader changes were needed so that the Army and Reserve would be better prepared in the future.

Not all National Guard units are complaining about their equipment. The soldiers in Company C of the Arkansas Army National Guard's First Battalion, 153rd Infantry Regiment, have operated in one of the riskiest parts of Baghdad since they arrived in April.

Capt. Thomas J. Foley, 29, the company commander, and his soldiers bragged in recent interviews that their equipment, from Bradley fighting vehicles to armored personnel carriers, was on par or better than what many regular Army units in Iraq now have.

The improvements are of little solace to many soldiers' families. Progress has been made, but it has been slow and inconsistent, soldiers, families and other military observers said. When 18 reservists in Iraq refused an order to deliver fuel on Oct. 13, they cited the poor condition of their trucks and the lack of armed escorts in a particularly dangerous area.

link to end of article

Who pays the price for this incompetance the people responsible or the brothers,sisters,husbands and wives of the this nation. Bush says he is better equiped to handle terrorism. I believe he is better equiped to foster terrorism. In any event do you think Bush or Rumsfeld will ever acknowledge their culpability? Fat chance

0 Replies

That johnny-come-lately story about the military moving the explosives would have been more believable had not the story about saddam hussien moving them already been told by bush and Cheney.

Petegon has even showed pictures of saddam hussien moving his convoys before the war as to show that there is a possibility that is where the explosives are. What; did they just forget about moving them?

0 Replies

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~2500938,00.html

Iraq will remain on front burner

It seems apt that the last days of the U.S. presidential campaign would feature an animated dispute over an unsettling Iraq development. It revolves around tons of explosives that have turned up missing from the munitions depot at Al-Qaqaa.

Democrat John Kerry describes the incident as an egregious example of the Bush administration's inept handling of the war.

President Bush, at first, said the weapons in question may have been looted or moved before U.S. troops made it to Baghdad in April 2003, calling his challenger's accusations "wild charges."

The Pentagon earlier this week produced satellite photos of trucks outside the facility in March 2003, before the U.S. invasion, suggesting Iraqis could have been moving the weapons.

By Thursday, however, the administration's claims seemed dubious as a Minnesota television station began airing videotape of U.S. soldiers inspecting the site in April of 2003 and handling the munitions.

So Friday, the Pentagon countered with Army Maj. Austin Pearson, who says his 3rd Infantry Division actually did take about 250 tons of munitions from the Al-Qaqaa site soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.

Well, that's all clear as mud now, right?

The disappearance of explosives in Iraq - anywhere from 3 tons to 377 tons, depending on the day and the news story and the source - has ensured that Iraq will be a focus of the presidential campaign from beginning to end.

The story has observers scratching their heads, unsure of the facts and unsure of the political impact.

Kerry has spent five straight days discussing the issue, even switching away from some planned remarks on domestic issues to do so. He calls it a "growing scandal" and says that "the American people deserve a full and honest explanation of how it happened and what the president is going to do about it."

Bush wouldn't address it at all until Wednesday and even then only said Kerry was making unsubstantiated charges and wasn't fit to be president. "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," Bush said. (Not that Bush - he of weapons of mass destruction - could be accused of anything similar.)

The interim Iraqi government told the International Atomic Energy Agency about the missing weapons earlier this month, and the IAEA alerted the Bush administration on Oct. 15. There was no public statement, but The New York Times broke the story Monday, sending both campaigns into spin mode.

The timing raised eyebrows in the Bush camp. Why now, they ask, especially if the munitions went missing long ago?

Even at 377 tons, the amount of missing weaponry is a fraction of the 650,000 to 1 million tons of explosives, artillery shells and bombs that U.S. military experts estimated last fall were in Iraq at one time. The Bush administration this week says they've confiscated or destroyed 400,000 tons.

If all that is true, there may be a lot more than 377 tons of munitions missing.

All of this has Democrats asking why there weren't enough troops on the ground to protect sensitive areas such as the Al-Qaqaa site, extending a debate about military manpower levels that began even before the 2003 invasion.

With three days left before Election Day, it's hard to know whether the facts of Al-Qaqaa will be resolved in time to enter voter calculations, but it will certainly keep Iraq on the front burner.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know