1
   

Bush Speaks Tonight From Fort Bragg- Oooh-Rah!

 
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 10:08 pm
Kudoes to Kuvasz' wonderful and complete post. To those just joining this discussion, please take take the time to read it-it is the message just before this one.

And just to add my tiny little bit, please note how bin Laden himself refers to Saddam's secular government just a month before the invasion.

bin Laden wrote:
It doesn't matter whether the socialist (Baath) party or Saddam disappear. ..."


bin Laden wrote:
And it doesn't harm in these conditions the interest of Muslims to agree with those of the socialists [Saddam] in fighting against the crusaders, even though we believe the socialists are infidels. For the socialists and the rulers have lost their legitimacy a long time ago, and the socialists are infidels regardless of where they are, whether in Baghdad or in Aden.

Source:CNN

That certainly doesn't sound very collaborative to me. Or very buddy-buddy either.

The Iraq-al Qaeda connection exists only in the minds of war-supporting excuse makers.

Once again, Iraq is the battle ground against Islamic fundamentalist fighters only because BUSH decided to make it so.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 01:25 am
Ticomaya wrote:
au1929 wrote:
I would like to hear some comment from the Bush, {he can't do anything wrong} faithful. Regarding the treatment of our wounded at Walter Reed hospital
[ re.kuvasz post.]


I might oblige, but I refuse to "watch a brief add" in order to read a salon.com article.


Allow me Tico

http://www.ngwrc.org/index.cfm?page=Article&ID=1924

Just click on the link - no annoying brief ad.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 02:24 am
Goodfielder:

I clicked on the link and got an error.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 03:00 am
thanks kelticwizard - yes I did too. I shall see if I can make amends. Thank you for letting me know.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 03:03 am
Full article

Quote:
Insult to injury
Some wounded soldiers back from Iraq are having to pay for meals at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Veterans' groups say it's another symptom of fighting a costly war on the cheap.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mark Benjamin



Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war they just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that lies ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is where the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed patients, that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started making some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.

Paying out of pocket for hospital meals can impose a serious financial burden, costing hundreds of dollars every month. That can be a lot of money to a military family. But perhaps worse, the meal charge feels like an ungrateful slap in the face to some soldiers. "I think it sucks," said a soldier from West Virginia who broke his neck in Iraq after falling off a roof. "I think that people should be able to eat. They get us over there, get us wounded and shot up and then tell us: Fend for yourself. You are all heroes, but here you go."

Whether it is the lack of protective armor for troops in the field or, now, wounded troops paying for food, complaints from soldiers have shed an unflattering light on how the military bureaucracy takes care of its troops. And they have prompted accusations that the Pentagon is fighting the Iraq war on the cheap, no matter what the cost to soldiers. The meal charge policy "is an example of a much larger problem relating to the overall cost of the war. It is all an indication of extreme costs they are trying to make up on the backs of these men and women," said Steve Robinson, a retired Army Ranger and the executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center. "If the war is costing too much, the one place you don't skimp is on soldier and veteran programs. The administration has no problem deficit-spending on the needs of conducting war, and we see no reason not to apply the same methodology to veterans' benefits and soldier care."

A veterans' advocate who lost the use of his legs fighting in Vietnam said the meal charges constitute a personal affront to soldiers. "I don't care what bureaucratic bullshit they come up with, this is an insult," said Bobby Muller, chairman of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and director of the foundation's Alliance for Security. "I cannot believe that people are being charged for their meals. This is a showstopper."

For its part, the Army explains -- and defends -- the food charges at Walter Reed by saying they apply only to some outpatients, not inpatients confined to hospital beds. "I have been absolutely assured ... that no inpatient has been charged for meals," Walter Reed spokesman Don Vandrey told Salon. But until Jan. 3, outpatient soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan ate for free in the chow hall. Now outpatient soldiers there longer than 90 days pay for meals in cash. Although Walter Reed did not disclose the exact number of soldiers affected, the policy is most likely to affect at least the estimated 600 soldiers getting long-term outpatient care at the hospital in what the Army calls "medical hold."

Soldiers in medical hold are considered outpatients, but they usually live on hospital grounds -- some are put up in nearby hotels if housing on the grounds is full -- and have little choice but to buy food at the Walter Reed chow hall. Even as outpatients, soldiers in medical hold often have serious injuries. Some have been blown up by roadside bombs or crumpled in Humvee wrecks. They have serious head wounds and amputations. Others are struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder after being flown out of Iraq with shellshock. Some soldiers in medical hold are waiting to get processed out of the Army because their wounds are so serious that they will never return to duty. But processing at Walter Reed can take over a year, much to the frustration of the soldiers who would prefer to get outpatient treatment near their homes and families. Soldiers in medical hold also complain they are still expected to line up for daily formations and buy new uniforms even as they struggle with debilitating physical and mental trauma from their service in Iraq. They say being charged for food while they're recovering is one more indignity.

From the Army's perspective, the meal charges follow Army rules that are supposed to prohibit soldiers from getting free food as well as a separate food budget. But the only soldiers prohibited from getting both, under the new rules, are the long-term outpatients. "If they get [the cash each month] they would be expected to pay for their meals," said Vandrey, the Walter Reed spokesman. He said the hospital was "really cracking down on soldiers who are getting both."

But here's how the new rules drain hundreds of dollars a month from the pockets of soldiers: Enlisted soldiers get an extra $267.18 every month in their paychecks for food. So before this month, all soldiers at Walter Reed got free food at the chow hall and extra cash. Soldiers say they received that extra food money while they were serving in Iraq, too, and they just let their families spend it on groceries. Now, though, the outpatient soldiers forced to buy meals at Walter Reed say they could spend around $15 a day if they eat three square meals at the dining hall -- about $3 for breakfast and around $6 each for lunch and dinner. That adds up to $450 a month, $183 more than soldiers' food allowance from the military. (The situation is even worse for officers, who get only $183.99 extra each month for a food allowance.) The soldiers at Walter Reed point out that that they don't have the option of eating at home to save money because they are stuck at the hospital. Vandrey said spending $6 for lunch and dinner sounds excessive. "I eat breakfast and lunch there every day and I never spend more than $5 a meal," he said.

Most soldiers in medical hold eat at Walter Reed every day, too. But for those well enough to leave the hospital grounds, a favorite spot -- and a rare treat - is the local Red Lobster, particularly if the press is paying. At a recent meal there, three soldiers from Walter Reed told Salon the new meal charges were putting a serious strain on already tight pocketbooks. (All three ate hefty-size meals.) "I don't starve, [but] it might be beans and weenies or a cup of noodles," said the soldier from West Virginia who was treated for the broken neck; he can now walk, but does so with an awkward, bowlegged gait. "I'm not going to starve to death, but it is an issue that really sucks." A soldier from Pennsylvania said, "They want to charge us for uniforms, for food, everything."

Notwithstanding the charges for food, it should be said, Walter Reed has gained recognition for its excellent medical treatment of acute battlefield injuries, including those sustained by amputees. Soldiers seem to agree that while the hospital has its problems, that particular credit is well deserved.

The soldiers interviewed for this story asked for anonymity because they feared getting into trouble with their chain of command for speaking out. Many soldiers from Walter Reed attended the Heroes Red, White and Blue Inaugural Ball last week, attended by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and others. Soldiers told Salon they were lectured on the bus on the way to the ball that they would face consequences if any untoward comments about the military appeared in the press. One soldier said he and others were told that they should not feel compelled to speak with reporters, but if they did, they would be in their commander's office in the morning if they said anything negative.

Beyond the creeping food bill, perhaps what's most bothersome to soldiers about the meal charge rule is the principle of the thing: Paying for food at an Army hospital after fighting in a war doesn't seem right. "You know they treat us like **** up here," said the soldier from Pennsylvania. One officer from the Army Reserve who served in Iraq told Salon he was "highly disgusted" at being asked to pay for food after being stuck at Walter Reed. "It affects me to a point, but it has a tremendous impact financially on the junior enlisted soldiers," he said. "After these kids get physically or mentally injured in combat, and then you expect them to take away from their personal finances to feed themselves? That is what disturbs me the most."


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/27/walter_reed/print.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 05:08 am
goodfielder

Very thoughtful of you to help tico out like that. Ten second advertisements have been a huge impediment to dedicated learners seeking a diverse and thorough knowledge base.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 05:37 am
I'm here to serve blatham :wink: I have for years resisted the blandishments of Readers Digest for me to come and work with them though - even I have limits Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:28 am
kuvasz wrote:


The battle over adjectives appears silly especially when there is a quantum difference between what are the implications of such ties. Those who screech about a cabal between al Qeada and Iraq are making silk out of a sow's ear.


`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 01:44 pm
There was a connection.

There were meetings arranged and messages passed through representatives.

There were invitations of help.

There were agreements.

They shared each's most serious enemy.

They each had what the other needed to deliver a stunning blow to their shared mortal enemy.

And, this is what we have proof of.

Imagine what we DON'T yet have proof of.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 02:01 pm
All of your points have been exhaustively answered by the 911 Commission Report.

All of specific places in the report where your points were answered have been pointed out by Kuvasz in this spectacular post.

Give it up. The Iran-al Qaeda connection is nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 02:12 pm
I don't have questions. These items were proven in the 911 Commission Report.

You need to give up avoiding it.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 02:16 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
You mean these incredibly silly people are still buying the "Saddam luvs al-Qaeda" nonsense?

Good God. What does it take for these people to recognize reality?

Ahem. Ahem. The Commission found "no collaborative relationship".

Got that? No collaboration. No working together. No buddy-buddy.

Get the picture?

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Jun 16 [2004](IPS) - In a direct challenge to recent assertions by both President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the special bipartisan commission investigating the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon has found ''no credible evidence'' of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
While the commission, which has had access to highly classified U.S. intelligence, said that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had sought contacts with and support from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein after his expulsion from Sudan in 1994, those appeals were ignored.

Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda after bin Laden moved to Afghanistan ''do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship'', according to the commission's report, which was released Wednesday morning.

[/b]
Source

Do you people finally have it together NOW?

bin Laden several times asked for aid, and Saddam Hussein told him to go screw. Got it?


All who are interested in the link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam can read Robert Fisk's article on this subject in The Independent (UK) today, although it's subscription-only.

I can tell those disinclined to pay, what it says: there was none. They were sworn enemies, and did not collaborate.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 02:19 pm
They were sworn enemies, until they decided they both hated Bush and the US more than they hated each other.

Sworn enemies don't set up meetings and offer each other help and promise to stop making life hard for each other.

Do they?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 02:22 pm
I forgot, Mr Bush is a uniter, not a divider, as he told us.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 02:22 pm
LOL!! He sure united those two.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 10:55 pm
Lash wrote:
I don't have questions. These items were proven in the 911 Commission Report.

You need to give up avoiding it.


Avoiding it? Fer Chrissakes, Kuvasz and I have spent the last several pages trying to draw attention to it!

Everything you claim is indicative of a collaborative link between Iraq and Saddam was covered in the report. They were all found baseless.

You keep trying to pretend that the report backs you up, in fact it strongly goes against everything you say.....

Once again, this shows the specific passages of the report which expode your contentions.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 12:08 am
KW--

I've read this stuff numerous times.

I know what it says.

The 911 Commission Report comes closer to proving my opinion than yours.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 12:16 am
And your daddy can beat up his, I bet.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 12:19 am
No. My father is dead, but thanks for bringing it up.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 08:27 am
Lash wrote:
KW--
The 911 Commission Report comes closer to proving my opinion than yours.


How?

The report clearly shows there was no collaboration, that in fact Saddam and al-Qaeda really disliked one another.

Yet you just go on and on, post after post, putting up baseless messages about a collaboration.

When do you give up and face reality?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 04:06:29