Bush Speaks Tonight From Fort Bragg- Oooh-Rah!

Ticomaya wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Tico wrote :- " The organization behind the attack is spread out over the globe, and have a large presence in Iraq. Do you deny that? "

Are you talking about pre 9/11, or post 9/11?

I was specifically thinking post 9/11.

You were thinking post invasion on AQ in Iraq but your analogy with the monkeys was preinvasion. Interesting.

(It's always 3:30 somewhere in the world. :wink: )

Ticomaya wrote:

So we're left with your "unjustified war" argument, are we not? You think Bush is to blame because the war is unjustified? Will you at least commit to that?

Yes, the main thing is that he started this unjust war. But that's not all. He also lied about the reasons for it, manipulated intelligence to bullshit his own country into going along with it, rushed us into it, didn't have any exit strategy, and completely underestimated the enemy. He's a complete f*ck-up. And that is the reason I blame this stupid, incompetent chimp, along with the terrorists (gotta stick that in there so as not to disgust you), for every single death.

That clear enough for you?

Ticomaya wrote:

kickycan wrote:

By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question about being dropped in the middle of Baghdad with your little "Islam blows." t-shirt on. Very telling.

What's "telling" about it? Why am I expected to answer silly questions? Yes, if Bush did that, I suppose I would be pissed at him.

Thank you for admitting that. Don't you see how that applies here? I know you don't see it my way, but if you did believe everything that I just said in response to you, wouldn't you put some blame on Bush?

Lash wrote:

Iraq was already an AQ training camp.

Facts and figures please.

Iraq, IF it did have any AQ involvement, was probably a VERY minor player.

It would be like saying that Albania is an American outpost, as three Floridians have a holiday home there.

Yemen was the logical target Country, Saudi a close second.

And you know it.

With all the bashing our troops are taking from the elite crowd, it will be a good moral booster for the troops to see the Cmdr in Chief.

I may joke about "overs and unders" but it is important for the troops and the nation. This is a critical point in the process and I will be interested to hear what he will say.

woiyo wrote:

With all the bashing our troops are taking from the elite crowd, it will be a good moral booster for the troops to see the Cmdr in Chief.

I may joke about "overs and unders" but it is important for the troops and the nation. This is a critical point in the process and I will be interested to hear what he will say.

woiyo, i want you to stop lying.

can you do that?

is that possible for those of your ilk who are perfectly willing to make $hit up if it serves your political posturing?

there is no major, nor minor segment of the US population who are bashing US servicemen and women.

Equating opposition to the iraqi war with not supporting the troops is bogus, lying crap.

you have no shame.

In fact, the only folk whose actions are putting ther US military in harm's way needlessly are those clowns you ignorantly and obsequiously support who sent them to iraq ill-equipped and without a defined strategy to win the peace.

if there are traitors amongst us, they are those on the right like bush and cheney who have lied to the american public about what they were doing and why they did it.

my brother is now 6 months into his second tour of duty in the gulf. he spent 2002-03 in afghanistan. and your post was a direct insult to liberals like him and me and those of us who think your fearless leader is a lying sack of $hit.

Second, the president said, "After Sept. 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

That's true, too.

Starting this month [Jan.], the Army has started making some wounded soldiers [at Walter Reed Army Medical Center] pay for the food they eat at the hospital.

[...]

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. ..."

[...]

...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.

[...]

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 [which comes to] $450 a month, $183 more than soldiers' food allowance from the military. ... 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.

[...]

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."

Apparently, this setup has been used before, i.e. that soldiers on "medical hold" would be given a food allowance and then charged for meals, but from what I've heard, in the past the allowance was set at a level where this was a good deal rather than a financial burden.

Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:03 a.m. EDT

Saddam's Iraq Was Motel 6 for Terrorists

In the wake of President Bush's speech to the nation Tuesday night, Democrats are complaining that he talked too much about 9/11, falsely implying that Iraq was a terrorist threat.

Too bad Mr. Bush didn't cite the mountain of evidence proving that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a veritable Motel 6 for the world's worst terrorists - a gang of mass murderers who had killed hundreds of Americans - well before the U.S. invaded.

According to a report last year by the Hudson Institute, the short list of terrorists laying low in Iraq would include:

• Abu Nidal. Before Osama bin Laden arrived on the scene, Nidal was the world's most notorious terrorist. His terror gang is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans. He also threatened to kill Lt. Col. Oliver North.

Abu Nidal moved to Baghdad in 1999, where he was found shot to death in Aug 2002. Rumors swirled at the time that Nidal was rubbed out by Iraqi intelligence because he knew too much about Saddam's terrorist activities.

• Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, where wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last year.

• Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin was Ramzi Yousef's partner in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, aiding the al Qaeda explosives mastermind in prepariing the bomb that killed six New Yorkers and wounded 1,000.

In 1996, an ABC News reporter spotted Yasin outside his government owned house in Baghdad. The key WTC 1993 co-conspirator remains at large.

• Khala Khadar al-Salahat. Al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 when he was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.

• Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi was training terrorists in Afghanistan for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Jordan when the U.S. defeated the Taliban, forcing him to flee. He relocated to Iraq, where he set up terrorist cells in the Northern part of the country.

In an indication that he enjoyed the status of guest of the state, Zarqawi was reportedly treated for a leg wound at one of Saddam's exclusive private hospitals.

After years of media reports denying that Zarqawi had ties to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden himself dubbed Zarqawi his chief of operations in Iraq last year.

Will the real liars please stand up?
David Limbaugh (archive)

July 1, 2005

Democrat leaders, preparing their rebuttal to the president's speech even before he delivered it, said he should concede he made mistakes as a means to reclaiming credibility on Iraq -- as if they actually want him to have greater credibility.

In the same breath they say he lied to get us into war -- an offense so grave that some of them are advocating he be impeached over it. While national Democrat politicians have long been confused over the distinction between intentional wrongs and mistakes -- thanks to Bill Clinton successfully depicting his pre-meditated transgressions as mistakes -- isn't it clear that if President Bush lied to get us into the war, he didn't merely make a mistake?

But let's explore this beyond semantics. As everyone should know by now, President Bush based his decision to attack on intelligence information provided to him and which he didn't pressure the intelligence agencies to exaggerate. The intelligence agencies of most other nations, including those who nevertheless refused to join us against Iraq, concurred that Saddam was amassing WMD stockpiles.

This assessment was bolstered by Saddam's intractable behavior in persistently defying U.N. weapons inspectors as if he had something to hide and repeatedly violating U.N. resolutions. He had the burden of proving he had disposed of the WMD he demonstrably had and used on his own people, but instead submitted a bogus 12,000-page document, virtually inviting us to attack.

President Bush believed -- and the evidence confirms -- that Saddam's Iraq was a safe haven for international terrorists not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban. Credible reports have emerged that some of his henchmen were present at 9-11 planning meetings.

But Democrats contend that our failure to find Saddam's WMD stockpiles after we deposed him proves that President Bush lied about their existence in the first place. President Bush's reliance on the best available intelligence, though it may have turned out to be wrong, doesn't make him a liar or prove that he made a mistake in attacking. He would have made a mistake had he failed to act on the information he had, especially considering Saddam's self-incriminating behavior.

As I've written before, Democrats are the ones who are lying when they say they weren't relying on the very same intelligence in supporting the Iraq war resolution. And they are lying when they falsely accuse President Bush of lying about the intelligence.

Among the worst of them is Sen. Kerry, who still pathetically clings to the fantasy that he can be president someday. In his latest lurch for relevance -- on "Larry King Live" -- he again accused President Bush of deceiving the American people, this time by constantly switching his rationale for attacking Iraq: from WMD, to spreading democracy, to suppressing a "hotbed of terrorism."

But it's Kerry who's doing the misleading. From the very beginning, President Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq was that under Saddam, she was our enemy in the global war on terror and a threat -- indirect and direct -- to our national security. The three reasons Kerry cites are not incompatible, but of a piece. President Bush believed Saddam was amassing WMD and acting in concert with Islamic terrorists. And, he's always had a vision that the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East would be a natural antidote to the proliferation of terrorism. That's not why we attacked Iraq, because we are not in the business of gratuitous nation building, but it's a potentially glorious byproduct that we shouldn't underestimate and is certainly consistent with our war aims.

No matter how incapable Kerry's Democrats are of comprehending this, 9-11 confirmed that Islamic radicals throughout the world are at war with the United States. The terrorist threat is not localized to Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Democrats' quixotic refrain that we concentrate our resources only on capturing Saddam reveals how radically they misapprehend the global scope of this war.

Saddam was begging to be removed, and President Bush neither lied nor made a mistake in removing him. But he would be making a catastrophic mistake if he acceded to the Democrats' suicidal demand that we telegraph a withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq or take other action to undermine our cause -- and the cause of the Iraqi people -- there.

While I'm sure President Bush appreciates all their unsolicited advice and carping, Democrats might be well advised to clean up their own house for a change. Instead of gloating over the president's inconsistent poll numbers, they might awaken to the sobering fact that they are the ones who have been losing elections and need help in the credibility department, especially concerning national security.

But until they demonstrate some comprehension of the global reach and gravity of this war, quit exploiting every morsel of negative news flowing from Iraq for political purposes and start supporting our cause, it's hard to envision a scenario where Americans will entrust them with safeguarding our national security.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

That's true, too.

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.]

Your opinion. Wrong, but still your opinion.

McGentrix wrote:

Your opinion. Wrong, but still your opinion.

It is every bit as valid as your opinion. As for "wrong," it is also my opinion that you wouldn't know "right" if it bit you in the ass.