Marines under attack, crying for their lives...

Yes, that's exactly what I said, in the bizarro world of right wing politics. Now go peddle your nitpicky bs somewhere else. I'm uninterested in playing "pretend lawyer" with you.

You and your ilk are the ones in the position of defending a man with blood on his hands and a liar's mouth. As far as I'm concerned that makes you all just as culpable. Look on the video and be proud of yourselves.

Rock on, blacksmithn

I'm sorry, but I've had it with these mealy-mouthed Bush-Our-Fearless-Leader-Can-Do-No-Wrong hypocrites, who apparently love to do nothing better than sit around on their fat asses pontificating aimlessly while our kids are dying in a war of choice. Their smug arrogance sickens me.

yup, I agree - It really galls me, too - all the lies, and all the injury and death, and all the Bushapologists parsing of words to excuse whatever latest monstrosity comes out of the minds of those creatures in power.

for REAL.

You sure got defensive about this,didnt you?
First of all,I dont have to watch the video,because I have been there.
Depending on when and where that video was shot,I may know those marines.

I am very proud of those marines,and all the other marines I had the honor to serve with both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am not here to defend Bush,but I will defend those young marines.
I know the fear they felt,I know how they reacted because I have been in that position with them.

you also said...



So tell me,when President Clinton ordered the invasion of Haiti,a country that had not attacked us and was no threat to us,did you oppose that?
I am not interested in attacking Clinton,just asking your opinion about a military decision he made.
The same is true for his ordering the bombing of Kosovo.
They were no threat to us,and had not attacked us.
Did you oppose the bombing then?


I have as much if not more right to comment on the war in Iraq,because I WAS THERE!!
Having "been there,done that" I have earned the right to comment on the war and its ramifications.

Can you make the same claim?

Well, SOMEBODY got all defensive, Sparky. As for your right to comment, bark away. Even lapdogs of the Republican Party still have freedom of speech. And your service doesn't excuse the blood on your hands. American blood. Nobody here's attacking those Marines, genius, except you-- through your unstinting support of the man who threw them so carelessly and thoughtlessly into harm's way.

So chest-thump away, jingo-boy. Show the world how much you support the troops. From your armchair. Far, far away.

You are absolutely right,I am far away right now.
But,part of my right hand is still there,in a town called Nasiriyah.
I am medically retired from the service,due to wounds received in Iraq.

I would go back today,if I could.

Really sorry about that mysteryman.

But, can you list just three things that Bush/you have achieved in Iraq. Apart from getting rid of Sadam/Baathparty.

Something that you/U.S could be proud of, something worth sacrificing part of your hand.

1.
2.
3.

The longest war in American history was also one of the most unpopular. Critics at the time were offended that the war was both illegal and did not justify the cost in blood, or treasure. Congress did not supply enough arms or military stores to properly fight the enemy, and soldiers went unpaid in some cases for over a year. Desertion rates were high, and the troops suffered terribly. The Army was undisciplined, poorly trained and thoroughly demoralized. Mostly amateurs, who lost more battles than they won, led the Army. In parts of the country, half the population took up arms against the government, and both sides committed terrible atrocities. Was the American Revolution worth fighting, even though most of Americans of the time did not support it? Was all the suffering was justified to protest the relatively mild impositions of Parliament? Were the Colonists really all that oppressed by King and Parliament? Should the war have been ended because our forces met with defeat after defeat? Weren't the Tories the real patriots for opposing the rebellion? What side would you be on if we were debating the American Revolution today?

In 1812, the United States began a war that was so unpopular that many of the states in New England threatened to secede. The Federalist Party argued that the War was un-necessary, not worth the loss of American lives, and that we were not properly prepared in any case. This was Mr. Madison's War that resulted from the agitation of a few powerful Southern politicians known as the War Hawks. The "real" purpose of the war it was claimed was to seize Canada. The U.S. tried to do that, but were soundly beaten in the effort. The clamor for peace reached epic proportions as the British again won battle after battle. Mr. Madison ran away from Washington leaving his dinner for the British commander before the capitol was burned to the ground. The one bright spot in the whole sorry affair were some naval engagements and the Battle of New Orleans that took place after the conclusion of the war. Did the War justify the carnage attending a broadside into wooden hulls? If the public were graphically shown the shattered bodies in our ships and on the battlefield, would that have ended the War in a more satisfactory manner?

Popular opposition to the Mexican War was widespread. Lincoln was not alone in opposing the War as just an excuse to grab land from Mexico. Texas had gained its independence during the Jackson Administration. Some claimed that the Texans were only agents of an expansionist President, and that Texas was wanted to expand the institution of slavery (something outlawed by the Mexicans). Only in President Polk's administration was Texas brought into the Union, over the objections of the Northern States. Texas claimed from the beginning that her southern border was on the Rio Grande, though Mexico disagreed. When Texas entered the Union, Polk sent U.S. troops to southern Texas where they came into conflict with the Mexican Army north of the Rio Grande. General Taylor drove the Mexicans south of the river and won several important battles on Mexican soil, but that didn't win the war. General Scott was sent to Vera Cruz, and the conflict shifted to the Southern Theater.

Critics both then and now claimed that the Mexicans never had a chance against an all powerful U.S. military. Actually, the Mexican's had every advantage. They were fighting on their own ground, and had an army many times larger and better equipped than that the Norte Americanos. The terrain itself favored the defense, and the U.S. forces had a long and vulnerable supply line. Santa Ana lost battle after battle and withdrew within the walls of Mexico City … an almost impregnable position. He lost again, and the Mexicans welcomed the Americans. Some Mexicans expressed the hope that Gen. Scott would become dictator, and that the United States would annex the whole country. In the north, American arms seized and occupied California and New Mexico. That wasn't to be. At the time a nation victorious in war was expected to totally dominate the defeated. Instead, the U.S. paid Mexico more for what it had already conquered by arms, than was paid for the entire Louisiana Purchase two generations earlier.

Maybe that whole land grab might have been cut short if the opposition could just have shown some young soldiers lying beneath a Mexican artillery bombardment, of numerous boys in blue coats with multiple bayonet wounds. Are we all ready and in agreement that California, Arizona and New Mexico would have been better off if left under Mexican sovereignty? Perhaps we should return the Southwestern States including Texas to Mexico. That would be just, wouldn't it? That would solve the illegal immigration problem for a few decades at least. Perhaps the residents of California, New Mexico, and Texas should become more familiar with the Mexican Constitution as the Mystery Man suggested.

Wouldn't those who opposed fighting the Civil War to preserve the Union have loved to show live motion pictures of Pickets Charge, or the Massacre at Ft. Pillow? Why should young men from Maine be maimed trying to free the slaves. The New York riots were certainly justified to protest the War and the Draft, right? The South should have been left to secede peacefully, and then if Utah or some other state should disagree with the outcome of an election, they too should secede, right? Not manyy of those soldiers who fought in the Late Unpleasantness, truly wanted to be there … so the War should have been called off by that Republican Ape welding dictatorial powers in Washington … right? Clearly Lincoln and his cronies were out to make themselves perpetual dictators by censoring the press, controlling the railroads, and suspending Habeas Corps on a presidential decree. How could any President be forgiven the unconstitutional act of abolishing slavery in states granted that right under the Constitution? Shouldn't that Patriot Booth's birthday be celebrated as a modern Brutus? Sic Semper Tyrannous!

Following Lincoln the Republican Party remained pretty much in power until the election of FDR. That certainly shows how the Constitution must have been reduced to a scrap of paper … right? And it was that rascal Teddy Roosevelt who schemed to get us into the Spanish-American War and who plotted to steal the Canal Zone from its rightful owners. An American Empire stretching across the Pacific Ocean to oppress the Hawaiian and Philippine Islands, is certain proof of American/Republican intent to conquer the world … right? Perhaps if the Democratic Party hadn't been outlawed during those years, our history wouldn't be so tarnished today.

But wait, Wilson was a Democrat and his abuse of governmental powers during WWI, a war he vowed to keep us out of, was just as extensive (short of suspending Habeas Corpus) as Lincoln! Extra-legal roundups of labor leaders and political opponents were hardly a national secret. He federalized the lumber and coal industries, and took over the railroads. War news was heavily censored, and it was forbidden to show dead American soldiers. Of course that was different, it was a Democratic President who was fighting a Just War to "end all wars", and bring democracy to the world. It was the Liberal President valiently fighting against the wicked Arms Merchants of Death, secretly controlled by the Republican Party … right?

FDR, another Democratic President, tried to pack the Supreme Court to get around the unconstitutional social programs that he proposed. What constitutional powers permitted FDR to lend, lease, and out right give as a gift American aid to those who fought against the Axis Powers? Perhaps it was fear of impeachment that drove FDR to plot and conspire with the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor; perhaps FDR was a crypto-Republican. On the other hand, some claim that at Yalta Roosevelt revealed his sympathies for Communism. Of course, he was a worse murderer than Stalin and Hitler combined by building the Atomic Bomb. Perhaps if battlefield reporting had truly shown the mayhem and slaughter on "D"-Day, or on those insignificant little islands isolated in the Pacific Ocean, the American People might have demanded that the boys be brought home immediately. After all what business is it of someone in Iawa whether a dictator in Berlin or Tokyo oppresses minorities within their grasp? Why should Americans die for the French, unless it was to extend the American Empire to the whole world? Who can blame Stalin and his heirs for building up a huge nuclear arsenal and occupying numerous countries as a defense against American aggression?

Truman fired off Atom Bombs over Japanese cities, and that makes him the cruelest and worst mass murderer in the whole of human history … so he must have been a Republican dupe. He obviously was a Communist, because he fired Gen. McArthur to keep him from defeating the Chinese. The whole Truman administration was rotten to the core with Communist spies and agents, so he must have known something. Where there's smoke there's fire.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about your hand. Here or in Iraq, real or illusory, it's got American blood on it. And you're doubly damned in my book because you ostensibly know what hell is and you help send American kids there.

I dont help send anyone,I'm not the President,the Congress,or the Joint Chiefs.



Lets see,
I prevented a woman and her child from getting killed on a bridge in Nassiriyah.
They got caught in the crossfire,and me and 2 marines went and got them.

My platoon raided an Iraqi police detention center and freed several young men and women that were being held there.
Doctors said all of the women had been raped.

We eliminated some scud missile batteries that had the ability ti hit our bases in Kuwait.

There are more,but those are the 3 that I am most proud of.

For heavens sakes, don't let the public hear the truth! Let's sell some more "Support The Troops Bumper Stickers and we can use the proceeds to buy some offsetting "good news" to plant in the Iraqi Newspapers. It'll be cheap and the dummies will lap it up!!

Sincerely,

George Bush
Chickenshit In Chief

"I dont help send anyone,I'm not the President,the Congress,or the Joint Chiefs."

Sorry, but the "I'm just a cog in the machine" defense doesn't fly. Anyone who voted for or supports the current administration is directly responsible for placing Americans in harm's way. That's the bottom line.

Absolutely!!!

Anon

Does that include all the Dems in Congress,like John Kerry,Hillary,John Edwards,Ted Kennedy,and all the others that voted to send troops into harms way?

If they can be shown to have known the administration was lying about the reasons for war, then they're just as complicit. If they continue to support sending troops to Iraq, even after the ostensible reason for war has been refuted, then they're equally as complicit. However, it should be noted that American presence in Iraq could NEVER have happened without the full and unstinting support of the party in power, to wit the Republican Party. This is their mess, hands down.

This was a war conceived by Bush, and pushed by Bush, and anyone who can't see that ain't lookin.