Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

Pretty serious charge, oe, before anyone is convicted of it. I thought a person was innocent until proven guilty, and we are talking about soldiers here that were sent there, not criminals there on their own choice. John Kerry also did the same thing he did for Vietnam vets, he accused our soldiers of terrorizing innocent women and children in Iraq and he thought it would be better if the Iraqis did it instead. Durbin also accused our soldiers at Quantanamo being the as bad or the same as Nazis.

I stand by my statement. Some Democrats are quicker to accuse our own soldiers than they are the enemy.

That wasn't your statement, okie.

But I guess it's really futile to discuss this if the truth of what has been said doesn't really matter that much to you.

This is what I said, oe, after saying this to get your attention:

I stand by the statements. The first statement does not name any Democrat, while the second statement qualifies the statement to say "implied," and I believe that is accurate.

You need to be interested in the truth as well, and are you prepared to say the Democrats have not said some of the things they've said?

What about what Bush have said: "support our troops," while he cuts their benefits and services.


FACT: Criminal behavior is common in most wars, and Americans are not immune.

This is where you stated something that wasn't true:



This is where you back-pedalled:



This is where you disqualify yourself:

For seven years, this country has been held in the grip of men who have used us for their own ends. On Sunday, it will be exactly one year until we see the last of the Bush administration.

That is reason for celebration. But it is not reason for turning our attention away from the criminals in the White House. There are times when I barely recognize the carcass of America that they continue to strip as they prepare to discard us.

Only one more year. But we know from experience the kind of damage George Bush and his crowd can do in the space of 12 months. Lest we forget, let’s look at just a single year - 2001 - under this, the worst regime in America’s history.

Jan. 20, 2001: On the day of Bush’s inauguration, his chief of staff issued a moratorium halting all new health, safety and environmental regulations issued in the final days of the Clinton administration.

Jan. 23: Bush reinstates the global gag rule barring U.S. funding for abortion counseling abroad.

Feb. 5: Bush suspends the “roadless rule,” which protected 60 million acres of forests from logging and road-building.

Feb. 17: Bush signs fouranti-union executive orders, including measures to prohibit project labor agreements at federal construction sites.

March 7: At Bush’s urging, Congress repeals ergomonic regulations designed to protect workers from repetitive-stress injuries.

March 15: Bush abandons his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

March 20: The Bush administration moves to overturn a regulation reducing the allowable levels of arsenic in drinking water.

March 28: Bush backs out of the Kyoto treaty on global warming.

March 29: Bush shuts down the White House Office for Women’s Initiatives and Outreach.

April 4: Bush’s Department of Agriculture proposes lifting a requirment that all beef used in federal school lunch programs must be tested for salmonella.

April 9: Bush’s Department of Interior proposes a limit on lawsuits seeking protection of endangered species.

May 11: Bush abandons the nation’s international effort to crack down on offshore tax havens for the rich.

May 16: Vice President Dick Cheney’s task force releases its National Energy Policy report, calling for weaker environmental regulations and massive subsidies for the oil and gas, coal, and nuclear power industries.

May 26: At Bush’s urging, Congress passes a $1.35 trillion tax cut.

June 19: Cheny refuses to release records of his energy task force meetings to the General Accounting Office.

June 28: Attorney General John Ashcroft announces a policy that would require gun records be destroyed one day after a background check rather than 90 days later.

July 9: Bush opposes a UN treaty to curb international trafficking in small arms and light weapons.

July 26: Bush rejects an international treaty on germ warfare and biological weapons.

Aug. 6: During the presidential daily briefing, Bush is warned that Osama bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States.

Aug. 9: Bush limits stem cell research to existing lines.

Sept. 11: Terrorists organized by bin Laden crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands.

Sept. 22: Bush signs a $15 billion airline bailout.

Oct. 26: Bush signs the USA Patriot Act.

Oct. 29: Bush’s Justice Department acknowledges but won’t identify more than 1,000 individuals detained since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Oc.t 31: Ashcroft authorizes monitoring of attorney-client conversations in terrorism investigations.

Nov. 1: Bush issues an executive order blocking the release of presidential records.

Nov. 13: Bush orders that “enemy combatants” be tried in military tribunals.

Nov. 14: Bush’s Justice Department issues regulations allowing illegal immigrants to be detained indefinitely.

Dec. 11: The Bush White House recommends privatizing Social Security.

Dec. 12: Bush announces that he intends to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty unilaterally.

Dec. 27: Bush repeals the “responsible contractor rule” that had required scrutiny of safety and environmental law violations in the awarding of federal contracts.

There are 372 days left ’til Jan. 20, 2009. Let us hang onto hope for the future.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/14/6355/

I challenge you to disprove what I said.

You made the claim. You've so far failed to come up with even one single example of a Democrat who called all soldiers war criminals.

Burden of proof and all....

"there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that."

the above is a quote from John Kerry, which of course reminds us of his accusations of Vietnam vets decades ago.

This from Durbin:

said he hadn't read the report but had learned about its findings from military commanders and other sources.


NBC News:


Is this media report also assisting the enemy? If so, how?

The Marine Corps issued a statement in response to Murtha's remarks:

"There is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process. As soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable."

Murtha held the news conference to mark six months since his initial call for "redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq.

He said U.S. forces were under undue pressure in Iraq because of poor planning and allocation of resources by the Bush administration.

If Murtha ,indeed, heard the report from military commanders (and other sources), than what Murtha stated should be factual. There is no reason for military commanders to provide false information to a congressman in any event. Otherwise, the investigators will need to question those military commanders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303546.html

Fact is, Murtha owes the soldiers an apology. How come he is judge, jury, and executioner anyway? The holier than thou congressman needs to personally go to the soldiers and personally apologize, in my opinion. And just what kind of mindset jumps to a conclusion and assumes guilt of a soldier anyway? Liberal democrat mindset is the answer, in my opinion, based on observation of all of this for the past few years.

okie: How come he is judge, jury, and executioner anyway?

Oh? When did Murtha act as judge, jury and executioner? Pray tell!

Duh.

I see. So if they have said something that you interpret as "all American soldiers are war criminals", then that's really the same as if they had actually said "all American soldiers are war criminals."

So for example if Kerry did not say "all American soldiers," but instead simply said "American soldiers," you are going to accuse me of lying? That seems like a stretch, oe. I think it is obvious the Democrats have denigrated the military, by falsely accusing members of the military. Whether they say "all" or just make general statements, it makes little difference in the effect. If I said the "automobiles in America are polluting the atmosphere," or if I say "all automobiles in America are polluting the atmosphere," the essential effect is to denigrate automobiles. Same principle with the Demorats, some have severely insulted our armed forces by some of the statements that they have made.

okie, FYI, soldiers fighting on the front lines would prefer to have our government provide them with the necessary benefits and services when they return over what any politician or American says about "word definitions." Get over it; it's not that important. This is America; the land of free speech.

FACT: What kills American soldiers are bad training and ill-equipped soldiers. And when they come home with injuries, to get the best we can provide. "That's" what is important.

Okay, let's turn this around. I'll give you an example, and an interpretation:



The above is a statement about Iraq, made by Vice-President Dick Cheney during a TV interview in September 2003.

I'm sure you're aware that many similar statements have been made by members of the Bush administration.


Now, having read the above quote, would you agree with me that Republicans have consistently said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?

If not - why not?

Its free speech, but we don't have to like it. I don't happen to think that falsely accusing people is justifiable behavior for congressmen, and so I am going to point it out. Such speech in previous centuries probably would have landed the person in jail, for sedition. Have you ever read about what Abe Lincoln did?