Post by: gunsmith on January 31, 2007, 11:37:03 PM
Things that I am tired of in this war:
I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.
I am tired of Democrats who tell me they support me, the soldier on the ground, and then tell me the best plan to win this war is with a phased redeployment (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa.
I am tired of the Democrats whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when my Commander in Chief plans to do just that, they say that is the wrong plan, it wont work, and we need a new direction.
I am tired of every Battalion Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major I see over here being more concerned about whether or not I am wearing my uniform in the spot on, most garrison-like manner; instead of asking me whether or not I am getting the equipment I need to win the fight, the support I need from my chain of command, or if the chow tastes good.
I am tired of junior and senior officers continually doubting the technical expertise of junior enlisted soldiers who are trained far better to do the jobs they are trained for than these officers believe.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who fight this war with more of an eye on the media than on the enemy, who desperately needs killing.
I am tired of the decisions of Sergeants and Privates made in the heat of battle being scrutinized by lawyers who were not there and will never really know the state of mind of the young soldiers who were there and what is asked of them in order to survive.
I am tired of CNN claiming that they are showing news, with videotape sent to them by terrorists, of my comrades being shot at by snipers, but refusing to show what happens when we build a school, pave a road, hand out food and water to children, or open a water treatment plant.
I am tired of following the enemy with drones that have cameras, and then dropping bombs that sometimes kill civilians; because we could do a better job of killing the right people by sending a man with a high powered rifle instead.
I am tired of the thousands of people in the rear who claim that they are working hard to support me when I see them with their mochas and their PX Bags walking down the street, in the middle of the day, nowhere near their workspaces.
I am tired of Code Pink, Daily Kos, Al-Jazzera, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, the ACLU, and CAIR thinking that they somehow get to have a vote in how we blast, shoot and kill these animals who would seek to subdue us and destroy us.
I am tired of people like Meredith Vieria from NBC asking oxygen thieves like Senator Chuck Hagel questions like Senator, at this point, do you think we are fighting and dying for nothing? Meredith might not get it, but soldiers do know the difference between fighting and dying for something and fighting and dying for nothing.
I am tired of hearing multiple stories from both combat theaters about snipers begging to do their jobs while commanders worry about how the media might portray the possible casualties and what might happen to their career.
I am tired of hearing that the Battalion Tactical Operations Center got a new plasma screen monitor for daily briefings, but rifle scope rings for sniper rifles, extra magazines, and necessary field gear were disapproved by the unit supply system.
I am tired of out of touch general officers, senators, congressmen and defense officials who think that giving me some more heavy body armor to wear is helping me stay alive. Speed is life in combat and wearing 55 to 90 pounds of gear for 12 to 20 hours a day puts me at a great tactical disadvantage to the idiot, mindless terrorist who is wearing no armor at all and carrying an AK-47 and a pistol.
I am tired of soldiers who are stationed in places like Kuwait and who are well away from any actual combat getting Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay and the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion when they live on a base that has a McDonalds, a Pizza Hut, a Subway, a Baskin Robbins, an internet café, 2 coffee shops and street lights.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who take it out and "measure" every time they want to have a piece of the action with their helicopters or their artillery; instead of putting their egos aside and using their equipment to support the grunt on the ground.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who are too afraid for their careers to tell the truth about what they need to win this war to their bosses so that the soldiers can get on with kicking the ass of these animals.
I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders. We are not playing Hopscotch over here. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment and some deprivation was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help get their terrorist minds right.
I am tired of seeing Active Duty Army and Marine units being extended past their original redeployment dates, when there are National Guard Units that have yet to deploy to a combat zone in the last 40 years.
I am tired of hearing soldiers who are stationed in safe places talk about how hard their life is.
I am tired of seeing Infantry Soldiers conducting what amounts to SWAT raids and performing the US Armys version of CSI Iraq and doing things like filling out forms for evidence when they could be better used to hunt and kill the enemy.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who look first in their planning for how many casualties we might take, instead of how many enemy casualties we might inflict.
I am tired of begging to be turned loose so that this war can be over.
Those of us who fight this war want to win it and go home to their families. Prolonging it with attempts to do things like collect evidence or present whiz bang briefings on a new plasma screen TV is wasteful and ultimately, dulls the edge of our Infantry soldiers who are trained to kill people and break things, not necessarily in that order.
We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to build nations. We are there to kill our enemies. We make the work of the State Department easier by the results we achieve.
It is only possible to defeat an enemy who kills indiscriminately by utterly destroying him. He cannot be made to yield or surrender. He will fight to the death by the hundreds to kill only one or two of us.
And so far, all of our games have been away games, and I dont know about the ignorant, treasonous Democrats and the completely insane radical leftists and their thoughts on the matter, but I would like to keep our road game schedule.
So lets get it done. Until the fight is won and there is no more fight left.
-D
Post by: Cromlech on January 31, 2007, 11:55:20 PM
Quote
I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.
I wish that there was a 'cry-baby' emoticon. I guess you can only be a patriot if you show unwavering (and unquestioning) loyalty to your government, right?
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 01, 2007, 02:29:28 AM
Quote
I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Paine
Since when does being patriotic mean we have to forfit our right to question leadership when we feel they are not acting in our best interests?
Quote
I am tired of seeing Active Duty Army and Marine units being extended past their original redeployment dates, when there are National Guard Units that have yet to deploy to a combat zone in the last 40 years.
And theres lies the difference between Active Duty and National Guard. The name of the National Guard alone should tell you what their intended role is in the grand scheme of things. That role is not fighting foreign wars and nation building overseas.
Post by: 280plus on February 01, 2007, 02:46:37 AM
Quote
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Paine
So you're saying Thomas Paine should have dissented against people like Washington and Jefferson? He should have argued against the war and undermined the Revolutionary govts every step and tried to achieve his own solution to the situation? That could have made him the enemy in short time. In another thread I quoted that I believe Stonewall Jackson had said something about the media being a bunch of spies and traitors. I remembered later that he actually said they were WORSE that spies and traitors becasue at least the spy or traitor is doing what he does for an ideological viewpoint. The media has no ideaology, it's motivation is the dollar.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 02:55:04 AM
Quote
I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Paine
Dissent is one thing. Idiotic carping for political gain is another. And that carping endangers our soldiers and the success of our foreign policy.
That said, this sounds like another unsubstantiated chain mail.
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 01, 2007, 02:56:55 AM
Quote
So you're saying Thomas Paine should have dissented against people like Washington and Jefferson? He should have argued against the war and undermined the Revolutionary govts every step and tried to achieve his own solution to the situation? That could have made him the enemy in short time.
Honestly wheres the comparison here? In a free society one is able to question their government with out fear of persecution. Isnt that what they fought for so long ago? I may not defend the medias viewpoints or agenda, but I do defend their right to print what they want. If a cause is just then the truth need not fear criticism. Perhaps we should all just blindly follow Bush into oblivion. How dare we question warrantless wire tapping, e-mail redirects, secret courts, secret prisons and certian acts that contrast the documents this country was founded on. Perhaps one day we can build camps for all the unpatriotic people in this country, they are after all a threat to national security 
.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 03:00:46 AM
In a free society one is able to question their government with out fear of persecution.
Are you Natalie Maines or Alec Baldwin? Whine, whine. Where's the persecution?
Drama Queen.
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 01, 2007, 03:11:44 AM
Quote
In a free society one is able to question their government with out fear of persecution.
Are you Natalie Maines or Alec Baldwin? Whine, whine. Where's the persecution?
Drama Queen.
Are you Natalie Maines or Alec Baldwin? Whine, whine. Where's the persecution?
Drama Queen.
The persecution comes from the drooling, brain dead, Bush Brownshirts that feel their revered leader can do no wrong. The same folks who seem to feel that anybody who questions his actions must be a liberal nut job, or sympathetic to terrorists.
In response to your quaint little insult I would sooner be a "Drama Queen" than a Eloi.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 03:14:27 AM
The persecution comes from the drooling, brain dead, Bush Brownshirts that feel their revered leader can do no wrong. The same folks who seem to feel that anybody who questions his actions must be a liberal nut job, or sympathetic to terrorists.
As one of the Bush Brownshirts, I'm still wondering where the persecution is. Questioning your patriotism is not persecution. Eloi wanna-be.
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 01, 2007, 03:19:53 AM
Quote
As one of the Bush Brownshirts, I'm still wondering where the persecution is
The so called "free speech zones" for war protesters comes to mind as one example. Seems to me like quarantining off people that disagree with the threat of arrest for leaving their special sections fits the bill.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 03:28:32 AM
The so called "free speech zones" for war protesters comes to mind as one example. Seems to me like quarantining off people that disagree with the threat of arrest for leaving their special sections fits the bill.
Fine, but that's not what you were complaining about, was it? You were trying to make a martyr of yourself by claiming that this chain mail was a form of persecution.
Post by: Waitone on February 01, 2007, 03:36:59 AM
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 01, 2007, 03:40:12 AM
Quote
You were trying to make a martyr of yourself by claiming that this chain mail was a form of persecution.
After rereading my posts I dont see where I offered myself up for martyrdom. I simply put two things into perspective that I saw wrong with the letter. You took it upon yourself to attack me for doing so by dishing out petty insults while never actually contributing anything of merit to the topic. If anything it is you sir that sought to make the martyr of me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 03:49:36 AM
Post by: HankB on February 01, 2007, 03:53:26 AM
Quote
I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.
Many of the criticisms spouted by the Dems aren't well reasoned and thoughtful, but are merely symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome - but in a general sense, when the President is wrong, he ought to be told he is. For example, many of the other problems cited by the "staff sergeant" in the original post may be layed directly at the feet of the Commander In Chief.Let's see what someone else said about presidential criticism:
Quote
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star - May 7, 1918
Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star - May 7, 1918
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 01, 2007, 03:56:20 AM
Quote
Oh boy. I was correct in labeling you a drama queen.
OMG you are unreal. In the spirit of things here I am going to refrain from responding with how I would label you, however I will say that my point was made already and your lack of anything other than name calling to retort with pretty much proves me right.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 03:59:00 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 01, 2007, 04:45:13 AM
How dare you go about martyring posters. You must be one of those Bush brownshirts. Never mind he is the CinC and charged with prosecuting this war in any way he sees fit. Never mind that the kind of "dissent" we have seen amounts not only to Mon morning quarterbacking but has the intended effect of undermining our policies solely for political gain.
There was adequate time to debate and dissent before the war. Now isnt the time.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 01, 2007, 05:08:24 AM
Quote
There was adequate time to debate and dissent before the war.
When everyone was being fed cherrypicked and edited shoddy intelligence to get us into it?
Colin Powell's little speech with the vial will haunt him the rest of his life.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 05:18:42 AM
Quote from: glockfan45
You took it upon yourself to attack me for doing so by dishing out petty insults while never actually contributing anything of merit to the topic.
Really? Let's list my substantive comments and questions (which Glockfan failed to answer) that contributed to the conversation, and then my "petty insults" in response to Glockfan's petty whining.
Quote
Dissent is one thing. Idiotic carping for political gain is another. And that carping endangers our soldiers and the success of our foreign policy.
[Note that idiotic was not aimed at Glockfan, but was used to describe the anti-war pretenders as a whole.]
That said, this sounds like another unsubstantiated chain mail.
Whine, whine. Where's the persecution?
I'm still wondering where the persecution is. Questioning your patriotism is not persecution.
Fine, but that's not what you were complaining about, was it? You were trying to make a martyr of yourself by claiming that this chain mail was a form of persecution.
Oh boy. I was correct in labeling you a drama queen.
[Note that idiotic was not aimed at Glockfan, but was used to describe the anti-war pretenders as a whole.]
That said, this sounds like another unsubstantiated chain mail.
Whine, whine. Where's the persecution?
I'm still wondering where the persecution is. Questioning your patriotism is not persecution.
Fine, but that's not what you were complaining about, was it? You were trying to make a martyr of yourself by claiming that this chain mail was a form of persecution.
Oh boy. I was correct in labeling you a drama queen.
And here are the "petty insults" that I dared to use.
As if no one else does. Quote
Are you Natalie Maines or Alec Baldwin? Drama Queen.
Eloi wanna-be.
Eloi wanna-be.
Another use of the ad hominem charge to run away from real confrontation.
Here are Glockfan's insults. We could list his "meritorious" comments, if we could find any.
Quote
The persecution comes from the drooling, brain dead, Bush Brownshirts that feel their revered leader can do no wrong.
I would sooner be a "Drama Queen" than a Eloi.
OMG you are unreal.
I would sooner be a "Drama Queen" than a Eloi.
OMG you are unreal.
Hard to see how I come off as the bad guy.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 01, 2007, 05:21:56 AM
Quote
There was adequate time to debate and dissent before the war.
When everyone was being fed cherrypicked and edited shoddy intelligence to get us into it?
Colin Powell's little speech with the vial will haunt him the rest of his life.
First off, it was not "cherrypicked" (whatever that means) or shoddy. The intelligence was consistent from Bush 1 through Bush 2.
Second, even if we knew then what we know today, war would still have been the right decision.
But this has been debated ad nauseam and anyone who willfully ignores the obvious evidence isn't going to be persuaded by anything I write.
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 01, 2007, 05:23:01 AM
CNN wasn't there to see and film the Iraqi people coming up to me and thanking me for their freedom. Fat chance the liberals would want to see it, anyway - it would run contrary to their agenda.
Post by: Ezekiel on February 01, 2007, 05:31:04 AM
Staff Sgt. Cannon Fodder put the bullseye on his own chest for this fiasco: he can keep his manifesto.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 01, 2007, 05:39:09 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 01, 2007, 05:47:54 AM
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 01, 2007, 05:48:46 AM
Quote
Never mind he is the CinC and charged with prosecuting this war in any way he sees fit.
Nope he gets no pass on that one. As a public figure and a representative of this nation and its people hes open to scrutiny, and criticism by said people.
Fistful I'm done with you here. All you have done so far is attempt to bait me into a flamewar, and frankly you have come off as a troll in the process. Anything I gave you in return was tit for tat, if somehow your ego was damaged in the process then perhaps you need to reassess yourself.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 06:04:52 AM
Again, why did you bring up "persecution"? Since you want to claim to be done with me, you really should answer. After all, to finish with me, you would first have to start.
Post by: wingnutx on February 01, 2007, 06:24:46 AM
I criticise you = free speech
You criticise me back for what I've said = dangerous stifling of dissent
Post by: wingnutx on February 01, 2007, 06:26:05 AM
Plus, I had so much fun stealing all the oil in the first gulf war.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 01, 2007, 06:47:12 AM
Quote
There was adequate time to debate and dissent before the war.
When everyone was being fed cherrypicked and edited shoddy intelligence to get us into it?
Colin Powell's little speech with the vial will haunt him the rest of his life.
First off, it was not "cherrypicked" (whatever that means) or shoddy. The intelligence was consistent from Bush 1 through Bush 2.
Quote
We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . .assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of thew orld into even greater instability."
- George Herbert Walker Bush, in his 1998 book A World Transformed
- George Herbert Walker Bush, in his 1998 book A World Transformed
Post by: The Rabbi on February 01, 2007, 07:21:50 AM
Hell, I went to make Ezekiel feel all warm and fuzzy.
Then I'd say you failed your mission. Go back and try making him warm and fuzzy again.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 01, 2007, 07:42:51 AM
As far as the manifesto goes, I suspect most of it is on the mark. For me, the questionable portion is the general idea that Iraq can be won by purely military means alone, through direct engagement in the field. That seems plain wrong. Without winning the support of the population, guerrilla war against fanatics will be conventionally unwinnable, no matter how many snipers are deployed or how many doors are kicked in.
Post by: Ezekiel on February 01, 2007, 08:25:42 AM
This is one of the strongest agreements between you and I that others are likely to ever see.
I think people volunteered to go kill al Qaeda and Baathists. I doubt they volunteered to enhance some general's career or appear warm and sensitive on the Today Show.
Post by: thumbody on February 01, 2007, 09:35:03 AM
Quote
When everyone was being fed cherrypicked and edited shoddy intelligence to get us into it?
Manedwolf maybe this is where Bush Cherrypicked his infoborrowed from Art
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=4386.0
Quote
"Bush Lied"
« on: September 17, 2006, 01:28:30 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote
I got this in an email; it's not new but every now and then some folks could stand to be reminded. Smiley The quotes are from Lexis-Nexis, I'm told.
Titled: "Whoops I forgot I said that!!"
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!
« on: September 17, 2006, 01:28:30 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote
I got this in an email; it's not new but every now and then some folks could stand to be reminded. Smiley The quotes are from Lexis-Nexis, I'm told.
Titled: "Whoops I forgot I said that!!"
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!
Post by: Ezekiel on February 01, 2007, 09:48:19 AM
Sure, there remains a measure of accountability for so-readily parroting what turned out to be bunk: but nothing so significant as cherry-picking the bunk to begin with.
In addition, going back to 1998, in an attempt to justify a CURRENT failed policy, is somewhat bogus.
Merely an opinion.
Post by: wmenorr67 on February 01, 2007, 09:56:45 AM
Post by: wingnutx on February 01, 2007, 10:08:50 AM
Seeya there
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 11:12:07 AM
You also speak of this intelligence as coming from the "Office of the...President." I would have thought Congressional committees got their intel from the horses mouth, not from the President. I could be wrong.
Post by: Ezekiel on February 01, 2007, 11:40:21 AM
Quote
Zeke, I find it interesting that you acknowledged some of the quotations were from the Clinton administration, yet you still claim the Bush administration had to cherry-pick intelligence to yield the same conclusions.
Interesting point, which I readily grant. It would seem, however, that prior administrations -- perhaps going back to GHWB after Gulf 1? -- analyzed the totality of data and determined that a full-scale invasion with regime change was a decidedly BAD idea. GWB "saw what he wanted to see" and went against approximately 2,000 years of "bad idea" doctrine.
Congressional Committees seem to make up data -- both sides -- that supports their point of view. In this case, GWB saw only what he desired to see. (Or, what Darth Cheney told him to.)
Merely an opinion.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 11:48:16 AM
Quote
It would seem, however, that prior administrations -- perhaps going back to GHWB after Gulf 1? -- analyzed the totality of data and determined that a full-scale invasion with regime change was a decidedly BAD idea. GWB "saw what he wanted to see" and went against approximately 2,000 years of "bad idea" doctrine.
2000 years of... What? What are you talking about? Besides, you're talking as if nothing changed in the Middle East from one administration to the next. And as if Iraq was some isolated problem to be solved, not a part of a region that had suddenly become very much more important to Americans since 11 Sept.
Post by: Bogie on February 01, 2007, 01:19:12 PM
We just put off this discussion until after the Islamic Nutjobs do something gnarsty again inside the continental US... And there WILL be a next time. Then the same people who are crying about international unfairness will be crying for heads on stakes, and wondering why our elected officials are not working in a speedier fashion towards that goal.
Post by: 280plus on February 01, 2007, 01:31:20 PM
Quote
Then the same people who are crying about international unfairness will be crying for heads on stakes, and wondering why our elected officials are not working in a speedier fashion towards that goal.
Nah, they'll just put stupid little flags on their cars and act like it's something meaningful...Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 02:03:32 PM
Post by: gunsmith on February 01, 2007, 02:22:47 PM
I got the letter from the Hugh Hewitt web page
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/
I would think he vetted it. Who knows though.
A friend of mine is an E7 in the infantry, his opinion of his officers, if listed here verbatim
would probably get me banned.
He thinks that most of them are in Iraq just long enough and close enough to the shooting to get a combat medal then run away.
He really hates the whole chain of command above NCO, I mean really despises them.
He was at a roadblock of some kind and a car wouldn't stop so he and the guys he were with shot at it.
A little boy ended up being killed, my friend is so angry about the way the war is being prosecuted that I am kind of afraid to talk to him about it.
Funny enough, he hates the Republicans but keeps on voting for them because he really , really hates Democrats.
Post by: wingnutx on February 01, 2007, 02:31:35 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on February 01, 2007, 02:48:12 PM
Of course, I have read in a several different places that peace time service breeds peace time commanders. It takes a war to show who really knows the job and who doesn't.
Post by: Strings on February 01, 2007, 03:13:12 PM
Regarding the "we shouldn't have gone in": we did though. Now we have to see it through...
Post by: MechAg94 on February 01, 2007, 03:25:00 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 03:53:59 PM
Yes, I would like to see the opposition talk more in terms of solutions and stop complaining about going to war and calling Bush names. I think that is the primary thing the original post was complaining about. It wasn't the actual dissent. It was the constant carping, calling Bush names, and general complaining without constructive discussion at all.
Exactly. And many of the complaints are baseless to begin with. My favorite is the one about how all of our troops were fully outfitted with bullet-proof armor before we invaded Iraq but George Bush took it all away before we invaded.
Post by: wingnutx on February 01, 2007, 04:00:27 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 04:43:44 PM
I still hear from people about how the troops don't have any armor.
Did they complain about that in 2001 or 2002, when we had guys in Afghanistan?
Post by: wingnutx on February 01, 2007, 04:45:25 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 05:29:22 PM
From the article linked to by wingnutx:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html
Quote
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Imagine this writer's outrage if "military commanders" were to silence anti-war dissent among troops.
Quote
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
No, just stop ridiculing and defaming the civilian leadership that was elected and then re-elected after the war was begun.
This would all be quite a display of nerve, were it not a display of idiocy.
One final gem:
Quote
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
Curious how the media seem to believe that no one in the military has passed the age of thirty. Just sad how this moron thinks the people in country are naive and confused, while everything is clear to his sheltered, stateside point of view. Cute.
Post by: Dannyboy on February 01, 2007, 05:35:03 PM
Leaving the party stuff aside, the part that bothers me most is the part about how he thinks we are conducting the war and using soldiers as police.
Ufortunately, he's right. Our guys are nothing more than heavily armed SWAT teams, right now. They're more busy arresting people than actually killing insurgents. Of course, their ROE are so vague and contradictory to actual warfighting that they have little choice but to act as policemen.
Post by: Phantom Warrior on February 01, 2007, 11:24:22 PM
Post by: 280plus on February 02, 2007, 12:30:34 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 03:05:35 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2007, 04:14:45 AM
I still hear from people about how the troops don't have any armor.
Did they complain about that in 2001 or 2002, when we had guys in Afghanistan?
I still have not seen a good answer as to why, if the VIPs all wear Dragon Skin when they visit, why EVER SINGLE FREAKING SOLDIER doesn't have access to Dragon Skin, without having to pay for it out of their own pocket. So what if the maker can't make it "quickly enough", which I sincerely doubt. IT'S a WAR. When Willys couldn't make enough jeeps, contracts were given to Ford for the same design specs. You DO those things when you have a war.
That, and it's a disgrace that we're "short" on vehicles and equipment how many years into this thing? Has anyone satisfactorily explained why a handful of small operators are building and maintaining the vehicles at great profit, rather than a WWII-style conversion of ailing automaker plants to fulltime Humvee, etc...production?
Post by: MechAg94 on February 02, 2007, 04:29:41 AM
Last I heard earlier last year, DragonSkin armor was NOT the military's standard body armor and they frowned on guys getting and wearing their own armor. I am not sure if that has changed.
Who needs armor? Normally it would be the front line combat troops. In this war, everyone seems to be at target and wants/needs body armor. If you noticed on the original post, the guy was complaining that they are being made to wear body armor because it is too heavy and slows him down.
You can't make everyone bullet proof and protect them under all circumstances. Body armor has limited usefulness against IED's anyway.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2007, 04:40:15 AM
People are bitching every day about the budget deficits and you want a WWII mobilization?
Yes?
This is either a WAR, or it's just a prolonged quagmire of attrition with insufficient material support.
Post by: MechAg94 on February 02, 2007, 04:46:34 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 05:00:46 AM
you want a WWII mobilization?
Yes? This is either a WAR, or it's just a prolonged quagmire of attrition with insufficient material support.
If you're saying there should have been a formal declaration of war (or several of them) then I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't know if the govt. can do the sort of thing you're talking about without one. I am skeptical of reports about "shortages," that always seem to come from war detractors, but keep in mind armies are always short on something-or-other. Logistics is complicated.
Armor:
So far as I know, the Bush administration is the first to even attempt to outfit every soldier with body armor, other than flak vests which don't stop bullets. A lot of the troops don't seem to want them. (When I was a grunt about seven years ago, I had a squad leader who thought we should not even wear helmets unless we were actually making a planned assault. He read a lot of history, so maybe he was just old-school.)
If VIPs are getting more or better armor, (if they are) it is because they are VIPs. That should be obvious. Whatever you may think of Rumsfeld or others, they are high-value targets, if only for the symbolic victory of killing or hurting them. And people like that have training, experience and education that (hopefully) qualifies them to do what such people do. Grunts like I was don't have those qualifications. That's one reason we were intended for dangerous missions.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 02, 2007, 05:16:33 AM
People are bitching every day about the budget deficits and you want a WWII mobilization?
Yes?
This is either a WAR, or it's just a prolonged quagmire of attrition with insufficient material support.
You're kidding, right?
There is no, zero, reason to mobilize ala WW2. No one wants this. No one thinks it's necessary. And they are right. Last reports I saw talked about the US wasting millions of dollars. Anytime the gov't pumps millions and billions of dollars into a project stuff gets wasted. Look at Katrina. Shoving more money mindlessly into the maw will only result in more waste, not better results.
Post by: wingnutx on February 02, 2007, 06:27:16 AM
I still have not seen a good answer as to why, if the VIPs all wear Dragon Skin when they visit, why EVER SINGLE FREAKING SOLDIER doesn't have access to Dragon Skin, without having to pay for it out of their own pocket.
I had to drive some 2-stars around, and they wore Interceptors. I think the "all vips wear dragonskin" is greatly overblown. A lot about dragonskin is greatly overblown. I think it's pretty slick, but may or may not be ready for prime-time.
Good first-hand review over on lightfighter.net from a guy who bought one, btw.
Post by: grampster on February 12, 2008, 03:38:42 PM
"Three years' effort went into the writing of The Closed Circle, but it is the fruit of a lifelong interest in the subject, which began with childhood experiences in Morocco and continued, over the course of his career, to draw Pryce-Jones back to the Middle East to study Arab history and culture."
"In a fascinating exploration of a complex culture, he describes how codes of shame, honor, and power challenging, underlying Arab society for centuries, are alien to Western concepts of order, loyalty, and justice. These codes form the dark subtext of the Middle Eastern dilemma, the element that has so confounded Western diplomatic and economic efforts....and until we come to grips with the deeper forces driving the Arabs, our misconceptions will continue to undermine our Middle Eastern policies." (From the dust jacket of The Closed Circle.)
It's too bad some of our leaders fail to study the ramifications of actions, no matter how necessary they seem, or not. There is vast ignorance on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Also on the pages of this thread.
Post by: Bigjake on February 12, 2008, 04:19:34 PM
Quote
I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders. We are not playing Hopscotch over here. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment and some deprivation was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help get their terrorist minds right.
Post by: doc2rn on February 12, 2008, 04:22:53 PM
Quote
We just put off this discussion until after the Islamic Nutjobs do something gnarsty again inside the continental US... And there WILL be a next time. Then the same people who are crying about international unfairness will be crying for heads on stakes, and wondering why our elected officials are not working in a speedier fashion towards that goal.- Bogie
I know a way to fix this. It's cheaper than what we spent already, and it envolves alot of glass making.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on February 12, 2008, 04:40:16 PM
http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/22/3292-army-defends-body-armor-quality/
Some folks say the tests were fudged, though.
Post by: James Fitzer on February 12, 2008, 04:47:07 PM
Every soldier in theater has the interceptor, and a bunch of heavy, cumbersome additions and attachments to said armor.
The side SAPI i liked... they felt solid. I never wore the collar though. The collar, plus my 6 foot 6 body, meant sitting in a HMMWV was impossible.
A lot of the sentiment of that post is true, and I agree. Some of it is useless hyperbole. However, if it was written by a soldier, I can't fault him for bitching. I did it, most soldiers do it. A complaining soldier is a happy soldier, it is said. Gewehr 98 can attest to the bitching I did when I was in theater ;-)
My only regret is that I didn't deploy with my current battalion commander and SGM. Awesome
Post by: Lee on February 12, 2008, 05:34:54 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 12, 2008, 06:19:41 PM
"....Westerners habitually and ignorantly misconceive the responses they are likely to encounter from the Arabs, unsuitably and even laughably projecting their own political and moral attitudes where these cannot apply. Since the Suez campaign of 1956, there have been several Western expeditionary forces in the Middle East, for instance in the attempt to free American embassy personnel held hostage in Teheran in 1979, in Lebanon in October 1983, and in the Gulf in 1987. Depending on the interests at stake, either such entry into the Middle East should be avoided altogether for the sake of the shame-based hostility it will trigger, or it must be undertaken with inflexible determination to use whatever force is required for supreme arbitration." (emphasis mine) Author David Pryce-Jones The Closed Circle, published 1989
FYI, David Pryce-Jones used to identify Turkey as an Arab country in The Closed Circle.
It's hilarious to read a guy with no real language training, no experience, and no recognized expertise whatsoever pontificating on the "minds of the Arabs." That's got to be more laughable than anything that could be going no between Arabs and Westerners.
How exactly is it possible to write an in depth study about "the Arab mind" when you can't even interview a single Arab in his native tongue?
Post by: RevDisk on February 12, 2008, 07:02:16 PM
Quote
I am tired of seeing Active Duty Army and Marine units being extended past their original redeployment dates, when there are National Guard Units that have yet to deploy to a combat zone in the last 40 years.
Apparently this gentleman is unaware that roughly 40 percent of the total troop strength is NG. And from personal experience, I know of many NG soldiers who have pulled multiple tours and very few NG's that were not deployed to Iraq or activated to support deployments. Ancidotal, sure, except I saw about a 50 to 1 ratio. Marine and US Army Reserves have also been doing plenty of tours as well. Only units I know of that didn't deploy to Iraq are mob support related units, don't know a single one that didn't deploy individuals.
Actually, orders were posted back in Oct to send 4,000 Pennsylvania National Guard soldiers to Iraq. Primarily the 56th Stryker Brigade. Unfortunately, they'll be commanded by LTC Ferraro whom I knew as a Major. Gods help them.
Quote
So lets get it done. Until the fight is won and there is no more fight left.
Sigh. I saw a lot of this back in ye Old Days. Folks still think if they win the Battle of This or Battle of That, the war is won. There is no Berlin or Tokyo to take. There IS no "get 'er done". There is only better or worse. Removing havens for insurgents, keeping foreign aggitators out, interdicting supplies to the insurgents, infiltrating insurgent groups and militas (we suck at this, BTW), improving the government structure, minimizing govt corruption, keeping the militias in order (disbanding them would be a bad idea, equal to disbanding the Iraqi Army), preventing ethnic cleansing.
It's possible to win, believe it or not. Killing the bad guys is only one part, and not actually even the most important one.
Quote
I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.
And so far, all of our games have been away games, and I dont know about the ignorant, treasonous Democrats and the completely insane radical leftists and their thoughts on the matter, but I would like to keep our road game schedule.
And so far, all of our games have been away games, and I dont know about the ignorant, treasonous Democrats and the completely insane radical leftists and their thoughts on the matter, but I would like to keep our road game schedule.
Was this written by a soldier? This guy is definitely in the wrong line of work. DHS, specifically the TSA, is the place for him.
Seriously, though. Insulting democrats, liberals, moderates, or any folks who disagree with ya is a favorite hobby of soldiers. So long as it's just venting. Folks who automatically associate criticism and dissent with treason are however a bit worrisome.
I do however fully agree with him about the beloved US Army Officer Corps. From my conversations with Vietnam and Korean vets, they've been going downhill for decades. However it's been fairly recent the Warrant Office Corps has sold out to the Officer Corps and nosedived. They used to command an insane amount of respect. Some still do. But it's less every year.
Post by: Strings on February 12, 2008, 09:44:18 PM
If the Warrant program has sold out to the regular zeroes, gawd help our troops!
Post by: Finch on February 12, 2008, 09:58:35 PM
Quote
There was adequate time to debate and dissent before the war.
When everyone was being fed cherrypicked and edited shoddy intelligence to get us into it?
Colin Powell's little speech with the vial will haunt him the rest of his life.
Damn, I never thought my "take a shot whenever I agree with Manedwolf" drinking game would get me anywhere.
Bottoms Up!
Post by: Finch on February 12, 2008, 10:00:39 PM
You guys managed to miss the biggest one on that list,
Quote
I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders. We are not playing Hopscotch over here. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment and some deprivation was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help get their terrorist minds right.
Yeah, I'm sure the guys who blow themselves up are really worried about what happens if they get caught.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 12, 2008, 11:05:33 PM
I am sorry but this is just another little propagandha email.
I am tired of being told I am not patriotic because I don't approve of the government actions. I am tired of the "they hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric. I am tired of spending money on a war that does not help the people but lines the pockets of the rulers. I am tired of Bush continuing to change the reason we are at war. I am tired of this administrations lack of responsibility. I am tired of the government torturing people at GITMO. I am tired of the government taking away my freedoms while fighting for the freedoms (according ot them) of people in a country that does not want us there. I am tired of watching US troops die so that Bush and Co. can protect the oil. I am tired of murdering people in other countries who have never attacked us. I am tired... so I am off to bed.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 12, 2008, 11:15:07 PM
I'm tired of everyone who volunteered to be one of the minions of Darth Cheney/Bush Co. complaining about the manner in which they have been treated during their "mission."
Staff Sgt. Cannon Fodder put the bullseye on his own chest for this fiasco: he can keep his manifesto.
I concur.Staff Sgt. Cannon Fodder put the bullseye on his own chest for this fiasco: he can keep his manifesto.
Why didn't the so called Staff Seargant sign the little letter? I hate these little emails that get sent around. Jim Bob figures he can bash the democrats and gain legitimacy by saying it is from a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan. What Jim Bob doesnt know is that educated people will see right through this while the dumb minority of the populace will eat it up and spit it out as the gospel.
If the author really felt strongly, the he would have not chickened out but signed it.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 12, 2008, 11:27:33 PM
Quote
When everyone was being fed cherrypicked and edited shoddy intelligence to get us into it?
Manedwolf maybe this is where Bush Cherrypicked his infoborrowed from Art
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=4386.0
Quote
"Bush Lied"
« on: September 17, 2006, 01:28:30 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote
I got this in an email; it's not new but every now and then some folks could stand to be reminded. Smiley The quotes are from Lexis-Nexis, I'm told.
Titled: "Whoops I forgot I said that!!"
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!
« on: September 17, 2006, 01:28:30 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote
I got this in an email; it's not new but every now and then some folks could stand to be reminded. Smiley The quotes are from Lexis-Nexis, I'm told.
Titled: "Whoops I forgot I said that!!"
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!
What does that have to do with Bin Laden? I believe he said that Bin Laden was the #1 priority.
Quote
Bush Quotes about Bin Laden
For your amusement and future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
For your amusement and future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Shouldnt we be pursuing him rather than going to Iraq?
Post by: wooderson on February 13, 2008, 11:22:47 AM
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
Post by: wooderson on February 13, 2008, 11:25:59 AM
Quote
I think people volunteered to go kill al Qaeda and Baathists.
People who joined up prior to 2003 joined to "kill Baathists"?People who joined up in the wake of 9/11 joined up to invade Iraq?
Have you any opinion poll or other evidence to support these assertions?
Post by: Strings on February 13, 2008, 11:28:09 AM
Post by: Bogie on February 13, 2008, 11:57:02 AM
Post by: RevDisk on February 13, 2008, 12:11:45 PM
Odd that there are a lot of folks re-uping to "finish the job", if they don't believe in what's being done there...
You haven't seen the retention numbers, have ya? Excluding stop loss funny business, of course.
Post by: Lee on February 13, 2008, 03:44:10 PM
I supported the decision to remove Saddam from power. After all, we were told that the Iraqi masses yearned for freedom, were highly educated,motivated, and that they would embrace democracy.
Oddly, I later learned that no one (including GH Bush, or Dick Cheney) believed that, when we had an opportunity to topple Saddam during Gulf War I,and had sufficient forces in country to accomplish it. No one did. In fact, everyone predicted the same outcome that we see today.
Either GW Bush lied about something, or he's as dull as he appears to be....I'm hoping it's the latter.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 14, 2008, 12:21:36 AM
http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/
and they are exceeding their goal according to the Army. However I wonder if the numbers increased because the military did lower their entrance standards for enlistment. Are these people those who at one point were unlistable? It seems that up until 2005 the military was not meeting recruitment goals. This year it seems that they are exceeding it in most cases. However I have to ask why?
Post by: gunsmith on February 21, 2008, 11:57:18 AM
Its (it's? I never get that right) a year old already!
Its probably Fistfuls fault!
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 21, 2008, 12:00:09 PM
Yes people are enlisting...
http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/
and they are exceeding their goal according to the Army. However I wonder if the numbers increased because the military did lower their entrance standards for enlistment. Are these people those who at one point were unlistable? It seems that up until 2005 the military was not meeting recruitment goals. This year it seems that they are exceeding it in most cases. However I have to ask why?
http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/
and they are exceeding their goal according to the Army. However I wonder if the numbers increased because the military did lower their entrance standards for enlistment. Are these people those who at one point were unlistable? It seems that up until 2005 the military was not meeting recruitment goals. This year it seems that they are exceeding it in most cases. However I have to ask why?
There was a time when the enlistment standards in all the services were pretty high, since troop numbers were slashed during Monica lewinsky's boyfriend's regime.