[Masthead] Fair ~ 50°F  
Frost Advisory
Thursday, Oct. 23, 2014

Message to President Bush

Posted Thursday, September 13, 2007, at 8:46 AM

President Bush invades our televisions tonight, attempting to gain support for his Iraq maneuvers by promising the withdrawal of many American troops.

Meanwhile, I suspect, too many in our government see the brave men and women of our military as numbers instead of people.

Here's what I'd tell President Bush if I had a chance:

"Our troops' role is to defend our own country first and spread worldwide democracy second. Iraq will never be a democracy due to internal dissention.

"We learned lessons from Sept. 11 and likely will be able to detect and deter any planned future attacks on the U.S. from outside forces. Keeping American forces in Iraq isn't helping that goal.

"Every single American lost in Iraq, and will be lost, was/is a hero and deserves our gratitude. But we don't need any more losses.

"Bring us home. Let Iraq take care of itself, or maybe keep just enough forces to prevent an outside takeover.

"And American troops should never be used to promote a political ideology or boost a political party. They are for defense. Period. Wrongful use shows disrespect for those who wear the uniform."

Think he'd listen?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Of course he wouldn't... It doesn't matter what anyone tells him, he does what he wants.

David, you are too good at what you say!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 8:58 AM

How do we exit?

May I suggest By Plane the same way we got into Iraq. We owe Iraq nothing. There is no reason for our troops to remain in Iraq one more day.If we have not made any progress in 6 years then we will not make any progress in another year with less troops. Bring them ALL home. Worry about our own Country and Let them worry about theirs.

-- Posted by Dreamer on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:11 AM

Gee, I wonder what the over and under for posts on this blog will be? :)

So David, am I to understand that the US military is only to be used if we are directly attacked?

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:49 AM

I'd say our military could be used to aid another country in dire, extreme need, such as when we defended Great Britain in World War II. And I'll go so far as to think we did the right thing in Kuwait in '91, and that we were correct in toppling Saddam. But we don't need to keep defending Iraq from itself.

-- Posted by David Melson on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 11:18 AM

I have a nomination for one of those countries in dire need: the USA! Lets pull our troops from over there and secure our borders, spend some of that 2 billion a week on shoring up our own infrastructure and just in general help ourselves for a change. I agree that Saddam had to go but he is indeed gone now. Let the Iraqis work out their own internal problems aand let's do the same........

-- Posted by rebel4ever37 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 11:29 AM

Oh- and my guess is 111 Mr. Baker :)

-- Posted by rebel4ever37 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 11:32 AM

Would have been better if the war planners had thought about all these problems before entering Iraq. Oh wait, they did and Bush fired them.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 11:35 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to...

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 11:37 AM

Interesting link Nathan. I particulary was impressed with one of the protesters strategic display of signage!

-- Posted by rebel4ever37 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 1:24 PM

I had rather fight terroism on foreign soil than here at home. Did everyone forget 9/11. Ask the soldiers who have fought over there and see how many of them say we need to pull out! Sounds like all of you are on the Obama band wagon. Lord help us!

If we had pulled out of WW2 we would all be speaking Japanese!!

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 1:27 PM

Refresh my memory, Please: What did Iraq have to do with 9/11

-- Posted by Dreamer on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 1:48 PM

Ok, David. Now, do you (or did you is probably more correct) support the US government's use of the military during the Cold War: Not just Vietnam, but the strategic placement of troops in Western Europe (as well as long range missles)?

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:05 PM

I had rather fight terroism on foreign soil than here at home. Did everyone forget 9/11. Ask the soldiers who have fought over there and see how many of them say we need to pull out! Sounds like all of you are on the Obama band wagon. Lord help us!

If we had pulled out of WW2 we would all be speaking Japanese!!

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 1:27 PM

In response to your comment I will repost a previous comment that you obviously didn't read Cordell.

If George Bush was truly concerned about terrorists attacking this nation within its borders he would have closed the border down on September 12th. It doesn't take an airplane to attack us. That was the tactical weapon of opportunity used at the time. Bush says we gotta fight them over there so we don't have to here. I got news for you, "THEY ARE ALREADY HERE!" The 9/11 attack did not originate overseas. These men boarded planes in far away places like Boston and New York City. They ate at our restaurants and drove around on our highways. It is only a matter of time before these terrorist strike again and they will go undetected as before because instead of spending our resources on securing our borders, airports, power plants, water supplies, food supplies, etc, we went and fought a war against Iraq which in turn only created more terrorists! Skillful execution Mr. Bush. Bravo!

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Sat, Sep 8, 2007, at 9:44 AM

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:12 PM

Dreamer, Don't you remember that just about all of Congress was in favor of invading Iraq after 9/11. Even John Kerry voted for it before he voted against it! He must have needed his memory refreshed also.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:14 PM

The so called master mind of the 9/11 attacks was given to Pres. Clinton during his administration and what did he do.

We both know what he did on the blue dress!

Bush inherited alot of this problem.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:17 PM

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Yet the one who did is still making "videos" that seem to appear right around the anniversary of 9/11 every year.

I have talked to plenty of people that have come home from Iraq and still have no clue as to why we are there and also during Katrina one of my best friends was stationed in Iraq and stated that he would be of better use here in our country helping our people then over there being shot at by people that seem to not want us there.

I know that I wouldn't want my country to be invaded by anyone. Could you imagine looking out your door and seeing another country marching down your street trying to get you to change you ways. Or demanding to see our weapons of mass destruction because God knows we have more than any other country in the world.

and sure, let's ask some soldiers, the next time my brother in law calls or my cousins call, I will send them to you and they can tell you that they want immediate withdrawal at all cost!!

and Nathan and rebel4ever37 I agree wholeheartedly with both of you!! Thanks for the link Nathan, interesting reading.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:20 PM

While we waste our time and resources worrying about a small battalion of terrorists in Iraq our enemies are retooling and modernizing their armies and air forces.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jixX4...

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:21 PM

Like I said earlier if Clinton had taken Osama when he had the chance, things could have turned out different. Do you not agree?

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:23 PM

Even if, and that is a Big if, Bush did inherit this problem. What has Bush done to stop the problem? Iraq was not the one who attacked us, never was and never had.

Congress was lied to just like the American People by none other that Bush. Every reason he gave for attacking Iraq was a lie, much bigger than the Blue Dress.

-- Posted by Dreamer on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:23 PM

Don't you remember that just about all of Congress was in favor of invading Iraq after 9/11. Even John Kerry voted for it before he voted against it! He must have needed his memory refreshed also.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:17 PM

I seem to remember our Sec. of State at the United Nations giving a presentation on mobile weapons labs and weapons of mass destruction. Turned out to all be false propaganda used to sway votes.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:24 PM

I guess if we elect Hillary or Obama our worries will be over.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:25 PM

Like I said earlier if Clinton had taken Osama when he had the chance, things could have turned out different. Do you not agree?

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:23 PM

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Hind sight is 20/20. Bush knows the score and he did not go for the win. He went for the money.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:25 PM

I guess if we elect Hillary or Obama our worries will be over.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:25 PM

No the war will be over.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:26 PM

Tim Baker asked: "Now, do you (or did you is probably more correct) support the US government's use of the military during the Cold War:..."

I was a child during the 1960s, too young to have an opinion. But I think today, based on what we knew (or what the public was told) at the time, the U.S. probably used its military correctly. Looking back from today, I don't know if Russia/E. Germany were really that much of a threat or if it was just rhetoric (even though the 1962 Cuban missles would lead me more in the 'serious threat' direction).

Would you compare today's world military climate, and Iraq specifically, more to the Cold War or Vietnam? I think sending "advisors" in was the right move, but things began escalating too far around 1963 or so.

-- Posted by David Melson on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:28 PM

I can't understand you saying it wasn't Clinton's fault. If he had taken Osama out, that problem would have been eliminated. Granted someone else would have probably taken his place, but he wouldn't have been around.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:29 PM

I doubt if our worries will be over no matter who is elected but personally I would rather take my chances on Hillary or Obama than I would anyone stating we needed to stay in Iraq.

-- Posted by Dreamer on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:29 PM

One thing is for sure. Just like Vietnam, if the politicians would stay out of it the military would take care of the situation. Most of you aren't old enough to remember Vietnam but it was the same way.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:36 PM

Tim Baker asked: "Now, do you (or did you is probably more correct) support the US government's use of the military during the Cold War:..."

No disrespect to anyone that served in or during the Vietnam War (my father included), but isn't Vietnam a communist nation in 2007!? We waited until we were formally attacked to engage in actual combat in 1941 so we could build our military and use it when ready. Now we can't get into a war fast enough. Why is that? Money, plain and simple.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:37 PM

If the liberal news media and politicians were involved in World War 2 we would have cut and run there also.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:38 PM

Ask the soldiers who have fought over there and see how many of them say we need to pull out!

Just for your information I do not have to ask anyone whether the soldiers think we need to pull out. I have a husband and a brother in Iraq right now and both say we need to bring our boys home. We are making no progress only killing more and more people and spending more and more money.

-- Posted by Dreamer on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:38 PM

If the liberal news media and politicians were involved in World War 2 we would have cut and run there also.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:38 PM

You are an idiot!

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:39 PM

Now that wasn't nice to say on your own blog Nathan.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:40 PM

If the liberal news media and politicians were involved in World War 2 we would have cut and run there also.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:38 PM

Pure speculation, a total disregard of any factual information available, and completely without merit.

-------------------------------

You are an idiot!

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:39 PM

Based on facts derived from your comments.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:42 PM

Now that wasn't nice to say on your own blog Nathan.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:40 PM

Well you earned that one.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:43 PM

Nathan I apologize if I offended you. This was David's blog not yours. What upset you the statement about the liberal media?

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:44 PM

Seems like we all have botched operations don't we. Not just the present administration.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:48 PM

Nathan I apologize if I offended you. This was David's blog not yours. What upset you the statement about the liberal media?

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:44 PM

I am fed up with people citing the media as the problem with our country. Just because some talking head says something that is leaning left or right does not mean that I believe it. All I need to see is an average of three soldiers a day dying, not to mention the thousands that are maimed or handicapped for the rest of their lives to know what is going on over there. All I need to see is a five year old Shiite Iraqi boy doused in gas and set on fire by a gang of Sunni men to know what is going on over there. All I need to see are reports of 190,000 missing rifles handed out to the supposed good guys or reports of 8.8 billion dollars that simply vanished into thin air to know what is going on over there. Reports of no bid contracts given to a company our current VP used to be the CEO of. I could go on for hours like this, but surely you get the point. These things are facts and they have all come to pass and you will find them reported on any media outlet in the world because they happened.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:54 PM

Revolution is this what you were talking about?

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.

By MANSOOR IJAZ

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 3:00 PM

These people in Iraq have been fighting this internal religious battle for centuries. It is practically part of their DNA by now. What make you think, cordell, that somehow the Christian state of America is going to walk in and cause these people to shake hands and negotiate peace? How many more billions of dollars should be spent to discover this answer? Would terrorists concern themselves with America if we found another source of energy other than oil and abandoned the middle east? Would our nation not be more secure if we had spent a trillion dollars on our defenses instead of squandering the money in Iraq?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 3:05 PM

Forget about what Clinton did 7+ years ago. What are we going to do today?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 3:06 PM

After this some want to put his wife in charge!

Ask Dick Morris about her or read his book Rewriting History. He ought to know he was there adivsor for 20 years. Just the facts.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 3:08 PM

Nathan the point is you want to forget what Clinton done.(or didn't do) If he had done his job then, part of this problem would have been terminated. That is the point I am making. But you are right we can discuss this till the cows come home but it doesn't do anything except kill some time. Great discussion, have a good day.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 3:11 PM

Cordell.. The army is STILL missing recruiting goals..

Do I need to have an officer contact you? It seems you know so much about the situation, they need some back-up and I am sure plenty of soldiers would rather be HOME, with their FAMILIES, raising their children, embracing LIFE.. Instead of in a bogged down, never-ending, no deadline, quagmire...

Your first mistake was linking 9/11 with Iraq, your second was saying "Soldier's don't want to pull out", your third mistake, is not joining the military now.

THIS WAR WOULD END IN MINUTES, IF BUSH HAD TO DO LIKE GEORGE WASHINGTON AND ACTUALLY DEFEND HIS COUNTRY, INSTEAD OF HIS MISTAKES...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 4:35 PM

And Revolution... sending back dismembered service men is ATROCIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Cordell

There is practically no way to escape the draft now either. It's just too bad the President and his Cabinet can't all be forced to suit up, the minute that happens, is the minute negotiations will replace stubbern-headed, war mongerers, who profit entirely too much on the deaths of our men and women, will seek and INSTANTANEOUS TROOP WITHDRAWAL.... I think Bush and his entire cabinet, and those like you who support this war, should put your actions where your mouth is! How is that patriotism... It is our right to speak out against atrocity and an attempted genocide of an innocent nation.

If we wanted to attack those who attacked us on 9/11, we should go a few countries over and invade Saudi Arabia, but since they supply a majority of our oil, NO CAN DO! In fact, that is ANOTHER regime that we protect, and I wonder why.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 4:41 PM

"I am fed up with people citing the media as the problem with our country. Just because some talking head says something that is leaning left or right does not mean that I believe it. All I need to see is an average of three soldiers a day dying, not to mention the thousands that are maimed or handicapped for the rest of their lives to know what is going on over there. All I need to see is a five year old Shiite Iraqi boy doused in gas and set on fire by a gang of Sunni men to know what is going on over there. All I need to see are reports of 190,000 missing rifles handed out to the supposed good guys or reports of 8.8 billion dollars that simply vanished into thin air to know what is going on over there. Reports of no bid contracts given to a company our current VP used to be the CEO of. I could go on for hours like this, but surely you get the point. These things are facts and they have all come to pass and you will find them reported on any media outlet in the world because they happened."

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 2:54 PM

COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER!!!!!!

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 4:46 PM

For your information I have served my country in the military. Have any of you? Its amazing to me that all the politicans that are so disturbed over our troops being killed are the same ones that are for the killing of innocent unborn babies. By the way all of these troops voluntered to serve there country. I did also and I am glad they did. I hate to see them killed and mamed also, but that is the ultimate price you pay for freedom.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 4:58 PM

"For your information I have served my country in the military"

Well then serve again..

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 4:59 PM

Have you nascarfanatic?

If not there is a recruting station for all branches here is Murfreesboro.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:01 PM

For your information I have served my country in the military. Have any of you?

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 4:58 PM

SSgt Nathan Evans

United States Marine Corps 1998-2003

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:04 PM

And it isn't freedom my friend.. It's WMDs...

In America, we have so-called freedom, none of which was taken away by Iraq... We also have HUGE stockpiles of WMDs, and everyone knows it.. So we are the essence of hypocrisy.

Freedom of CHOICE, is a freedom, but apparently you don't like that either.

You have been proven ineffective on this war issue, so you hit on abortion, Clinton, Liberal Media... You are just someone trying to blame all your problems on Democrats... Need I remind you, DEMOCRATS passed legislation to FUND "9/11 Commission Recommendations" NOT Republicans..

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:06 PM

Vote for CORDELL "PRO-LIFE, (PRO-DEATH PENALTY), PRO-WAR..."

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:09 PM

I guess I have been proven ineffective on this issue. But no matter what we say It doesn't change a thing. All it did was occupy our time. Voting is the only option we have.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:15 PM

And yes I am pro life and pro death penalty and supporting our troops and defending our country. If that is being conservative, I guess i am.

http://www.freedomswatch.org/

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:20 PM

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Voting is not all we have, IMPEACHMENT was an option when Clinton was so horrible, why isn't an option now? Oh that's right.... War profiteering, misleading a nation, pre-emptive (no sense) attacks, dividing a nation, abliterating the constitution, using "terror" to get everything you want, and pardoning criminals... Ignoring the UNITED NATIONS, ignoring the weapons inspectors, firing the generals who tried to plan for YOUR war... All NOT GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT..

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:21 PM

Freedom's Watch is an advocacy group in part run and supported by former officials of the Bush administration.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:28 PM

EXACTLY...

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:33 PM

Bush is going to bring home 20,000 troups now according to ABC. Maybe that will help somewhat.

-- Posted by cordell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:46 PM

Yes the same amount of troops he sent in during the "surge".. NOW, tell me, if it worked, then why are you bringing them back?

Seems like you would want them to stay and continue to make progress..

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:47 PM

Here is an interesting list:

Boeing

Aside from 747s, Boeing makes "smart" bombs, F-15 fighters, and Apache helicopters. Boeing has paid tens of millions in fines for selling flawed parts that led to thousands of unnecessary landings and at least one fatal crash and has been plagued by scandals connected to the company's influence-peddling.

CEO: Jim McNerney

Military contracts 2005: $18.3 billion

Total contributions for the 2004 election cycle: $1,659,213*

Lockheed Martin

The world's #1 military contractor, responsible for the U-2 and SR-71 spy planes, F-16, F/A-22 fighter jet, and Javelin missiles. They've also made millions through insider trading, falsifying accounts, and bribing officials.

CEO: Robert J. Stevens

Military contracts 2005: $19.4 billion

Total contributions for the 2004 election cycle: $2,212,836*

Northrop Grumman

Makers of the B-2 stealth bomber, you'd think this company could stay under the radar. But they're dogged by scandals-from bribing Saudi princes to botching the training of the Iraqi National Army to the tune of $48 million. Above board, their job is simply selling death.

CEO: Ronald Sugar

Military contracts 2005: $13.5 billion

Campaign contributions in 2004: $1.68 million (defense related)

$1.77 million (total)

General Dynamics

General Dynamics makes traditional F-16 jets, Abrams tanks, and Trident subs. With contracts in the billions, and new markets (read: wars) opening every day, they're not as washed up as some may think.

CEO: Nicholas D. Chabraja

Military contracts 2005: $10.6 billion

Total contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $1,437,602*

Raytheon

Raytheon means "light from the gods." Makers of "Bunker Buster" bombs, Tomahawk and Patriot missiles, this company loves big noises and large civilian casualty counts. When a missile killed 62 civilians in a Baghdad market, that was Light from the Gods.

CEO: William H. Swanson

Military contracts 2005: $9.1 billion

Defense-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $961,252*

United Technologies

The name sounds like they make light bulbs, but UT, a.k.a. Sikorsky, sells Black Hawk and Comanche helicopters and various missile systems designed to inspire terror in civilians from Palestine to Colombia to Somalia and beyond.

CEO: George David

Military contracts 2005: $5.0 billion

Defense-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $558,850*

Halliburton

This company truly has a guardian angel: former Halliburton CEO and now Vice President Dick Cheney who looks out for its interests from the White House. The result? $8 billion in contracts "rebuilding" Iraq in 2004.

CEO: David J. Lesar

Military contracts 2005: $5.8 billion

Oil and gas-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $221,249*

General Electric

Run until 2001by "Neutron" Jack Welch, who made it a matter of principle to lay off 10% of his workers per year, the world's biggest company churns out plastics, aircraft engines and nuclear reactors and media spin through NBC, CNBC, Telemundo, and msnbc.com.

CEO: Jeffrey R. Immelt

Military contracts 2005: $2.2 billion

Defense-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $220,950*

Science Applications International Corporation

SAIC, awarded control of the Iraqi Media Network, was not able to spin US propaganda in Iraq and ended up being forced to withdraw. But their financial prospects remain solid as supplier of surveillance technology to US spy agencies.

CEO: Ken Dahlberg

Military contracts 2005: $2.8 billion

Campaign contributions in 2004: $781,410 (defense related)

CSC/ DynCorp

The world's premier rent-a-cop business runs the security show in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the US-Mexico border. They also run the coca crop-dusting business in Colombia, and occasional sex trafficking sorties in Bosnia. But what can you expect from a bunch of mercenaries?

CEO: Van Honeycutt

Military contracts 2005: $2.8 billion

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:51 PM

WHAT A FREAKIN LIST!!! wow

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 5:57 PM

It is all foretold ,it must happen . If we don't stop it over there it will come here . Does Armageddon ring a bell ? we will all be fighting there someday.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 6:35 PM

It is all foretold ,it must happen . If we don't stop it over there it will come here . Does Armageddon ring a bell ? we will all be fighting there someday.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 6:35 PM

So God means for us to be fighting for oil and money? Gee I thought Greed was one of the 7 deadly sins.

and I assume you are one of those that think that Bush is God sent and this is the holy crusade?

WONDERFUL....

Nathan, Darrick, where are you guys?

-- Posted by stolen25 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 6:43 PM

No Michael, I think the War to end all Wars will be with Israel not Iraq.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 6:44 PM

It is all foretold ,it must happen . If we don't stop it over there it will come here . Does Armageddon ring a bell ? we will all be fighting there someday.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 6:35 PM

Armageddon rings a bell, but Iraq wasn't doing ANYTHING to us. ISRAEL is the sacred nation NOT U.S.A. .. Sorry to burst your bubble.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 6:49 PM

cordell, I see you are over on this blog spouting your assumptions.

Just the other day I called you an ignorant so & so and now I see someone as called you an idiot. Glad to see you are "staying the course".

-- Posted by Buck Fama on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 7:10 PM

Well I see someone doesn't know their bible Mr.Bell...Israel is the battle grounds for the armageddon. Even I know that.

The following nations have been mentioned by the Prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 38 and will have some involvement in the battles in the time of the end.

1.Tarshish - The United Kingdom

2.Rosh, Meshech & Tubal - Russia

3.Magog - Central Europe

4.Gomer - France

5.Israel - Irsael

6.Sheba & Dedan - Saudi Arabia

7..Egypt - Egypt

8.Ethiopia - Ethiopia

9.Libya - Libya

10.Togarmah - Turkey

I see that America and Iraq have no mention in this list....hmmmmmm....and none of the above mentioned are currently supporting our endeavors in Iraq, so there goes the whole involvement theory.

You can't always incoporate God and the bible into everything, sometimes these things are the work of Satan..ever thought about that?

-- Posted by Vindicated on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 8:04 PM

LOL, VERY NICE VINDICATED...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 8:26 PM

Just finished watching the Bush Speech. And still not sure exactly what he said except he seems to think we are making progress in Iraq and the Iraqi's still want us there. I would have much rather heard some comments from Iraqi's about his speech instead of a Democrat from Rhode Island.

I am sure the Iraqi people could tell us how much progress is truly being made in Iraq better than General "Betrayus"

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 8:53 PM

EXACTLY.. I didn't even watch it, because I didn't want to listen to more lies, deception, and false promises

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 9:04 PM

I watched it although I am not sure why except maybe I was hoping to see a glimpse of compassion and hope for the American people. But all I saw was the same lies being told over and over..only this time he is throwing us scraps by bringing home 5,000 of the 170,000 troops home by Christmas. Most of these troops have probably served 2 or more tours in Iraq and should have already been home before now.

Maybe I am looking at this message all wrong but I do not see that as a reduction in forces. Please if I am not seeing this in the correct light somebody show me the era of my way.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 9:31 PM

Well Bush is reducing troop levels to "pre-surge" levels...

So essentially, this isn't even a troop cut, this is just bringing home the same number of troops, in a phased manner, that he sent there in January...

It's all about hype and trying to win the hearts and minds of people who honestly think it is a troop reduction.

I thought, though seriously, that if the troop surge was working, then perhaps they would need to be there longer. I just don't get it.. One week the generals say "we need more troops", the next week "we're going to cut troop levels" either because the surge is INEFFECTIVE, probably the case, or just a politically motivated move.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 9:42 PM

If I heard Bush correctly he will gradually pull troops from Dec to July with about 21,000 troops being withdrawn. Wouldn't that leave over 140,000 troops in Iraq? For how Long? and Why?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 9:49 PM

For how long = NO DEADLINE...

Why = Well we are told of a thousand reasons why, but it's hard to believe most of them... I can see troops being there to train Iraqi troops and secure established areas of Iraq, but the bloodbath and civil war will be there while our troops are there, and long after they leave.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 9:54 PM

But darrick isn't that all the reasons we are suppose to be there now ? In fact isn't that why we have been there since "Mission Accomplished"

I am not arguing with you by any means here. I just really want to understand all this because all I am going to hear tomorrow is "How Bush is bringing home our troops"

When in fact it is just a scam but that is not the way people will see it..you and I both know that.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:01 PM

I think that the end of the war is near. W will probably not get his funding for 2008. Many upset servicemen and women, along with their families have been calling and writing their elected representatives begging them to either start drafting replacements or to bring them home. These legislators will react based on the wants and needs of their constituents and not the wants and needs of George Bush or the Iraqis (especially the Senators up for reelection next year and the representatives). It is my understanding that legislation that will set a requirement on how long of a break between deployments is allowable is two votes away from passage in the Senate. If this bill passes the Congress and then overides a sure veto, Bush will have to reduce troop levels to comply or request a draft. Next week the Congress will begin discussing the 2008 defense spending bill. We will all find out then how successful Bush and the Pentagon were this week in their attempt to persuade the nation to be patient and stay the course.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:01 PM

nathan

And that part bothers me also when they say Bush will not get his funding..who are we bringing home Halliburton or our Troops? Even though I am sick and tired of throwing money into Iraq I would not want our troops there without basic needs.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:11 PM

Haliburton oddly enough relocated their headquarters in Iraq (correct me if I am wrong)... We won't be bringing them home. When you have corporations relocating their headquarters in the war zone, it has to beg the question, WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:16 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0913/p01s0...

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:18 PM

Haliburton moved to Dubai.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:19 PM

Easy to cover your tracks when you are thousands of miles from the people you just fleeced.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:20 PM

CORRECTION:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/dub...

Sorry, Haliburton relocated to Dubai...

Either to escape U.S. investigations or avoid taxes... Who knows.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:21 PM

LOL.. right there with you Nathan.. Sorry for that.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:21 PM

David, I think your question above is the most important question to be asked: Is this a war such as Vietnam or more like the general Cold War? I think the answer is yes.....to both. This is in fact a global war that demands much of our intelligence services (obviously this was a REAL problem when the Iraq war was gearing up) and boots on the ground where needed. And yes they will be needed. Now, as to whether they were needed in Iraq at that point in time, I think that is the real debate.

My point to this is that the US military has and always will be an instrument of political ideology. The Revolution, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Vietnam War all were of political origin. In WW I we were primarily drawn in as an ally of England. In WW II we were directly attacked. If you are the Commander in Chief, part of your responsibility is to protect American interests, not just the US or it's allies. Does staying in Iraq protect American interests? It's an interesting question with no easy answer. I am still convinced that an immediate pull out will lead to a nationwide civil war (remember, the worst of the violence in Iraq is confined to the central part of the country). This would also probably involve the Kurds who have shown tremendous economic and political development. If this were to occur, you can bank on Iranian AND Turkish troops coming into the country.

However, I think our welcome with the average Iraqi is wearing pretty thin. Our troops are stressed to the point now where any additional conflicts we are faced with would be hard to address.

Ok, at least we're well on our way to that 111 post over and under for this blog :)

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:23 PM

Ok, at least we're well on our way to that 111 post over and under for this blog :)

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:23 PM

As we should be...

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 10:25 PM

All I know is I have a nephew and a brother-in-law who have served 3 tours in Iraq and I don't hear them complaining about Bush or about being there.

I was under the impression that Congress agreed with Bush when they voted to send them there and they all think they are so much more intelligient.

-- Posted by stardust on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:49 AM

All I know is I have a nephew and a brother-in-law who have served 3 tours in Iraq and I don't hear them complaining about Bush or about being there.

I was under the impression that Congress agreed with Bush when they voted to send them there and they all think they are so much more intelligient.

-- Posted by stardust on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:49 AM

Well then we should keep fighting since your nephew and brother-in-law love war so much. Does your sister love war just as much? I'm sure she isn't worried one bit.

Congress did agree with Bush when the reason was weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. Now that we know it was all a deception (cooked up by politicians that ignored the experts) it is time to come.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 8:08 AM

OK, I've read everyone's opinion on this and here's mine:

I once said "Kill em all & let Allah sort em out". However, I not longer feel this way.

Since this is a war that we do not know who our friends are and who our enemies are, since terrorists are not going to be in a soldier uniform, and I heard on the news that Bush thinks we should have a permanent US presence there.

Since we have already had over 3000 of OUR troops die over there and over 20,000 injured I think we should get something for our troubles.

First I see no reason to let the nitwit Iraqi's have a government and try to run their country. We are over there, so lets run it for them. Put the country under martial law and whoever we deem to be the leader will direct things in OUR best interests.

Second since this country has an abundance of oil, then I think for every US dollar that has been spent and will be spent we should be reimbursed with oil at a price we set.

Our country and people did not get Iraq in the shape it was in, when Saddam was their leader. Their people did nothing to rise up against him and topple his regime even though he murdered so many of their own countrymen.

The Middle East is and always has been a powderkeg waiting to explode and when we went over during Desert Storm and did not finish the job of removing Saddam I suspected that we would be back for one reason or another. With the goes on in Iran & Lebanon it is probably just a matter of time, before we will have to return again.

I have these opinions because I feel that our troops that have sacrificed should not have died in vain and I can see no results in Iraq from their sacrifices. If my thoughts are not what it takes, then I hope someone (hopefully our leaders) can come up with some plan that will eventually show that our people did not die in vain.

JMHO,

William

-- Posted by HorseGentler on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 8:35 AM

It is all foretold ,it must happen . If we don't stop it over there it will come here . Does Armageddon ring a bell ? we will all be fighting there someday.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 6:35 PM

So will Armageddon be limited only to the middle east or will it be a worldwide conflict or will it be a conflict between men at all? You seem to know something that we do not. Perhaps you have spoken with God directly or he has sent a messenger to let you, the chosen one, know the exact date that the end will begin. Or even more likely, you are like countless other people that speak of the end every time something happens involving world conflict. Earthquake over there, wildfire here, watch out for the tsunami! The fact is that wars far greater than this, natural disasters of all sorts, and the loss of morals among God's people have been going on since the beginning of recorded history. The end will be a far louder message and will sharply divide the people of the world right in two. Your speculations that the beginning of the end is near is a long shot at very best and it will involve more than terrorists and tyrannical rulers. Your bible will help us find a solution to the problem. But first you really need to study the problem, something I don't think you have given any thought to at all Michael. These people in Iran and Iraq are upset because we and other western nations have been causing trouble for them for at least a century now and they are fed up with us. You would be upset too if the shoe were on the other foot. I love how George Bush in his address last night speaks of a free Iraq and then commences to dictating everything that a free Iraq is going to be and do. Bush is a simple man that just doesn't understand. He doesn't comprehend that not every person on the planet wants to eat at McDonald's or shop at WalMart. He is a globalist and these are things that he wants. I know that if need be we Americans would protect our sovereignty to the very last man, woman, and child. How can we blame any other nation for doing the same in theirs?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:03 AM

Right On Nathan!!!

The Iraqi's were not insurgents until we invaded their country. If indeed the shoe was on the other foot..would we be considered insurgents?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:15 AM

Thank God you aren't in charge. The whole world is already against us and with thinking like that, I can see why.

-- Posted by Revolution on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:19 AM

Hmmm, that's funny Rev cuz I have the same opinion about I'm glad YOU are not in charge. My point is that the Iraqi's let their country get in the shape it was in and did nothing to change it. They don't seem to have gotten any better with their current government. Since we are taking all the chances with our troops we should be running the country, until they prove they can do better, which would include their own troops providing all the security in their own country.

William

-- Posted by HorseGentler on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:42 AM

Oh and one more thing. No matter what the US does other countries are going to find fault, so We might as well do what is best for our country and those that don't like it can lump it.

William

-- Posted by HorseGentler on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:47 AM

Hmmm, that's funny Rev cuz I have the same opinion about I'm glad YOU are not in charge. My point is that the Iraqi's let their country get in the shape it was in and did nothing to change it. They don't seem to have gotten any better with their current government. Since we are taking all the chances with our troops we should be running the country, until they prove they can do better, which would include their own troops providing all the security in their own country.

William

-- Posted by HorseGentler on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:42 AM

This is yet another failed policy of the Bush administration. Without the large number of troops requested by General Shinseki it will not be and has not been possible to militarily govern Iraq. Now the people of Iraq are going to be very skeptical of democracy because it has not been working for them.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:58 AM

Well then we should keep fighting since your nephew and brother-in-law love war so much. Does your sister love war just as much? I'm sure she isn't worried one bit.

Congress did agree with Bush when the reason was weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. Now that we know it was all a deception (cooked up by politicians that ignored the experts) it is time to come.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 8:08 AM

I guess you'll be one of the ones calling them "baby-killers" I remember Vietnam.

And Congress should have been smart enough to question--dems included. They all agreed. Can't be blamed on one man--that's why the founding fathers included checks and balances.

oh yeah--worried, but proud.

-- Posted by stardust on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 4:38 PM

Actually, I didn't give my opinion on whether we should stay or not--I just don't see how we can put the blame on one man. There were other countries in it with us and I thought we used some of their intelligience. Bush didn't have the authority to send their troops.

If the sissy UN would do their job, it wouldn't have come to this.

By the way, we are already insurgents, only we are fighting illigal immigrants.

-- Posted by stardust on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:18 PM

I guess you'll be one of the ones calling them "baby-killers" I remember Vietnam.

-- Posted by stardust on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 4:38 PM

No, I would never do that. But surely they don't enjoy being in Iraq.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:26 PM

Defination of insurgents:

1.Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.

Please explain how that would refer to America's Fighting illegals?

As far as I know We haven't fought any illegals we just want them to go home where they belong.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:32 PM

Well we reached 111...

Nathan, Revolution, Diana, RIGHT ON!!!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:44 PM

"Oh and one more thing. No matter what the US does other countries are going to find fault, so We might as well do what is best for our country and those that don't like it can lump it."

William

YEAH, THAT'S THE ATTITUDE THAT GOT US INTO THIS WHOLE MESS.. THANKS THOUGH. IT DIDN'T AND ISN'T WORKING!

"Actually, I didn't give my opinion on whether we should stay or not--I just don't see how we can put the blame on one man. There were other countries in it with us and I thought we used some of their intelligience. Bush didn't have the authority to send their troops.

If the sissy UN would do their job, it wouldn't have come to this.

By the way, we are already insurgents, only we are fighting illigal immigrants."

-- Posted by stardust on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:18 PM

BUSH DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SEND THEIR TROOPS, YOU ARE CORRECT.. BUT MOST OF THOSE WHO DID SEND TROOPS ARE NOT IN IRAQ ANYMORE... THE "SISSY" UN IS IN PLACE FOR A REASON, AND FOR THE U.S. TO DEFY THE ENTIRE WORLD, SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT GERMANY DID IN WORLD WAR 2.

THE UN DID THEIR JOB AND THEY TOLD OUR PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS THERE WAS NO WMDs... AND IT WAS OUR BOTH BUSH AND CONGRESS'S FAULT FOR OUR TROOPS BEING THERE, THE DIFFERENCE IS MOST OF CONGRESS REALIZES IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE AND BUSH CONTINUES TO ACT LIKE EVERYTHING IS GOING WONDERFUL.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:48 PM

Actually he did have authority to send troops to Iraq based on the original 2002 Congressional resolution. The resolution was based on intelligence provided primarily by the CIA but also used international intelligence such as French and German sources. Obviously, there were a lot of guys who didn't finish spy school on that one. I think you have to look back on this decision in context. We had just been attacked and the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive action was now in force. Iraq made it way too easy by constantly ignoring UN resolutions. Were there WMDs when this originally came up: probably but when you talk about going to war for such a specific purpose for over a year, trust me you ditch the evidence. The guys who went over there first found evidence, but no large caches of weapons. Did we anticipate what would happen when we got there: nope, Rumsfeld completely got caught flat footed even though people in the Pentagon warned him that Saddam was keeping a tight lid on a lot of sectarian ill will. We also went in WAAAAYYYY too light and let thugs and terrorists get a foothold. Disbanding the Iraqi army was also a bad idea.

As much as everyone wants to blame Bush for everything bad that has happened (don't get me wrong he's the Commander in Chief and in the end, this is his pile of doo) he probably got horrible advice and intelligence that put the wheels in motion.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 10:15 PM

"Actually he did have authority to send troops to Iraq based on the original 2002 Congressional resolution."

We said, he didn't have the authority to send troops from OTHER countries...

"As much as everyone wants to blame Bush for everything bad that has happened (don't get me wrong he's the Commander in Chief and in the end, this is his pile of doo) he probably got horrible advice and intelligence that put the wheels in motion."

He did say HE WAS THE DECIDER (until everything goes wrong).. And as we know, he received great intelligence and the CIA warned him that he should not have cherry picked unconfirmed data in order to push his agenda... The CIA and FBI give their reports to ONE man EVERY SINGLE DAY... George Bush, NOT CONGRESS, not the V.P., nobody else...

And YES, they did tell him that most of the evidence was inconclusive, so much so that Colin Powell stepped down not long after the UN speech, because he could not continue to sell the case for war, when there wasn't one.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 10:21 PM

My bad, I misread the previous post.

I base my comments on talking with folks who had some knowlege of the intelligence that was presented. They feel that the some of the intelligence was just flat wrong or at least outdated by the time we got there. I think Colin Powell is and honorable man, and if he thought what he was saying was totally off the wall he would have resigned before the speech. I think he knew what kind of mess we were stepping into by getting rid of Saddam and wanted no part of it. That and his relationship with Rice and Rumsfeld was pretty bad at the end.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 10:49 PM

Colin Powell knew he was riding an EXTREMELY fine line, by being used as the seller of war to the U.N., case in point... We can not blame STARTING the war on just Bush, but it is his veto threat that we can blame on not allowing our troops to come home... And it is under HIS watch that we have not caught Osama for 7 and a half years.

Yes Clinton told the CIA to get bin Laden, and they didn't... We know that, but he tried and failed. Bush, gave up and said he wasn't even worried about him. What saddens me is that ENTIRELY TOOM ANY AMERICANS honestly can't locate Iraq or Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan on a map and yet they somehow think we belong in a country they can't even locate! Even worse than that, they have NO IDEA that IRAQ DOES NOT = 9/11 ... At ALL, so "attacking them before they attack us", is point blank flawed thinking.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:08 PM

"As was the case in the days leading up to the Persian Gulf War, Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Hussein, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Hussein. He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks--an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission. The main concession Powell wanted before he would offer his full support for the Iraq War was the involvement of the international community in the invasion, as opposed to the unilateral approach some of the hawks were advocating. He was also successful in persuading Bush to take the case of Iraq to the United Nations, and in moderating other initiatives. Powell was placed at the forefront of this diplomatic campaign.

While most observers praised Powell's oratorical skills, it later emerged that all of the evidence that Powell offered to support the allegation that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was false. This was proven beyond any reasonable doubt by the Iraq Survey Group's final report, which was published in 2004. Sidney Blumenthal subsequently revealed that in 2002 the CIA had actually obtained reliable evidence according to which Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction. The CIA's report was reportedly dismissed by George W. Bush, and was never shared with Powell."

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:23 PM

IMPORTANT ADDED INFO!

"Vice President Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Larry Wilkerson later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:26 PM

Yes and even though Colin Powell advised us to put a lid on it...what did we do? We just stirred that pot even more.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 11:46 PM

Defination of insurgents:

1.Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.

Please explain how that would refer to America's Fighting illegals?

As far as I know We haven't fought any illegals we just want them to go home where they belong.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:32 PM

As far as I'm concerned, they are the established authority in our Country. Mexico seems to think so anyway. We are fighting them coming across the border every day and when they commit murder and rape and steal our identities.

THE UN DID THEIR JOB AND THEY TOLD OUR PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS THERE WAS NO WMDs... AND IT WAS OUR BOTH BUSH AND CONGRESS'S FAULT FOR OUR TROOPS BEING THERE, THE DIFFERENCE IS MOST OF CONGRESS REALIZES IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE AND BUSH CONTINUES TO ACT LIKE EVERYTHING IS GOING WONDERFUL.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 5:48 PM

The UN gave them a deadline and consequences, but didn't follow through. I guess you missed the part where they were helping Sadam skim the money for food.

-- Posted by stardust on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 3:14 PM

"The UN gave them a deadline and consequences, but didn't follow through. I guess you missed the part where they were helping Sadam skim the money for food."

Follow through with what? Showing proof that Iraq posessed WMDs... We haven't even found proof, and WHATEVER WMDs they may have very well had, CAME FROM AMERICA. Donald Rumsfield sold Saddam the very weapons we couldn't find... IRONIC HUH?

Remember the handshake between Rumsfield and Saddam when the Iran Contra was an issue and we sold Iraq weapons to defend themselves. Just a little strange that we sell a country weapons, and the same people in Bush's administration who were once Saddam's friends suddenly became his enenmy long before 9/11.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 4:56 PM

A few last thoughts:

We are following the same--(term used loosely because I know some bloggers will interpret it and anything else said to fit their own agenda)--road with Iran.

I guess we'll soon find out how the new president will handle it. Based on the consensus of this blog, I'm sure if it is a democrat he/she can do no wrong. Just remember,in following precedent, we can't put any blame on ANY preceding presidents or congresses whether they are Republicans or Democrats. I will make sure I vote, because I don't want another Clinton.

I am also interested to see how the UN handles this situation.

I guess we need to bring home all our troops from all over the world and when we are invaded by terrorists, we can all fight for ourselves as individual citizens.

Hope you're ready.

lahtidah,lahtidah,lahtidah

-- Posted by stardust on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 7:22 PM

Yeah we create terrorists when we go into countries that don't want us there, and don't want us spreading our so-called (and non existant) democratic way of life.

There were absolutely no terrorists bombing Iraq or blowing up anything until America stuck it's nose into something it didn't belong in. We have been invaded by terrorists, it's called the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 9:49 PM

"We are following the same--(term used loosely because I know some bloggers will interpret it and anything else said to fit their own agenda)--road with Iran.

I guess we'll soon find out how the new president will handle it. Based on the consensus of this blog, I'm sure if it is a democrat he/she can do no wrong. Just remember,in following precedent, we can't put any blame on ANY preceding presidents or congresses whether they are Republicans or Democrats. I will make sure I vote, because I don't want another Clinton.

I am also interested to see how the UN handles this situation.

I guess we need to bring home all our troops from all over the world and when we are invaded by terrorists, we can all fight for ourselves as individual citizens.

Hope you're ready.

lahtidah,lahtidah,lahtidah"

-- Posted by stardust on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 7:22 PM

We are not following the same road with Iran.. Iraq had no WMDs, and we still blew them to shreads just to be proved wrong, Iran claims to have nuclear capabilities, and we have not one U.N. weapons inspector in there country [i.e. we attacked the WRONG COUNTRY IRA-Q(N)]

Yeah, heaven forbid we place blame on a Democrat, especially Clinton who hasn't been president for the last 7.5 years, who hasn't authorized a war based on lies, and who hasn't continued to defy the will of the U.N., we soon will face reparations for our bleek and unconcious hardships we cause (I don't know how, but it is bound to happen.) Blame EVERYTHING on Clinton why don't you, I go so far as to say it like you "I am sure if it were a Conservative, such as Bush, he could do no wrong."

It doesnt't matter how the U.N. handles this situation, the U.S. will ignore every single warning and turn a blind eye to the truth in order to spread it's ever-changing agenda. Lastly, another Clinton is not our problem.. It is the UN-ELECTED Bush that needs to be planted back in Texas.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 9:57 PM

Save the environment Plant a Bush In Texas

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 10:50 PM

Alan Greenspans words :

"Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy," Greenspan wrote.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil," added Greenspan, who for decades had been one of the most respected U.S. voices on fiscal policies.

After more than 18 years at the helm, Greenspan retired in January 2006 as chairman of the Fed, the nation's central bank, which regulates monetary policy.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Sep 16, 2007, at 3:50 PM

I know this is WAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic, but I have nowhere else to bring this up... Bush isn't a huge fan of the ACLU because he says they are trying to rid America of freedoms rather than protect them... Well this ought to prove him wrong.

So here is my proof about the ACLU protecting EVERYONE:

Solicitation for private sex, regardless if it occurs in a bar or a restroom, is protected speech under the First Amendment," said a news release from the ACLU. "When free speech rights come into play, police enforcement actions must be 'carefully crafted' so that they don't unnecessarily ensnare people who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech."

Instead of having an undercover cop sit in a bathroom stall waiting to be solicited, the ACLU says police should have had a uniformed officer patrol the restroom and posted a sign in warning visitors that it was being monitored.

Although Craig has "not always been a great friend of civil liberties," he deserves the same constitutional protections as every other citizen, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said.

"Government should make public restrooms safe for all, but it should do so in a manner that is really designed to stop inappropriate behavior, rather than destroying the lives of people who might have no intention of doing anything illegal," Romero said in the news release.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Sep 17, 2007, at 8:22 PM

last word

-- Posted by yallfunny on Mon, Sep 17, 2007, at 8:37 PM

Someone please tell me where to get this oil that we went to Iraq for.

-- Posted by educated hillbilly on Mon, Sep 17, 2007, at 8:39 PM

darrick_04, I'm making a separate blog post for the ACLU issue. That deserves its own thread.

-- Posted by David Melson on Mon, Sep 17, 2007, at 8:55 PM

Darrick I wondered if you would bite on that tidbit in Greenspan's book. I listened to Greenspan this morning in an interview and he said the war was about oil, but maybe not in the way you think. He said since Saddam had shown his hand in attempting to invade south at least once, he posed a direct threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Straits of Hormuz. This would put a large portion of the world's oil supply at the mercy of a madman. Therefore, it was essential (his words not mine) that Saddam be removed to prevent a worldwide economic disaster. He also added, he had no knowledge of any offensive weapons because he was not privy to any security briefings. Funny how the press sorta left those little details out.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Mon, Sep 17, 2007, at 9:13 PM

Also funny how I took his words directly and simply posted them. I neither defend or ridicule what Greenspan said, I just thought it was quite remarkable, that's all...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Sep 17, 2007, at 9:30 PM

You know my dad used to say "You should mow your own back yard before mowing someone else's". Our country is falling apart cause we are so busy mowing iraq's back yard. We are spending all this money on feeding,clothing and housing another country while we have people in our country starving and homeless with only the clothes on their back. Bush is trying to make himself look good by bringing some troops home but I say too little too late.

-- Posted by shauna4040 on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 7:13 AM

shauna4040, loved your comment. and I completely agree. We need to help OUR people not other countries that don't want our help.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 12:42 PM

You know my dad used to say "You should mow your own back yard before mowing someone else's". Our country is falling apart cause we are so busy mowing iraq's back yard. We are spending all this money on feeding,clothing and housing another country while we have people in our country starving and homeless with only the clothes on their back. Bush is trying to make himself look good by bringing some troops home but I say too little too late.

-- Posted by shauna4040 on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 7:13 AM

You hit the nail on the head with that one!!!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 1:11 PM

So you all think it's that simple-just bring the troops home. Do you have any other advice for us to get out of this predicament? I mean, in addition to just saying how much you hate bush.

-- Posted by clarabelle on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 6:16 PM

It was that simple to deploy our troops to Iraq why is it so difficult to re-deploy them?

The president has been given several different disertations on how to get out of the mess, but his "stay the course" (OF DISASTER) thinking will never be changed. The people protested our presence in Vietnam for a reason, and people who served there knew it was a no-win situation, and those are the very same people speaking out against Iraq, along with a country that is sick and tired of being lied to and treated like puppets on a string. YES, George Bush and his regime tactically fooled this country into allowing Anti-Constitutional laws to be passed all in the name of fear. We have all realized since then, the only person to fear is the one you give all that power to!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 6:49 PM

Where's your advice? I know it's as easy to bring the troops home. What happens to Iraq next. Mistake or not, lied to or not, they still have to face living. All you and others want to do is complain about something. After this it will be something else. You are spewing as many lies as anyone and that is just as dangerous.

I'm just as afraid of all the riots that "peacemakers" start(Who defaced the Wall?) I doubt it was Vets--You don't have to read history to be a part of it and I don't pretend to know about things that I wasn't a part of. I saw what happened during all the protests and it was quite scary.

If the 04 is the year you graduated, then you weren't even around during Vietnam. My brother went as did many of my friends' brothers, so you don't need to be saying anything about Vietnam--Just like I don't say anything about WWII, but listen to my Father-in-Law who brought back a Nazi helmet from the battlefields of France or his German Brother-in-Law who fought on our side against his own brothers.

You're like the Wizard of Oz--just hot air.

-- Posted by clarabelle on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 7:46 PM

So where are your answers?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 7:52 PM

The point of Vietnam is you don't make the same mistake twice... I wasn't here either, but I have a mother, a father, 7 uncles and 6 aunts, two sets of grandparents and until recently two great grandparents, now only 1... and each of them remember what it felt like to live in a country that was completely split... There are ALOT of similarities between Vietnam and Iraq. 1) Gas prices more than tripled during both wars 2) America had allies in the beginning and at the outset most were nowhere to be found 3) Both conflicts have strengthened civil war in those countries and caused "terrorists" to pour into the nations in order to protect their own... 4) Americans were once FOR both wars, and both wars lost popularity and the people remain unconvinced that either caused anything to be better than it once was. 5) And last but not least, the people protested and spoke out, and neither president who was in power before they left their respective terms got us out of the war.. it took (in Vietnam) and will take a new direction of leadership to realize, there is nothing more we can do for a country that doesn't want our help.

When you lose all respect from around the world, because you ask for their opinions (UN) and ignore every bit of advice they give you (which has proved to be true), then no solution you provide is going to believed or taken seriously..

Countering violence with more violence ISN'T the answer, trying to convince people (who's country you have obliterated only to partially and insufficiently rebuilt) that you are there to bring peace, ISN'T the answer. Using the same, OVER AND OVER AND OVER again failed policy that has been PROVEN ineffective, yet again ISN'T the answer.

The answer you are waiting for, will come in a little event calld the Presedential election... When we finally get rid of our own dictator and topple his regime, the answers that have been suggested will finally begin to be implemented.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 8:04 PM

You all are the ones saying you have all the answers. Guess all you have are gripes.

My own suggestion to start with would be to pull back to Kuwait and see what happens. I wouldn't have started the war but I would have wanted Sadam and his sons taken out just because they were torturers, murderers and rapists as I would any person(s) who acted the way they did. {by the way, 2 of my friends in high school were Iranians who came here so they wouldn't get hit with some of the WMDs that didn't exist}.

-- Posted by clarabelle on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 8:08 PM

clarabelle, We deposed Saddam and the Baath party for the Iraqis. We do not owe them, they owe us. Civil war is inevitable and we should not expect our troops to get in the middle of them. We cannot choose the system of government for the Iraqi people. They must do this themselves and if it requires a civil war then that is their decision not ours.

Your argument that one has to be there to understand a period of history is very weak. Do geologists have to witness the creation of rocks to understand how they are made? Of course not. Hindsight is 20/20, you know that. An historian that seeks the testimony of those that were actually there and that studies the causes and effects of what happened can deduce theories, facts, and understanding thus making them experts without ever being there.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 8:09 PM

I can't wait for the election. Then we will have someone else to blame--Democrat or Republican. Gore would have been fine with me. We'd all be paying environmental taxes by now even though all the politicians are racking up emissions with all their politikin.

-- Posted by clarabelle on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 8:11 PM

I didn't say one had to be there, I said one didn't have to read about it to be a part of it. Unfortunately, when you read about it, you don't always get the whole picture.

-- Posted by clarabelle on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 8:16 PM

Right on Nathan and Darrick. Agreed on all points.

and clarabelle, like I tell everybody else, if you feel so strongly about the war, sign up and go fight.

I can't wait for the election either, hopefully a new start and a new nation. One that will have the respect of all nations. We have no business over there and with the upcoming election immediate withdrawal is imminent.

I, for one will not be blaming the new president for Mr. Bush's mistakes (because lord knows they will be inheriting a boat load of them)It will take the first 4 years alone to rebuild relations with other countries that now hate us and view us as a bunch of bullies, I will only hope and pray that he/she will make better judegements for our country and our servicemen/women

-- Posted by Vindicated on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 8:18 PM

I'd rather be paying environmental taxes that may actually protect our country than war taxes that will eventually destroy us...

And I don't think we should begin to pull out all at once either. Our troops should not have to die in vain for some greedy men in Washington who should have been there fighting for their own causes. One of the MANY suggestions that have been discussed in this blog and a multitude of others, if you would read... has been to implement a gradual reduction of troops and for heavens sake SET A DEADLINE...

You do NOT get the expected results if you allow them to have as much time as the future holds to get it right. If America sat back and waited on another country to bail us out in the 1700s, instead of our people getting their act together and forming a government in dyer need, we'd still be fighting for independence. By the way, Nearly 100 years AFTER we became a country, there was a civil war. We can not prevent that kind of thing from happening, we couldn't prevent it here, much less in a place that isn't open to the "American way" of life...

One of the beauties of our country is that we can blame people for involving us in issues that did not directly affect us (other than oil)... That's why we vote. And those that vote have a right to seek justice when their leaders have stopped representing the people for the sake of big business and special interests lobbyists...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Sep 18, 2007, at 8:23 PM

I would love to go, but the Military has age requirements and won't let me. I am deleting all shortcuts to T_G from my computer and will stop reading it because I am truly afraid of all the violence that you "peace protesters" will be stirring up in your efforts.

I want my life to be calm as long as it can--until you all become terrorists to the rest of us who don't agree with all your points of view. You pick out what you want to gripe about and don't try to see any part of anyone else's points of view.

That is history repeating itself--the part you choose to ignore.

-- Posted by clarabelle on Wed, Sep 19, 2007, at 4:59 AM

I am deleting all shortcuts to T_G from my computer and will stop reading it because I am truly afraid of all the violence that you "peace protesters" will be stirring up in your efforts.

-- Posted by clarabelle on Wed, Sep 19, 2007, at 4:59 AM

Good.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Sep 19, 2007, at 10:37 AM

I can't wait for the election either, hopefully a new start and a new nation Posted by Vindicated

AMEN

1/20/09 The End Of An ERROR.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 19, 2007, at 5:14 PM

I am deleting all shortcuts to T_G from my computer and will stop reading it because I am truly afraid of all the violence that you "peace protesters" will be stirring up in your efforts.

-- Posted by clarabelle on Wed, Sep 19, 2007, at 4:59 AM

YAY!!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Sep 19, 2007, at 7:16 PM

R. Buckminster Fuller- Either war is obsolete or men are.

Eleanor Roosevelt- We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together and if we are to live together we have to talk.

Issac Asimov- Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.

Herbert Hoover- Older men declare war. But it's the youth who must fight and die!

Jeannette Rankin, First Woman Member of Congress- You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.

General Omar Bradley- In war there is no prize for the runner-up.

Winston Churchill- When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.

Martin Luther King, Jr.- Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.

Ernest Hemmingway- They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 20, 2007, at 5:39 PM

"Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both." ~Abraham Flexner

"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose--and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

"Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived."

"I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

~ Abraham Lincoln

"All nations want peace, but they want a peace that suits them." ~Admiral Sir John Fisher

"In war, truth is the first casualty." ~Aeschylus

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." ~Aesop

"One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one." ~Agatha Christie

"Force always attracts men of low morality."

"How vile and despicable war seems to me! I would rather be hacked to pieces than take part in such an abominable business."

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

"Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war."

~Albert Einstein

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Sep 20, 2007, at 5:53 PM

-- Posted by yallfunny on Mon, Sep 24, 2007, at 5:08 PM

Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Sat, Oct 13, 2007, at 10:25 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.