1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys, 'We will never "interfere" again.'
Obviously sarcasm and not a serious suggestion.
2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.
Just more sarcasm I presume. I would hope.
3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.
As if we already knew where they all were and we were just letting them stay for the heck of it.
4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.
A rather racist statement.
5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.
Yes, I'm sure all foreign students over the age of 21 are bombers.
6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise.
A "strong effort"? Sounds like mostly wishful thinking. As if it was that easy and we just like buying foreign oil.
This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.
Again, as if one could simply wish such a thing into existence. And as if there were enough oil in Alaska to solve all of our energy needs.
7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)
An obvious ignorance of economics. And as if the American people would stand for such an oil shortage when *no one* sells it to us at that price.
8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.
Mean cynicism.
9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
Well, we don't actually need to have the UN here, but there's still an obvious mean spirit behind this statement.
10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.
This is something to be concerned about?
The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE...
1) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.
Why shouldn't we remove our troops from Germany?
2) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.
To some degree I think we do know about many illegal aliens and we are turning a blind eye. Especially liberals who think it is great to have illegal aliens and are even willing to provide their needs at public expense.
3) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.
A rather racist statement.
I think the statement is based on fact.
4) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.
Yes, I'm sure all foreign students over the age of 21 are bombers.
That isn't what the statement says at all. It simply states that the net needs to be cast wide in order to catch what you want.
5) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise.
A "strong effort"? Sounds like mostly wishful thinking. As if it was that easy and we just like buying foreign oil.
We could start by drilling in Alaska but liberals won't hear of it.
Again, as if one could simply wish such a thing into existence. And as if there were enough oil in Alaska to solve all of our energy needs.
Like you know how much oil is there. I can tell you the oil companies won't drill there unless they think there is enough oil to make a profit.
6) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.
Mean cynicism.
Why keep offering aid if it isn't going to be appreciated or if it is misused? So liberals can feel good about themselves?
7) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
Well, we don't actually need to have the UN here, but there's still an obvious mean spirit behind this statement.
Mean spirited? Most of the countries in the UN hate the US. Many will do anything to undermine us. And they do so with a mean spirit. But I am sure that is just because Americans do not understand them.
8) The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE...
More hatred and bigotry.
Not at all. If you want to maintain a stable society there must be a unifying spirit. It can start by everyone speaking the same language then moving on to instilling American ideals. If we keep going like we are going the US could become balkanized.
As if we already knew where they all were and we were just letting them stay for the heck of it.
In some places, especially California, we do just let them stay here.
Hell, we even let them vote. We issue them drivers licenses., Allow them public services.
Liberal Democrats encourage it. It gets them votes.
Did you know Gray Davis supported a recall election against a state politician that put security at polling stations to prevent illegals from voting? I think the guys name was/is Pringle.
Yes, I'm sure all foreign students over the age of 21 are bombers.
That's not what the statement says. It says that all bombers were over 21, not that all over 21 were bombers.
A "strong effort"? Sounds like mostly wishful thinking. As if it was that easy and we just like buying foreign oil.
If Americans buckled down, we drilled the ANWR, and took advantage of the hundreds of drilling rights already issued in the Gulf of Mexico, we'd have a lot more power against oil producing countries in the Middle East.
Besides, we get little of our oil from the Middle East. We get most of our oil from South America & Canada.
To some degree I think we do know about many illegal aliens and we are turning a blind eye. Especially liberals who think it is great to have illegal aliens and are even willing to provide their needs at public expense.
There's a cost to identifying them, apprehending them, and then deporting them. And even then, they might just be able to sneak back in. On the other hand, if they have jobs and consume goods, they provide some economic benefit (and the jobs they take are ones most people wouldn't want anyway). So the benefit to cost ratio of rounding them all up and getting rid of them is pretty questionable.
Why is that a racist statement? I don't see race even being mentioned.
Semantics. Call it what you will. Clearly it's implying that the people from these countries aren't capable of doing anything other than drive cabs or cashier. To the extent that Jethro says it's a statement "based in fact" one can presume then it's referring to the people we most often see in those positions who are not white. You know, I actually can't believe anyone has an interest in defending that statement. It's saying "we don't care if you're going to get killed in your own country. We don't want you coming around here and stinking things up!" And that's exactly the same mentality that prevailed before WWII when we wouldn't let the Jews from Germany and the rest of Europe flee here. Let them stay over there and end up in concentration camps. We can be appalled over it later as long as we don't have to deal with more foreigners competing for what we have here.
That isn't what the statement says at all. It simply states that the net needs to be cast wide in order to catch what you want.
That's not what the statement says. It says that all bombers were over 21, not that all over 21 were bombers.
No, it does say all students over 21 are bombers. It's saying any "student" over 21 isn't really a student, they're a terrorist. And in casting such a wide net, a lot more innocents will be caught than bombers.
Like you know how much oil is there. I can tell you the oil companies won't drill there unless they think there is enough oil to make a profit.
Of course there's a profit there. But that's hardly the same thing as saying there's a sufficient supply to end our dependence on foreign oil.
Why keep offering aid if it isn't going to be appreciated or if it is misused? So liberals can feel good about themselves?
I find it interesting that you didn't even pause to question the validity of the original statement. Isn't it likely that it's just a biased media distorting the otherwise rosy picture because bad news sells better than good news?
Not at all. If you want to maintain a stable society there must be a unifying spirit. It can start by everyone speaking the same language then moving on to instilling American ideals. If we keep going like we are going the US could become balkanized.
I agree that everyone should learn English. It's obviously to their advantage to do so. But I'm not going to tell someone they have to leave if I don't think they're learning it fast enough. Though I think it's a bad idea, I think it's still an American freedom to choose to not learn the language.
There's a cost to identifying them, apprehending them, and then deporting them. And even then, they might just be able to sneak back in. On the other hand, if they have jobs and consume goods, they provide some economic benefit (and the jobs they take are ones most people wouldn't want anyway).
Then Petitioner Congress to get rid of immigration laws. I am sure you will have an ally in our friend crabs. But there is a cost in providing services, too. If they do apply for a drivers license and illegal aliens can get a drivers license won't they have to prove they are illegal? if they are illegal it should be rather easy to take them into custody.
Semantics. Call it what you will. Clearly it's implying that the people from these countries aren't capable of doing anything other than drive cabs or cashier. Probably because they don't know the language!
No, it does say all students over 21 are bombers. It's saying any "student" over 21 isn't really a student, they're a terrorist. And in casting such a wide net, a lot more innocents will be caught than bombers. They aren't American citizens so frankly I don't care. Send them home if it will reduce the risks.
Of course there's a profit there. But that's hardly the same thing as saying there's a sufficient supply to end our dependence on foreign oil. If there is enough oil there to justify the costs of extraction there is no reason not to do so. How much it will reduce reliance on foreign oil is not a question that can be answered now. It is just anti-drilling propaganda to say that there will be no reduction of foreign oil imports.
I find it interesting that you didn't even pause to question the validity of the original statement. Why should I? That is history. Here is just one example: Somalia.
I agree that everyone should learn English. It's obviously to their advantage to do so. But I'm not going to tell someone they have to leave if I don't think they're learning it fast enough. No one said anything like that. The point is we need to stop making it easier not to learn English by providing things like instructions at voting booths in anything other than English.
If they do apply for a drivers license and illegal aliens can get a drivers license won't they have to prove they are illegal? if they are illegal it should be rather easy to take them into custody.
I wouldn't agree with giving illegal aliens a driver's license. Why call them illegal if you're going to give them a legal ID? But I'd still question the motivations of anyone that feels strongly we need to go on a drive to round them all up and get them all out.
How much it will reduce reliance on foreign oil is not a question that can be answered now. It is just anti-drilling propaganda to say that there will be no reduction of foreign oil imports.
I'm sure any amount of oil will reduce it somewhat. But I doubt it well eliminate it. The real question here and in many other situations is whether the short term benefit to the economy is worth the possible long terms costs to the environment? How much do we value a pristine wilderness as compared to how much do we value getting our oil a bit cheaper? Obviously it depends on who you ask. I for one though think we've been underestimating the costs to the environment.
The point is we need to stop making it easier not to learn English by providing things like instructions at voting booths in anything other than English.
It's my understanding that one must be a U.S. citizen to vote. And I was also under the impression that one must show a knowledge of English to become a citizen. So I would have to admit to being puzzled why there would need to be instructions for voting in anything other than English.
No one said anything like that.
The author of the original piece did. Which is why I figured it wasn't Robin Williams as I was under the impression he was pretty liberal.
Allison wrote: I agree that everyone should learn English. It's obviously to their advantage to do so. But I'm not going to tell someone they have to leave if I don't think they're learning it fast enough.
my response: No one said anything like that.
Allison stated: The author of the original piece did.
The writer actually said: "The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE..." Just to be accurate he didn't put a time limit on learning English.
(and the jobs they take are ones most people wouldn't want anyway)
Clearly it's implying that the people from these countries aren't capable of doing anything other than drive cabs or cashier. To the extent that Jethro says it's a statement "based in fact" one can presume then it's referring to the people we most often see in those positions who are not white. You know, I actually can't believe anyone has an interest in defending that statement.
The jobs illegal aliens take tend to be ones that are low-profile, on a cash basis, or anything else where one can get away with hiring someone without an I-9 on file. Those jobs are ones no one would generally want unless circumstances dictated that they had to take it.
By BENJAMIN WEISER (NYT) 1208 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 2 ABSTRACT - Federal grand jury in Manhattan returns 238-count indictment charging Saudi exile Osama bin Laden in bombings of two US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in Aug and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad; Government officials offer two rewards of $5 million each for information leading to arrest or conviction of bin Laden and Muhammad Atef, his chief military commander; prosecutors also unseal earlier indictment, issued in June, that includes similar but less detailed charges against bin Laden; new indictment accuses him of leading vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to present, in which he is said to have been working in concert withSudan, Iraqand Iran and terrorist groups to build weapons and attack US military installations;photos (M)
you mean the one's that got whitewashed off the 9/11 report?
Bttt...Saudi Arabia is al-Qaeda's new and immediate target because a number of al-Qaeda suspects are now believed to be in Saudi jails, they expelled Osama, etc. and you are trying to say that Bush is somehow responsible for not blaming their government???
Not suprisingly, you missed the Iraqi government conection though.
Notices that you provided no proof of what you said about president Bush either. If I call you a childmolester, that does not make you one does it? Same applies here. Throwing wild accusations out there hoping that they stick does not help your case any.
I don't know why Bush isn't blaming them.
neither do you.
Gee, maybe because their government had nothing to do with it and has helped us in the past?
If I call you a childmolester, that does not make you one does it? Same applies here.
if by being one, someone made huge political gains, put in place laws to give them all sorts of power and to make huge profits for their friends, don't you think that maybe you might want to find out?
JT...you DO know that most if not ALL of the South American countries that supply us with Oil, are members of OPEC, and that OPEC is mostly controlled by the Arab States, right?
LOL
You should have looked that up first.
Besides, the only reason Venezuela is a member of OPEC is because it's in their best interest. If the US suddenly stopped buying oil from OPEC countries, I'm pretty sure Venezuela would free themselves of OPEC in a heartbeat. If not, oh well their loss. We'd get plenty of oil from the US, Canada, & Mexico.
for all we know, Bush had the Saudis do 9/11 for him.
That's more than silly, that's asinine. It's like blaming Clinton for the Oklahoma bombing.
But maybe you're on to something. For all we know, you and your buddies did it.
if they had nothing to do with it, why are their pages blanked out in the report?
You don't read the news much do you or is it you only read what you want to hear? Because it is part of an on going investigation and they didn't want to much info on what is known out there for those being investigated to know.
Now, getting back to the original point that started all this, do you believe that there was a tie between Saddam and Osama?
My impression was that they were busy working just trying to get it back to pre-war levels. But before the war, there was an embargo against them and I thought they could only sell so much. So I was thinking even if they do get it to pre-war levels, it still isn't going to make a huge impact. They would have to expand beyond that and who knows how long that will take?
"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 times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 reinvigorated 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, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate 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." Senator 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.
"[W]ithout 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.
Though President Bush chose to make weapons of mass destruction his principal argument against Saddam, Burns writes, "this war could have been justified any time on the basis of human rights alone. This was a grotesque charnel house, and also a genuine threat to us. We had the power to end it and we did end it."
The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.
These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.
But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.
During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined.
Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.
Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.
We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.
-- U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Interesting, LUV. Just a couple days ago you were almost LIVID that I even suggested that this conflict was in any way related to or comparable to the Vietnam conflict, yet here you are posting a story that says, "The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam", and in the very first sentence.
You said you were comparing it politically. In fact in post #2965 you said...... "LUV, first of all, you wasted a lot of bandwidth to explain the geological differences in these two countries/Wars, but my point was about the Political Quagmire, and I said so... Succinctly."
So did you change youre mind? One minute you're saying you were talking politically and the next talking about the combat phase and mentioning how you predicted it.
I stand by what I said I don't think the comparisons are valid, there's so many differencers wether we're talking politically or comabt wise.
Funny thing... I predicted that very same thing, MONTHS ago.
Like when you said we were bogged down after a week ?
Absolute Bullshit. There are SO many media oulets with SO many "Points Of View", (guaranteed by our First Amendment by the way), that this article is so much sour grapes, from one angry source.
Yes there are many points of view. Sadly that's not what the mainstream press is giving, it's all one sided and that's the point. Ask the troops how they feel about it. An angry source ? Well he's a Democratic congressman so perhaps you're right. He's angry that the one sided media coverage is harming our troops because it is. Not to mention those patient people back at home.
It's just that the BAD, is much more apparent than the GOOD, and not because of the press, but because this is now a Guerrilla War, just like it was in 1968, and the outcome COULD become the same, UNLESS we take measures to get OUT, sooner, rather than later.
The only reason it's more apparent is because of the coverage. Where do you think reporters go for stories ? Can you say Sunni triangle ? The negatives outweigh the positive stories 200 to 1. When the opposite is the truth. There are more murders in the US everyday. You want us to leave, well I can tell you the people I've talked to that are there want to finish the job. As much as they want to go home they also know unlike some what's at stake. Leaving right now would be the absolute worse thing we could do, we left many places over the years and it didn't work.
Well here's some more angry sources for you. Some of the congressmen who just returned from Iraq.
Journalists are giving a slanted and unduly negative account of events in Iraq, a bipartisan congressional group that has just returned from a three-day House Armed Services Committee visit to assess stabilization efforts and the condition of U.S. troops said.
Lawmakers charged that reporters rarely stray from Baghdad and have a “police-blotter” mindset that results in terror attacks, deaths and injuries displacing accounts of progress in other areas.
Comparisons with Vietnam were farfetched, members said.
Another angry Dem.
Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) explained that the longer he was in Iraq, the more skeptical he became of his previous assumptions.
Some of the media reports led him to believe that “it was Vietnam revisited,” he said. But he said there was “a disconnect between the reporting and the reality.”
He should ask people living here apparently it is.
Marshall also claimed that there now are only 27 reporters in Iraq, down from 779 at the height of the war. “The reporters that are there are all huddled in a hotel. They are not getting out and reporting,” he told The Hill.
He added, “The good news is not being reported in the conventional press.”
Another angry source.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said: “We were all like-minded in our conversations, not robotic at all, but we saw the real progress that is being made, that we are not at all mired.”
Wilson, once a print reporter, strongly criticized the balance of his former profession’s story selection. “Sure, show the bloody side, but get away from this police-blotter mindset. There’s much more going on, ” he said.
“Just on Friday, I heard a CBS radio report on the three deaths and then they had this analysis that just bordered on the hysterical,” Wilson said.
Adding, “CBS got it exactly wrong, the media portrayed it as an act of sophistication and a regrouping of Saddam’s forces, when in fact, it’s an indication of disorganization and desperation.”
And another.
Another member of the delegation, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), agreed that the stabilization effort is making headway. “In fairness, the war is neither going as well as the administration says it’s going or as badly as the media says it is going,” Taylor said.
Republicans were left out of the press conference, but they stressed that they shared their Democratic counterparts’ assessments about the bravery of the troops and the innovative programs, especially in the northern part of the country.
Democrats concurred that the delegation of Armed Services Committee members was a model of harmony and bipartisan consensus. “We agreed on 99 percent of what we saw,” Skelton told The Hill.
Question do liberals want the US to withdraw from Iraq? Do they think that is a good idea? Do they think that there was no valid reason to go into Iraq at all? Or is it all about politics and the hell with the US security as long as they get power at home?
Question do liberals want the US to withdraw from Iraq?
No. I don't think that would accomplish anything. It would it only undo whatever good has been accomplished, it would also make us still seem like a bully, but now a bully that doesn't clean up after itself either. I think we do need to make this less about us and what we want though and the way Bush is handling it, I don't think that's happening.
Do they think that is a good idea?
To the degree that I criticize it, is only to point out how badly the thing was thought out to begin with and how we're now suffering the consequences of Bush's decisions early on. Hopefully the country will be less willing to follow him blindly into another such adventure.
Do they think that there was no valid reason to go into Iraq at all?
The end doesn't justify the means in this case. A case could have been made to depose him simply for his brutality. But that case would have had to have been made and agreed upon ahead of time and not forced on us in retrospect. But the problem isn't even so much the reason as the method. Acting in defiance of the UN put a spin on this whole thing that this was really about America and what America wanted as opposed to being about what the world wanted and what the world considered to be simply right. This served to alienate our friends and give resolve to our enemies. And now it seems that in their haste to fight a war, they didn't plan for the aftermath very well. They should have waited and built greater concensus.
Or is it all about politics and the hell with the US security as long as they get power at home?
Question do liberals want the US to withdraw from Iraq?
No. I don't think that would accomplish anything. It would it only undo whatever good has been accomplished, it would also make us still seem like a bully, but now a bully that doesn't clean up after itself either. I think we do need to make this less about us and what we want though and the way Bush is handling it, I don't think that's happening.
That doesn't seem to be what the likes of the leading democrap candidates are saying. And I hear nothing about how they would do things differently in Iraq. They just want to score political points.
To the degree that I criticize it, is only to point out how badly the thing was thought out to begin with and how we're now suffering the consequences of Bush's decisions early on. Hopefully the country will be less willing to follow him blindly into another such adventure.
The thing was thought out just fine. it is just the carping about the fact that there is opposition that lends credence to such crap. I don't even think the democraps believe what they say. Anyone with a clue knew what was going to happen.
Do they think that there was no valid reason to go into Iraq at all?
The end doesn't justify the means in this case. A case could have been made to depose him simply for his brutality. But that case would have had to have been made and agreed upon ahead of time and not forced on us in retrospect.
Nonsense. There isn't a democrap alive that doesn't agree that Saddam should have been taken out. They just wanted a democrap to do it. Liberals are dishonest about this. They lie to themselves and they lie to others. They would be truly dangerous if they were ever to regain any power in this country.
But the problem isn't even so much the reason as the method. Acting in defiance of the UN put a spin on this whole thing that this was really about America and what America wanted as opposed to being about what the world wanted and what the world considered to be simply right. This served to alienate our friends and give resolve to our enemies. And now it seems that in their haste to fight a war, they didn't plan for the aftermath very well. They should have waited and built greater concensus.
What friends? The UN is a worthless organization with many members that will oppose the US no matter what they do. The US needs to look out for its own interests. One of those is to get out of the UN and send it packing form the US. The UN doesn't care about democracy whatsoever.
We should have left it to the UN. I mean why not replace the most effective fighting force on the planet with blue helemt soilders from Lithuania.
Yes it wasn't thought out. 12 years of sanctions and hollow resolutions and trying other tactics. Months of debate and a vote being approved in congress.
Of course it was forced on us. I mean it was only after debate that the congress voted for it, should have stuck with a poll.
Yes we would have been much better off waiting for the UN, they're lightning quick action and lack of beauracracy makes them perfect for fighting wars. International peace keepers are the answer yes sir, why just look at Bosnia. Oh wait, we're still there after 10 years.
Or is it all about politics and the hell with the US security as long as they get power at home?
DIN DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER! That is the sole purpose for their tongue wagging. If they ever get back in power they will turn Iraq over to the UN and let them run it. In this case building a repulic like ours in Iraq would fail and a tyrant will take over. BTW, is the UN/NATO done in Bosnia yet? We still have soldiers there, why not a big push to bring them home and let Bosnia self rule? Why are they allowing so much time in Bosnia (years so far), but only months in Iraq?
L2F,
Again I say, get the U.S.A. out of the UN and send them on their merry little way.
BTW, is the UN/NATO done in Bosnia yet? We still have soldiers there, why not a big push to bring them home and let Bosnia self rule? Why are they allowing so much time in Bosnia (years so far), but only months in Iraq?
And if you knew the answer, you'd see our position more clearly.
The obvious answer one might give is that we don't seem to have much of a casualty rate over there, nor are we being asked to spend billions of dollars to rebuild the place.
But actually it's much more subtle than those things. For one, in that case we did decide that we were going to go over there for largely humanitarian reasons and it seemed in general everyone was ok with that. Also, we went in there in cooperation with the U.N. Whether you like the organization of the U.N. or not, it still represents the rest of the world and to withdraw from it makes about as much sense as thinking we can withdraw from Earth or humanity. The structure may not be perfect, but it is the vehicle with which we deal with the rest of the humans that live on this planet and it can't be simply ignored. So back to the original point, there wasn't much reason to oppose going into the Balkans and thus no one is too worried about getting out.
Secondly, we're not really pissing anyone off or aggravating a dangerous situation by being in the Balkans. That's not the case with Iraq. Our continued presence there represents a rallying point for the very enemy we're trying to defeat. There are many people who believe that invading Iraq was a very poor strategic move in fighting terrorism and that it's likely to make it worse instead of better. That's why something needs to be done differently in Iraq that isn't a concern in the Balkans.
We should have left it to the UN. I mean why not replace the most effective fighting force on the planet with blue helemt soilders from Lithuania.
Do you want to win the battle or win the war?
We're winning both. The UN is capable of winning neither. The UN has becomed bogged down with bureuacracy. Anytime you have that many languages and cultures together there's going to be problems. Not that it can't be done but in both cases it's nowhere near as effective. The UN's still in the Balkans.
Also is this Allison, The UN can't, won't and is incapable of doing offensive operations. Meaning they have neither the political will nor the mandate to go get the bad guys. They wouldn't be able to capture the Jihaidiots let alone Saddamns supporters. That's not a criticsim really it's just a reality of how the UN operates as SOP.
The UN couldn't even protect it's headquarters and had hired one of Saddamns goons as security. It now looks like an inside job from those same people yet we ought to turn the keys over them ? The job, battle, war etc. would be no better off under the UN. In fact I beleive it would make matters worse. The UN was invited to come in with the stipulation that we contain command of the forces. Other countries didn't like that. O.K fine, they didn't want to have their troops under someone elses command. Why should we feel any different ?
Alright, if you insist...
1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys, 'We will never "interfere" again.'
Obviously sarcasm and not a serious suggestion.
2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.
Just more sarcasm I presume. I would hope.
3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.
As if we already knew where they all were and we were just letting them stay for the heck of it.
4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.
A rather racist statement.
5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.
Yes, I'm sure all foreign students over the age of 21 are bombers.
6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise.
A "strong effort"? Sounds like mostly wishful thinking. As if it was that easy and we just like buying foreign oil.
This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.
Again, as if one could simply wish such a thing into existence. And as if there were enough oil in Alaska to solve all of our energy needs.
7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)
An obvious ignorance of economics. And as if the American people would stand for such an oil shortage when *no one* sells it to us at that price.
8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.
Mean cynicism.
9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
Well, we don't actually need to have the UN here, but there's still an obvious mean spirit behind this statement.
10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.
This is something to be concerned about?
The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE...
More hatred and bigotry.
Sheesh.
::rolls eyes and puts away whoopie cushion::
A rather racist statement.
Why is that a racist statement? I don't see race even being mentioned.
1) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.
Why shouldn't we remove our troops from Germany?
2) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.
To some degree I think we do know about many illegal aliens and we are turning a blind eye. Especially liberals who think it is great to have illegal aliens and are even willing to provide their needs at public expense.
3) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.
A rather racist statement.
I think the statement is based on fact.
4) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.
Yes, I'm sure all foreign students over the age of 21 are bombers.
That isn't what the statement says at all. It simply states that the net needs to be cast wide in order to catch what you want.
5) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise.
A "strong effort"? Sounds like mostly wishful thinking. As if it was that easy and we just like buying foreign oil.
We could start by drilling in Alaska but liberals won't hear of it.
Again, as if one could simply wish such a thing into existence. And as if there were enough oil in Alaska to solve all of our energy needs.
Like you know how much oil is there. I can tell you the oil companies won't drill there unless they think there is enough oil to make a profit.
6) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.
Mean cynicism.
Why keep offering aid if it isn't going to be appreciated or if it is misused? So liberals can feel good about themselves?
7) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
Well, we don't actually need to have the UN here, but there's still an obvious mean spirit behind this statement.
Mean spirited? Most of the countries in the UN hate the US. Many will do anything to undermine us. And they do so with a mean spirit. But I am sure that is just because Americans do not understand them.
8) The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE...
More hatred and bigotry.
Not at all. If you want to maintain a stable society there must be a unifying spirit. It can start by everyone speaking the same language then moving on to instilling American ideals. If we keep going like we are going the US could become balkanized.
As if we already knew where they all were and we were just letting them stay for the heck of it.
In some places, especially California, we do just let them stay here.
Hell, we even let them vote. We issue them drivers licenses., Allow them public services.
Liberal Democrats encourage it. It gets them votes.
Did you know Gray Davis supported a recall election against a state politician that put security at polling stations to prevent illegals from voting? I think the guys name was/is Pringle.
Yes, I'm sure all foreign students over the age of 21 are bombers.
That's not what the statement says. It says that all bombers were over 21, not that all over 21 were bombers.
A "strong effort"? Sounds like mostly wishful thinking. As if it was that easy and we just like buying foreign oil.
If Americans buckled down, we drilled the ANWR, and took advantage of the hundreds of drilling rights already issued in the Gulf of Mexico, we'd have a lot more power against oil producing countries in the Middle East.
Besides, we get little of our oil from the Middle East. We get most of our oil from South America & Canada.
To some degree I think we do know about many illegal aliens and we are turning a blind eye. Especially liberals who think it is great to have illegal aliens and are even willing to provide their needs at public expense.
There's a cost to identifying them, apprehending them, and then deporting them. And even then, they might just be able to sneak back in. On the other hand, if they have jobs and consume goods, they provide some economic benefit (and the jobs they take are ones most people wouldn't want anyway). So the benefit to cost ratio of rounding them all up and getting rid of them is pretty questionable.
Why is that a racist statement? I don't see race even being mentioned.
Semantics. Call it what you will. Clearly it's implying that the people from these countries aren't capable of doing anything other than drive cabs or cashier. To the extent that Jethro says it's a statement "based in fact" one can presume then it's referring to the people we most often see in those positions who are not white. You know, I actually can't believe anyone has an interest in defending that statement. It's saying "we don't care if you're going to get killed in your own country. We don't want you coming around here and stinking things up!" And that's exactly the same mentality that prevailed before WWII when we wouldn't let the Jews from Germany and the rest of Europe flee here. Let them stay over there and end up in concentration camps. We can be appalled over it later as long as we don't have to deal with more foreigners competing for what we have here.
That isn't what the statement says at all. It simply states that the net needs to be cast wide in order to catch what you want.
That's not what the statement says. It says that all bombers were over 21, not that all over 21 were bombers.
No, it does say all students over 21 are bombers. It's saying any "student" over 21 isn't really a student, they're a terrorist. And in casting such a wide net, a lot more innocents will be caught than bombers.
Like you know how much oil is there. I can tell you the oil companies won't drill there unless they think there is enough oil to make a profit.
Of course there's a profit there. But that's hardly the same thing as saying there's a sufficient supply to end our dependence on foreign oil.
Why keep offering aid if it isn't going to be appreciated or if it is misused? So liberals can feel good about themselves?
I find it interesting that you didn't even pause to question the validity of the original statement. Isn't it likely that it's just a biased media distorting the otherwise rosy picture because bad news sells better than good news?
Not at all. If you want to maintain a stable society there must be a unifying spirit. It can start by everyone speaking the same language then moving on to instilling American ideals. If we keep going like we are going the US could become balkanized.
I agree that everyone should learn English. It's obviously to their advantage to do so. But I'm not going to tell someone they have to leave if I don't think they're learning it fast enough. Though I think it's a bad idea, I think it's still an American freedom to choose to not learn the language.
There's a cost to identifying them, apprehending them, and then deporting them. And even then, they might just be able to sneak back in. On the other hand, if they have jobs and consume goods, they provide some economic benefit (and the jobs they take are ones most people wouldn't want anyway).
Then Petitioner Congress to get rid of immigration laws. I am sure you will have an ally in our friend crabs. But there is a cost in providing services, too. If they do apply for a drivers license and illegal aliens can get a drivers license won't they have to prove they are illegal? if they are illegal it should be rather easy to take them into custody.
Semantics. Call it what you will. Clearly it's implying that the people from these countries aren't capable of doing anything other than drive cabs or cashier. Probably because they don't know the language!
No, it does say all students over 21 are bombers. It's saying any "student" over 21 isn't really a student, they're a terrorist. And in casting such a wide net, a lot more innocents will be caught than bombers. They aren't American citizens so frankly I don't care. Send them home if it will reduce the risks.
Of course there's a profit there. But that's hardly the same thing as saying there's a sufficient supply to end our dependence on foreign oil. If there is enough oil there to justify the costs of extraction there is no reason not to do so. How much it will reduce reliance on foreign oil is not a question that can be answered now. It is just anti-drilling propaganda to say that there will be no reduction of foreign oil imports.
I find it interesting that you didn't even pause to question the validity of the original statement. Why should I? That is history. Here is just one example: Somalia.
I agree that everyone should learn English. It's obviously to their advantage to do so. But I'm not going to tell someone they have to leave if I don't think they're learning it fast enough. No one said anything like that. The point is we need to stop making it easier not to learn English by providing things like instructions at voting booths in anything other than English.
If they do apply for a drivers license and illegal aliens can get a drivers license won't they have to prove they are illegal? if they are illegal it should be rather easy to take them into custody.
I wouldn't agree with giving illegal aliens a driver's license. Why call them illegal if you're going to give them a legal ID? But I'd still question the motivations of anyone that feels strongly we need to go on a drive to round them all up and get them all out.
How much it will reduce reliance on foreign oil is not a question that can be answered now. It is just anti-drilling propaganda to say that there will be no reduction of foreign oil imports.
I'm sure any amount of oil will reduce it somewhat. But I doubt it well eliminate it. The real question here and in many other situations is whether the short term benefit to the economy is worth the possible long terms costs to the environment? How much do we value a pristine wilderness as compared to how much do we value getting our oil a bit cheaper? Obviously it depends on who you ask. I for one though think we've been underestimating the costs to the environment.
The point is we need to stop making it easier not to learn English by providing things like instructions at voting booths in anything other than English.
It's my understanding that one must be a U.S. citizen to vote. And I was also under the impression that one must show a knowledge of English to become a citizen. So I would have to admit to being puzzled why there would need to be instructions for voting in anything other than English.
No one said anything like that.
The author of the original piece did. Which is why I figured it wasn't Robin Williams as I was under the impression he was pretty liberal.
Allison wrote: I agree that everyone should learn English. It's obviously to their advantage to do so. But I'm not going to tell someone they have to leave if I don't think they're learning it fast enough.
my response: No one said anything like that.
Allison stated: The author of the original piece did.
The writer actually said: "The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE..." Just to be accurate he didn't put a time limit on learning English.
(and the jobs they take are ones most people wouldn't want anyway)
Clearly it's implying that the people from these countries aren't capable of doing anything other than drive cabs or cashier. To the extent that Jethro says it's a statement "based in fact" one can presume then it's referring to the people we most often see in those positions who are not white. You know, I actually can't believe anyone has an interest in defending that statement.
Hmmmm.
The jobs illegal aliens take tend to be ones that are low-profile, on a cash basis, or anything else where one can get away with hiring someone without an I-9 on file. Those jobs are ones no one would generally want unless circumstances dictated that they had to take it.
FOREIGN DESK | November 5, 1998, Thursday
SAUDI IS INDICTED IN BOMB ATTACKS ON U.S. EMBASSIES
By BENJAMIN WEISER (NYT) 1208 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 2
ABSTRACT - Federal grand jury in Manhattan returns 238-count indictment charging Saudi exile Osama bin Laden in bombings of two US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in Aug and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad; Government officials offer two rewards of $5 million each for information leading to arrest or conviction of bin Laden and Muhammad Atef, his chief military commander; prosecutors also unseal earlier indictment, issued in June, that includes similar but less detailed charges against bin Laden; new indictment accuses him of leading vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to present, in which he is said to have been working in concert withSudan, Iraqand Iran and terrorist groups to build weapons and attack US military installations;photos (M)
Saudis?
you mean the one's that got whitewashed off the 9/11 report?
the one who Bush and his cronies do business with?
that Saudis?
you mean the one's that got whitewashed off the 9/11 report?
Bttt...Saudi Arabia is al-Qaeda's new and immediate target because a number of al-Qaeda suspects are now believed to be in Saudi jails, they expelled Osama, etc. and you are trying to say that Bush is somehow responsible for not blaming their government???
Not suprisingly, you missed the Iraqi government conection though.
I don't know why Bush isn't blaming them.
neither do you.
all we know is that they are hiding the reason.
for all we know, Bush had the Saudis do 9/11 for him.
ease up on the weed crabs and be nice to the nurse when it's time for your shot.
notices that he didn't refute what I said
Notices that you provided no proof of what you said about president Bush either. If I call you a childmolester, that does not make you one does it? Same applies here. Throwing wild accusations out there hoping that they stick does not help your case any.
I don't know why Bush isn't blaming them.
neither do you.
Gee, maybe because their government had nothing to do with it and has helped us in the past?
maybe...maybe not.
if they had nothing to do with it, why are their pages blanked out in the report?
maybe Oswald really did act alone.
maybe that bullet really was magic.
maybe.
do you think this stuff is important enough to warrant more than a maybe?
if by being one, someone made huge political gains, put in place laws to give them all sorts of power and to make huge profits for their friends, don't you think that maybe you might want to find out?
JT...you DO know that most if not ALL of the South American countries that supply us with Oil, are members of OPEC, and that OPEC is mostly controlled by the Arab States, right?
LOL
You should have looked that up first.
Besides, the only reason Venezuela is a member of OPEC is because it's in their best interest. If the US suddenly stopped buying oil from OPEC countries, I'm pretty sure Venezuela would free themselves of OPEC in a heartbeat. If not, oh well their loss. We'd get plenty of oil from the US, Canada, & Mexico.
for all we know, Bush had the Saudis do 9/11 for him.
That's more than silly, that's asinine. It's like blaming Clinton for the Oklahoma bombing.
But maybe you're on to something. For all we know, you and your buddies did it.
if they had nothing to do with it, why are their pages blanked out in the report?
You don't read the news much do you or is it you only read what you want to hear? Because it is part of an on going investigation and they didn't want to much info on what is known out there for those being investigated to know.
Now, getting back to the original point that started all this, do you believe that there was a tie between Saddam and Osama?
well...they both worked for Bush at some point, so yea...I guess so.
I'm sure that Henry Kissinger could get to the bottom of it, flamekeeper of truth that he is.
See, it was a little JOKE...get-it?
No, I don't get it. You claimed "Most, if not all were members of OPEC....".
Maybe you think Mexico is in South America... I guess only you can answer that question.
Yeah, I was considering Mexico in with South America, my bad.
but not before we get RAPED at the pump...
Raping the US consumer?
Shit, our gas prices are cheap compared to most countries.
When are we going to see that cheap Iraqi oil?
as soon as they can figure out how to get the blood out of it
My impression was that they were busy working just trying to get it back to pre-war levels. But before the war, there was an embargo against them and I thought they could only sell so much. So I was thinking even if they do get it to pre-war levels, it still isn't going to make a huge impact. They would have to expand beyond that and who knows how long that will take?
When are we going to see that cheap Iraqi oil?
We get so little of our oil from Iraq, there's no way it can make an impact on our gas prices.
"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 times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 reinvigorated 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, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate 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." Senator 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.
"[W]ithout 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.
Though President Bush chose to make weapons of mass destruction his principal argument against Saddam, Burns writes, "this war could have been justified any time on the basis of human rights alone. This was a grotesque charnel house, and also a genuine threat to us. We had the power to end it and we did end it."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20030922.shtml
Democratic congressman. Media killing our troops.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0903/22international.html
Luv2Fly 9/22/03 3:28pm
I read that earlier. Thanks for posting it.
Rich T 9/22/03 3:31pm
No problem :)
More people died in a week in Vietnam than have died during this whole war.
On that basis alone you can't make a true comparison of the two.
How many soldiers have we lost in Iraq?
How many in Vietnam?
You do the math, Poindexter.
You said you were comparing it politically. In fact in post #2965 you said...... "LUV, first of all, you wasted a lot of bandwidth to explain the geological differences in these two countries/Wars, but my point was about the Political Quagmire, and I said so... Succinctly."
So did you change youre mind? One minute you're saying you were talking politically and the next talking about the combat phase and mentioning how you predicted it.
I stand by what I said I don't think the comparisons are valid, there's so many differencers wether we're talking politically or comabt wise.
Like when you said we were bogged down after a week ?
Yes there are many points of view. Sadly that's not what the mainstream press is giving, it's all one sided and that's the point. Ask the troops how they feel about it.
An angry source ? Well he's a Democratic congressman so perhaps you're right. He's angry that the one sided media coverage is harming our troops because it is. Not to mention those patient people back at home.
The only reason it's more apparent is because of the coverage. Where do you think reporters go for stories ? Can you say Sunni triangle ? The negatives outweigh the positive stories 200 to 1. When the opposite is the truth. There are more murders in the US everyday. You want us to leave, well I can tell you the people I've talked to that are there want to finish the job. As much as they want to go home they also know unlike some what's at stake. Leaving right now would be the absolute worse thing we could do, we left many places over the years and it didn't work.
Well here's some more angry sources for you. Some of the congressmen who just returned from Iraq.
Another angry Dem.
He should ask people living here apparently it is.
Another angry source.
And another.
http://www.thehill.com/news/092303/press.aspx
The R's and D's agreed on 99% ? If you can get them to agree on 50% that's huge but 99% is amazing. Well I hope they get over their anger soon.
No No No... You said one WEEK. YOU do the math, or don't make the accusation.
Fricking A, you just have to argue about anything and everything with me.
58,000 died in Vietnam over about a 10 year period.
Now, considering we weren't at full scale war for the full 10 year period...
Get out your calculator Poindexter.
Question do liberals want the US to withdraw from Iraq? Do they think that is a good idea? Do they think that there was no valid reason to go into Iraq at all? Or is it all about politics and the hell with the US security as long as they get power at home?
Speaking for myself...
Question do liberals want the US to withdraw from Iraq?
No. I don't think that would accomplish anything. It would it only undo whatever good has been accomplished, it would also make us still seem like a bully, but now a bully that doesn't clean up after itself either. I think we do need to make this less about us and what we want though and the way Bush is handling it, I don't think that's happening.
Do they think that is a good idea?
To the degree that I criticize it, is only to point out how badly the thing was thought out to begin with and how we're now suffering the consequences of Bush's decisions early on. Hopefully the country will be less willing to follow him blindly into another such adventure.
Do they think that there was no valid reason to go into Iraq at all?
The end doesn't justify the means in this case. A case could have been made to depose him simply for his brutality. But that case would have had to have been made and agreed upon ahead of time and not forced on us in retrospect. But the problem isn't even so much the reason as the method. Acting in defiance of the UN put a spin on this whole thing that this was really about America and what America wanted as opposed to being about what the world wanted and what the world considered to be simply right. This served to alienate our friends and give resolve to our enemies. And now it seems that in their haste to fight a war, they didn't plan for the aftermath very well. They should have waited and built greater concensus.
Or is it all about politics and the hell with the US security as long as they get power at home?
No, that's just a bonus.
Question do liberals want the US to withdraw from Iraq?
No. I don't think that would accomplish anything. It would it only undo whatever good has been accomplished, it would also make us still seem like a bully, but now a bully that doesn't clean up after itself either. I think we do need to make this less about us and what we want though and the way Bush is handling it, I don't think that's happening.
That doesn't seem to be what the likes of the leading democrap candidates are saying. And I hear nothing about how they would do things differently in Iraq. They just want to score political points.
Do they think that is a good idea?
To the degree that I criticize it, is only to point out how badly the thing was thought out to begin with and how we're now suffering the consequences of Bush's decisions early on. Hopefully the country will be less willing to follow him blindly into another such adventure.
The thing was thought out just fine. it is just the carping about the fact that there is opposition that lends credence to such crap. I don't even think the democraps believe what they say. Anyone with a clue knew what was going to happen.
Do they think that there was no valid reason to go into Iraq at all?
The end doesn't justify the means in this case. A case could have been made to depose him simply for his brutality. But that case would have had to have been made and agreed upon ahead of time and not forced on us in retrospect.
Nonsense. There isn't a democrap alive that doesn't agree that Saddam should have been taken out. They just wanted a democrap to do it. Liberals are dishonest about this. They lie to themselves and they lie to others. They would be truly dangerous if they were ever to regain any power in this country.
But the problem isn't even so much the reason as the method. Acting in defiance of the UN put a spin on this whole thing that this was really about America and what America wanted as opposed to being about what the world wanted and what the world considered to be simply right. This served to alienate our friends and give resolve to our enemies. And now it seems that in their haste to fight a war, they didn't plan for the aftermath very well. They should have waited and built greater concensus.
What friends? The UN is a worthless organization with many members that will oppose the US no matter what they do. The US needs to look out for its own interests. One of those is to get out of the UN and send it packing form the US. The UN doesn't care about democracy whatsoever.
We should have left it to the UN. I mean why not replace the most effective fighting force on the planet with blue helemt soilders from Lithuania.
Yes it wasn't thought out. 12 years of sanctions and hollow resolutions and trying other tactics. Months of debate and a vote being approved in congress.
Of course it was forced on us. I mean it was only after debate that the congress voted for it, should have stuck with a poll.
Yes we would have been much better off waiting for the UN, they're lightning quick action and lack of beauracracy makes them perfect for fighting wars. International peace keepers are the answer yes sir, why just look at Bosnia. Oh wait, we're still there after 10 years.
considering the "major conflict" in Iraq has been over now for how long?
We should have left it to the UN. I mean why not replace the most effective fighting force on the planet with blue helemt soilders from Lithuania.
Do you want to win the battle or win the war?
Or is it all about politics and the hell with the US security as long as they get power at home?
DIN DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER! That is the sole purpose for their tongue wagging. If they ever get back in power they will turn Iraq over to the UN and let them run it. In this case building a repulic like ours in Iraq would fail and a tyrant will take over. BTW, is the UN/NATO done in Bosnia yet? We still have soldiers there, why not a big push to bring them home and let Bosnia self rule? Why are they allowing so much time in Bosnia (years so far), but only months in Iraq?
L2F,
Again I say, get the U.S.A. out of the UN and send them on their merry little way.
BTW, is the UN/NATO done in Bosnia yet? We still have soldiers there, why not a big push to bring them home and let Bosnia self rule? Why are they allowing so much time in Bosnia (years so far), but only months in Iraq?
And if you knew the answer, you'd see our position more clearly.
The obvious answer one might give is that we don't seem to have much of a casualty rate over there, nor are we being asked to spend billions of dollars to rebuild the place.
But actually it's much more subtle than those things. For one, in that case we did decide that we were going to go over there for largely humanitarian reasons and it seemed in general everyone was ok with that. Also, we went in there in cooperation with the U.N. Whether you like the organization of the U.N. or not, it still represents the rest of the world and to withdraw from it makes about as much sense as thinking we can withdraw from Earth or humanity. The structure may not be perfect, but it is the vehicle with which we deal with the rest of the humans that live on this planet and it can't be simply ignored. So back to the original point, there wasn't much reason to oppose going into the Balkans and thus no one is too worried about getting out.
Secondly, we're not really pissing anyone off or aggravating a dangerous situation by being in the Balkans. That's not the case with Iraq. Our continued presence there represents a rallying point for the very enemy we're trying to defeat. There are many people who believe that invading Iraq was a very poor strategic move in fighting terrorism and that it's likely to make it worse instead of better. That's why something needs to be done differently in Iraq that isn't a concern in the Balkans.
We should have left it to the UN. I mean why not replace the most effective fighting force on the planet with blue helemt soilders from Lithuania.
We're winning both. The UN is capable of winning neither. The UN has becomed bogged down with bureuacracy. Anytime you have that many languages and cultures together there's going to be problems. Not that it can't be done but in both cases it's nowhere near as effective. The UN's still in the Balkans.
Also is this Allison, The UN can't, won't and is incapable of doing offensive operations. Meaning they have neither the political will nor the mandate to go get the bad guys. They wouldn't be able to capture the Jihaidiots let alone Saddamns supporters. That's not a criticsim really it's just a reality of how the UN operates as SOP.
The UN couldn't even protect it's headquarters and had hired one of Saddamns goons as security. It now looks like an inside job from those same people yet we ought to turn the keys over them ?
The job, battle, war etc. would be no better off under the UN. In fact I beleive it would make matters worse. The UN was invited to come in with the stipulation that we contain command of the forces. Other countries didn't like that. O.K fine, they didn't want to have their troops under someone elses command. Why should we feel any different ?
get the U.S.A. out of the UN and send them on their merry little way.
Yes indeed. Then get ALL of our troops out of Europe and send any additional troops need to Iraq and bring the rest home.