Kerry's comments??
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Kerry's comments??
I don't intend for this to turn into a Dem vs Rep debate or anything, but I was just wondering your views on what John Kerry had to say in his speech yesterday? This is the link to the CNN story which contains a link to the video of him saying it:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/31/kerry.mccain/index.html
I listened to it several times and I don't believe that it was a "botched joke" at all. I think he should be apologizing like crazy
I would be curious to see the entire speech. But at the risk of taking what he said totally out of context, I don't see any other way of understanding what he said other than as a total insult to our troops.
If the full context of the speech was shown on that clip, he should be ashamed of himself. I am ashamed that he is my senator.
Also curious to see the entire speech, but just out of context...he can swim all he wants but he should have never made a statement like that. He may not have had bad intentions, but no one will ever believe that. I'm afraid it sounds as if his "real" thoughts came through instead of what he politically is supposed to say.
On the other hand, Bush saying that our troops are "plenty smart" reminds me of why I think and have always thought he was just a big DUMMY. Sorry, but that's just the best word that comes to mind. "Plenty smart"?? That's a hillbilly comment, not a presidential one, and especially to describe the people that fight his wars.
John Kerry just told us who he is. He holds contempt for the US military. He has no respect for the people who join it or for the job that they do. It is in his statements where he tries to cover his tracks (with 3 stories, I might add) that he expresses that, and then has to do it in the process of tearing other people down and belittling them, such as those who "haven't served" or those who are in "stuffed suits behind podiums" at the White House.
At the beginning of the CNN article: "Kerry told reporters in Seattle, Washington, that the remark was a 'botched joke' meant to target the president, not U.S. troops."
A Kerry aide said that what he was supposed to say was, "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."
Okay, fine. So apologize for screwing up your speech and tell us what you really meant to say. But no, he refuses to apologize.
Instead, he is continually tearing down the Bush administration as though he were still running against them in an election. "This is the classic G.O.P. playbook... This policy is broken. This president and his administration didn't do their homework... This administration has given us a Katrina foreign policy- Mistake upon mistake upon mistake... Our troops...deserve leadership that is up to their sacrifice." It sounds like maybe he really does still think he is running against Bush for that leadership position.
I have seen the news reports today and have read Kerry's statement on his website, which brings up Rush Limbaugh and how he was "...belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease..." and I made a simple observation.
The mainstream media has spent the past week and a half attacking Rush for what he said about Fox's ad. Literally, before the day was out, that story was all over the world, and Rush isn't even an elected official; he's just a talk show host. Now, regardless of what you think of Rush and what he said (that's not why I brought it up, so I'm trying to stay on topic) think about this: It has been a day since John Kerry has made this statement, and where is it in the media? They're talking about it, but there is no outrage. They even went to find Kerry to get him to go on record and to 'explain' himself,' which of course they didn't bother to do for Rush.
Where is the MEDIA'S outrage over this insulting, stupid, insensitive, irrational statement made by an elected Democrat senator? All they are showing us is that the Republicans are outraged by it (Bush, McCain, etc.) but there aren't any pundits anywhere in the liberal-biased media who are also denouncing this statement the way they did Rush's comments.
Just thought it was interesting.
I found one more thing: The National Commander of The American Legion demands an apology.
"While The American Legion shares the senator's appreciation for education, the troops in Iraq represent the most sophisticated, technologically superior military that the world has ever seen," Morin said. "I think there is a thing or two that they could teach most college professors and campus elitists about the way the world works."
It has been a day since John Kerry has made this statement, and where is it in the media?
You took the words right out of my mouth. I heard about this statement through someone else and had to go looking for it on the internet! I also thought it was amazing that was Rush said was all over the place but this wasn't??
I also agree 100% that the statement they released as to what the joke should have been doesn't even make sense. What is he saying, stay in school and you will amount to something. Don't study etc and you will be president? They whole "joke" doesn't even make sense. That is why I don't think I would ever be convinced he wasn't supposed to say exactly what he did!
I really wonder why you (and others) can't accept Kerry's explanation for, as he said, a "botched joke meant to target the president", when you seem perfectly willing to accept Limbaugh's "if I was wrong" sort of apology to Michael Fox.
I'm not sure why you insist that Kerry holds no respect for the military, when he is very clear that he did not intend to criticize our troops, but rather "a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, ..."
I'm not surprised to see all this indignation about what Kerry himself says was a botched joke. Just disappointed that there isn't equal indignation about Limbaugh's remarks.
If you want to be indignant about something, how about President Bush saying, on October 22nd, "Listen, we've never been stay the course " - when "stay the course" has been one of the favorite catch-phrases of the President and the White House - usually in the framework of .. we're "stay the course" and they're "cut and run". But then, this administration has a history of saying "oh, we didn't say that" or "we didn't mean that", especially when it comes to this dreadful war.
Well, I think both his statement and Rush Limbaugh's are totally uncalled for. And, this is exactly why I hate politics these days. Anytime something political comes on TV, I just turn it off. Politics is no longer about someone saying what THEY are going to do to fix things, it is about finger pointing, blame, and down right bashing everyone else. I would love for a politician to stand up and tell me what they believe, what they are going to do to make this world a better place, without once saying anything bad about anyone else!!
As far as the media....most tend to lean towards the liberal point of view. So, of course it is not going to be all over the place. I have come to realize that this is just a fact of life.
I am not sure why your assuming that I am "perfectly willing to accept Limbaugh's "if I was wrong" sort of apology to Michael Fox" I don't think I said one thing about that situation other than it was (and still is) plastered all over the news. I would be careful not to jump to conclusions about things I didn't say.
And the bigest reason I can't accept that it was a botched joke? The joke makes no sense at all even IF he would have said it the way he supposidly intended. As I stated, if you don't study and do well in school you will end up being the president?? Just makes no sense.
As far as your paragraph about President Bush, I have never said the man is perfect or that I agree with everything he says or does. As I said in my first post, I didn't want this to turn into a dem vs rep thing. I was simply asking what everyone though of his comments. I for the life of me can't understand why people can't talk about one side of the political arena without dragging the other into it. As if it makes anything better that the other side may have said or done soemthing worse??? I don't mean this directed totally at your response, it happens all the time. Even on the news etc. It is like, well, maybe I did this, but he did that so it makes it ok??
Politics is no longer about someone saying what THEY are going to do to fix things, it is about finger pointing, blame, and down right bashing everyone else. I would love for a politician to stand up and tell me what they believe, what they are going to do to make this world a better place, without once saying anything bad about anyone else!!
Thank you Debbie, we must have been typing at the same time and I didn't read what you wrote until after I hit send. That is exactly what I was trying to say. NOTHING can ever be talked about without dragging the other side into it! You said it much better than I did, thanks!!!
I didn't bring up Rush Limbaugh so that I could defend him in a later post. I was merely making an observation that the media is always all over any conservative, yet liberals seem to get a free pass. Anyway, if I am expected to accept Kerry's explanation, then why can't you accept Rush's apology?
I don't buy the explanation that it was a botched joke because 1) I think he really meant what he said and 2) he refuses to apologize for "botching" the joke. As I said, if it was a mistake, fine, but people are offended by that "mistake" and he still refuses to offer an apology. Instead he gets all high and mighty and changes the focus from him to the Iraq war and the Bush administration.
Vicki, we live in a two party nation - one that is very divided presently, as you well know. We are near the end of a major political campaign involving two parties who are very different. To think that you can make a complaint about something said by a person campaigning for one party and not have others complain about what was said by people campaigning for the other party is, at best, disingenuous.
Lisa, I agree that Kerry should just make a plain apology, and move on. And I think that Rush Limbaugh should make a plain apology (not an "if I was wrong" apology, which is what he has done so far) and move on.
Vicki, we live in a two party nation - one that is very divided presently, as you well know. We are near the end of a major political campaign involving two parties who are very different. To think that you can make a complaint about something said by a person campaigning for one party and not have others complain about what was said by people campaigning for the other party is, at best, disingenuous.
Well, thanks for clearing that up for me. I didn't think it would happen, but it sure would be nice for a change.
Kerry's Remarks
Kerry offers an apology
Of sorts.
After his obnoxious show of defiance yesterday, he offers an angry apology that he only put out as a press release on his website. Apparently he didn't have the guts to face those he offended and do it into a camera.
And he couldn't offer the apology without jabbing one more time at the Republicans. Makes you wonder about the people who are really responsible for the partisan division in this country.
He probably only resigned himself to apologizing because of Democrat pressure and cancelled campaign stops. From WAVE3 TV, Louisville:
Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford says Kerry "was wrong to say what he said," while Montana Senate candidate Jon Tester called the remarks "poorly worded and just plain stupid."
Another story from Bloomberg:
"Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts canceled campaign appearances with Democratic congressional candidates after members of his own party criticized his remarks about the Iraq war and U.S. troops that he said were a ``botched joke'' directed at President George W. Bush.
Appearances by Kerry in support of candidates in Minnesota, Iowa and Pennsylvania were canceled and several Democratic candidates called on Kerry to apologize for his comments, which Bush and Republicans said were insulting to the military."
But, it is nonetheless an apology.
For the record, Rush did in fact offer an apology last Thursday on his radio show. He was criticized for accusing Michael J. Fox of either acting or not taking his meds. Fox admitted in an interview that he in fact took too many meds before taping the ad. (Fox: "The symptoms that I had in the ad that I did, that's called dyskinesia, and that's actually from too much medication.")
So, on Oct. 26, Rush said this:
"I need to apologize, I was wrong because I speculated either he didn't take his medication or he was acting. But I was wrong."
As far as the video footage of Rush making body movements immitating Fox, Rush explained that he was simply demonstrating for his viewers what he had seen on the Fox ad to give them an idea of how out of control Fox was of his movements. However, Rush's staff has verified that most of the videos that have been shown both on TV and on the internet are sped up in order to exaggerate the effect.
Rush went further to explain that he was not making fun of Fox. He was expressing his shock. Fox has been acting steadily for the past 2 years, most recently in his role on Boston Legal, and has not exhibited any of these symptoms, so it was a major shock to see that his symptoms had progressed so far. In fact, it was so shocking that Rush became suspicious, which led to his speculations about Fox. But he was not making fun out of it.
It goes deeper than that, but that is all that the media was focused on, so I will stop there.
Ladies, this is a hot topic, as political threads always are. It is clear that most of us are either solidly on one side or another - meaning we are solidly republican or democrat. So keep this in mind when posting..... please... and make an effort not to attack a fellow member. Otherwise, I will be moving this thread.
Kerry's remark was stupid, and yes, he SHOULD apologize. But the problem I have with this whole thing is that Bush makes SO many stupid & contradictory comments and a big deal isn't being made over them.
Continue this debate - but please, don't belittle, insult, or flame another member because their views are different from yours.
That said, carry on...........
Good advice, Karen. I have to disagree on one small point. Bush does make many statements that are juvenile or show a less than great command of english. However, most of the time a big deal is made - or a big joke ...
Everyone gets called to the carpet for anything that the media thinks will get ratings. It's what they do after they are caught that counts, in my opinion.
Fess up, own up, apologize and move on.
If Kerry had done that immediately, this would have been an non-event news wise.
Instead, he has riled up a lot of people, when this could have been quickly diffused. This has become so big, it could swing some elections in states where the races are close.
If it brings more people in or sorely voter apathetic country to come out and vote, then it will have done some good.
Ame
I'm very disgusted with the comments he made. I have never liked him.
Lisa- Love the picture. Its priceless.
Well said, Amecmom.
Wow....the picture, the comment...I will probably get banished from Momsview but..
I personally think all of our soldiers are "stuck" in Iraq because I think it's the most ridiculous war. It's outrageous to me that we are there in the first place. This isn't a war debate, so I'm not trying to start one, only saying that I can see Kerry's statement because I'm in such disagreement with the war. IMO, they are "stuck" there because nothing is ever going to change there. We can be there until the end of time and it will STILL not be a democracy and not be a peaceful place. Our soldiers are dying and missing out on their families because our government is trying to mix oil and water. It ain't gonna happen folks. Are enlistment rates up? Heck no because this war is a joke. I think it's a huge disservice to our military personnel. We've just made it easier to kill Americans by planting our soldiers there to try to make a way where there is no way.
Now, as a politician, should Kerry have ever made such a statement? NO because every comment made in the public eye is scrutinized. However, I'm not in the public eye and can say exactly what I feel.
Banished.
Karen- I hope I wasn't insulting anyone. Sorry.
USAToday-Soldiers re-enlist beyond U.S. goal
"Re-enlistment rates the past three years have been at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army. There are about 105,000 Army soldiers in Iraq, including members of the National Guard and Reserve.
"The biggest thing is that soldiers believe in what they are doing," Head said."
Guard exceeds recruiting goal
The South Dakota National Guard reported its largest recruitment pool in 10 years, boosting membership to 3,255 soldiers at the end of its fiscal year on Sept. 30.
The increasing use of the Guards in wartime has not deterred recruitment, said Sgt. 1st Class Shane Toupal, a recruiter in southeast South Dakota.
"9/11 has made a tremendous difference in recruiting. People are signing up for patriotic reasons, to serve their country," he said.
I know this is not a war debate, but I had to set the record straight, Deanna. You are free to say what you will about the war, but apparently, the people who are on the front lines do not agree.
Maybe there just isn't much more to say about the Kerry debacle. He has apologized, and we should move on.
Deanna, if you are banished (and I don't think you will be), I should leave, too. You've perfectly stated my sentiments. I think Kerry was an idiot for saying what he did but I don't think he was wrong for saying the troops are "stuck" in Iraq.
No one is getting banished for stating their opinions about Kerry, Bush, the war, the US government....whatever.... I just wanted to remind everyone that even though some/many of you will disagree, please respect that each of us has an opinion, and in the political threads, they are usually very strong ones on opposing sides of a given issue. So no matter how someone's opinion makes you feel, just don't flame that person for having it, as yours may make them feel the same way.
So, again...........carry on!
Deanna, I would have to be banished, too, along with you and Tink! Even my co-worker, whose hubby has spent a tour in Iraq agrees with me, too, on the war. Ugh.
I'm with Reds too....
I also agree with you Deanna.
Deanna - even thought I don't agree with you, you should never be banished for respectfully expressing your opinion. So ... I'll respectfully express mine .
The war has been seriously mishandled and was ill conceived from the beginning. If you know the history of the area, it was never a peaceful, unified country and never will be. It was "created" by the British around the time of the first world war. We need to allow the seperate factions to form mini states of their own and then, once their mini states are operating properly, the leaders of the mini states need to form a cohesive government. Idealistic and impossible, I know.
However, we needed to do something about Hussain and the possiblity of Iraq becoming a haven and base for terroristis. I never bought the 'weapons of mass destruction" angle anyway.
I know that since our troops have been fighting there, we've kept the war over there. Terroristis are fighting American soldiers rather than having to come here and blow up civilians. I am grateful for and humbled by the sacrifice that every one of those men and women are making. They are giving us a measure of security here. The proof is in the fact that we've not had another successful terrorist attack on American soil.
I'm glad we live in a country where we can make fun of the president, criticize our government and feel self-rightously indignant over the "horrible" treatment detainees undergo at Gitmo. I would rather that than the alternative of wondering if my evacuation and escape plan was going to work in the event of another attack and if I were going to see my famiy again.
If you want to know why we're there, listen to the call of the person in the WTC on 9/11.
I couldn't do it. That day is still too raw to someone who was pregnant with her first child and wondering if her life was ever going to be the same again. Thankfully, in a great part,it was, but for so many others, it wasn't.
What do we do? I don't know. But a sitting senator does not make denegrating remarks about the troops or the commander in chief. it's just not good form.
Ame
As long as a sitting president or commander in chief goes around making political speeches and stumping for candidates (and more or less saying that all candidates who don't agree with him are on the side of the terrorists), he is free game for any kind of denigrating remarks. As for denigrating the troops, Mr. Kerry has explained several times that it was a mistake, that he meant to denigrate George Bush. And he has apologized to the troops.
Iraq was never, under Saddam Hussein, a haven or base for terrorists. He made it very clear he would not tolerate them and would, in fact, treat them as badly as he treated any of his political prisoners. All of the evidence collected by our intelligence agencies and the intelligence agencies of other nations that have supported us in this misbegotten venture have made it clear that there were NO terrorist links to Hussein. Almost all of the 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and were trained in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (which we quite rightly invaded). Most of the spokespersons for the Bush administration have admitted that Hussein did not support or tolerate terrorists. The reason for invasion went from WMDs to attacking terrorists to Hussein is a bad man. And yes, he was a very bad man. There are a couple of dozen of them ruling countries in the Middle East, Africa, and the Far East. If we wanted to attack a bad man and have a better chance to make a difference, how about the ruler(s) of the Sudan (who are committing genocide in Darfur). I have yet to hear one sound reason for our invasion of Iraq.
If it was to bring them the blessings of democracy, well, we destroyed a stable (if vicious) government that left most people alone and provided basic services to most people, a government that was basically secular in nature and did not allow religious extremists or preachers, a system that allowed education at all levels for women, a system with working utility plants and hospitals and schools (not enough, but they were there) to what it is now.
Under the present system in Iraq, 30 to 50 people (mostly men) are kidnapped almost daily, tortured (with electric drills) and their bodies left on a street somewhere. Shiites and Sunnis who lived side by side for decades are moving to enclaves because they are fearful of sectarian violence. The leader of one of the biggest religious militias is in the Iraq Parliament, so powerful that the prime minister doesn't dare to disagree with him.
Tens of thousands of U.S. supplied weapons (including grenade launchers) that were supposed to be delivered to Iraqi police have disappeared - and one does wonder where they'll turn up and in whose hands. Bechtel, which was supposed to rebuild the electrical supply system and expand it, put in a natural gas powered plan - but Iraq doesn't have natural gas. Halliburton's subsidiary was supposed to build a police academy, which was so badly constructed that in the dormitary rooms, feces from upper floor bathrooms leaked onto the heads of people on the lower floors. KBR has been audited and investigated numerous times - and now the office of the U.S. general auditor in Iraq is being shut down.
And, for heaven's sake, what makes anyone think having our troops fight and die in Iraq (and having hundreds of civilians die every week in sectarian violence or civil war - take your pick) keeps any terrorists out of the United States? All any terrorist has to do is what the original 9-11 terrorists did. They can go to a neutral country, get well-forged documents, and come into the United States as visitors - or across our very porous borders. If drug smugglers can safely bring in pounds and tens of pounds of cocaine, why do you imagine terrorists can't bring in pounds and tens of pounds of explosives, or poison chemicals?
Politicians and others can gloat all they want about a stupid remark made by John Kerry and since apologized for. That doesn't change anything about this ill-conceived and serious mishandled war.
Quote:All of the evidence collected by our intelligence agencies and the intelligence agencies of other nations that have supported us in this misbegotten venture have made it clear that there were NO terrorist links to Hussein.
What they established was that Hussein had no direct connection SPECIFIALLY to 9/11. Not that he had no terrorist connections whatsoever. He most certainly did have terrorist connections, just not directly with the 9/11 terrorists.
Quote:we destroyed a stable (if vicious) government that left most people alone
Not true. In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran which resulted in an 8 year war. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, which led the U.S. to confront Hussein and liberate them from Iraqi occupation.
We know that Hussein was aquiring enriched uranium- there is proof of that. Hussein was a megalomaniac who had visions of being the lone superpower in the Mid East and as a result of our actions in the Gulf in 1990, Hussein saw the U.S. as an obstacle. Therefore, he did enlist the cooperation of terrorist groups as bedfellows to defeating the U.S.
Quote:He made it very clear he would not tolerate them and would, in fact, treat them as badly as he treated any of his political prisoners.
Only because he refused to be bullied by them, but he was willing to cooperate with them in order to achieve his goals.
Quote:we destroyed...a system that allowed education at all levels for women, a system with working utility plants and hospitals and schools...
I totally disagree. Education was seriously lacking in Iraq under Hussein. The Kurds were forbidden to have clean water and electricity and students were only required to attend schools to the 6th grade.
Re-opening schools in Iraq, November 1, 2004
"There are approximately 6 million K-12 students, and 300,000 teachers and administrators. Education is mandatory only through the sixth grade. Students who do not pass the mandatory national exit exam in sixth grade can progress to a vocational track. However, vocational education in Iraq is extraordinarily antiquated, and few students elect that option.
"Under Saddam Hussein, the regime siphoned education funds to pay for military expenditures and other priorities. Teachers received on average a mere $5 a month. When the regime fell, approximately 80 percent of the nation's 15,000 school buildings needed rehabilitation and lacked basic sanitary conditions.
"Teachers have received little training. Teaching in Iraq relies heavily on government-produced textbooks and is characterized by "memorization without understanding." There are very few school libraries and no school labs. Effective lesson plans that rely on student discussion or interaction between teacher and student or among students are rare."
I also found an article from April 2003 on NY Times website that reflect the struggles of Marsh Arabs.
Abstract of article
"Marsh Arabs, Iraqis who live where Tigris and Euphrates rivers merge, saw their culture destroyed by Saddam Hussein; he systematically set about exterminating them in his effort to crush any opposition to his rule and to punish Shiite Muslims for rising up against his government in 1991; drained wetlands, set reeds on fire and executed thousands of residents; now, with Hussein's government toppled, people of this part of Iraq are left with only memories and fear that their way of life has been lost forever."
And an NPR interview with Entifadh Qanbar, an Iraqi army veteran, from 2002.
Interview
"What we want is a war for Iraq. It's not a war against Iraq. We should not make this war between America and Iraq. The United States has a great opportunity to help Iraqis to liberate themselves."
He goes on to describe prison conditions in Iraq under Saddam.
I guess I just don't understand how you characterize Saddam as a vicious dictator, and then at the same time describe his regime as providing a peaceful nation in which to live, with all the society's basic needs met. It just wasn't the reality.
Lisa, I didn't say "all the society's basic needs met". I said "a stable (if vicious) government that left most people alone and provided basic services to most people". The reality was very bad for the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs were pretty much destroyed. I make no brief for Hussein or his government. I do say that the "average" Iraqi was a whole lot better off under Hussein than now.
According to a National Institute of Health study (a U.S. goverment agency), the average person in Baghdad or other major population centers is 2-1/2 times more likely to be killed now than before we invaded. NIH
Your article on education says there are 6 million students in primary (K-12) schools in Iraq in an article published in November 2004. UNICEF says 4.3 million. UNICEF The article you cite was written by the U.S. Advisor to Iraqi's Ministry of Education - someone appointed by the U.S. What would you expect her to say?
As for terrorists, the 911 Report says, very clearly:
9/11 Commission report "Overview of the Enemy"
Bin ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting with Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There's been reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. The two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
I will agree that Hussein paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian sucide bombers, and that is certainly a link with terrorism. It's just not the link with terrorism that was used as a justification for our invasion of Iraq.
So, we have 2,800+ U.S. personnel killed, about 20,000 wounded, and are spending around $250 million a day, about $316 billion so far. According to many military commanders, Iraq is either on the verge of or may have descended into civil war. We send troops to Ramadi, the sectarian violence goes down. We take the troops from Ramadi and send them to Baghdad, sectarian violence goes up in Ramadi. A U.S. soldier of Iraqi descent disappears (probably kidnapped) and we put up blockades. The Iraqi prime minister objects and we taken down the blockades, but the soldier is still missing. The former standard of 18 months state-side after deployment overseas has dropped to 12 months, or sometimes less. Units are being recycled to their third deployment in Iraq.
It's nice that Qanbar, an Iraqi war veteran, sees this as not a war between American and Iraq, but rather a war of liberation. Yes, we liberated Iraq from Hussein. But what did we liberate them to?
No one seems to know how or when this war will end. The President himself has said that when we leave Iraq will be up to the next administration. And what have we accomplished, other than toppling the Hussein regime? With the best will in the world and with full understanding of the evils that Hussein committed, I do not believe that toppling his regime was worth the many prices we and the Iraqi people are paying.
Considering that the average Iraqi risked his/her life to appear at the voting booth to elect a president and ratify a constitution, I would imagine that they don't mind the present conditions at this time compared to life under the rule of an evil dictator.
They are determined to have their country under their own conditions and on their own terms, much like the Founding Fathers were when the United States was but a dream of a better life for future generations. That is what keeps them going.
I myself find it hard to trust information coming out of any United Nations funded organization, no matter how benevolant it might be, considering the amount of corruption and terror ties that exist in the UN at the highest level.
(However, regarding that 6 million student figure I did find a fact sheet on UNESCO.org dated March of 2003.)
Same can be said for the 9/11 commission, when they say, "The two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq." Like we can trust Bin Laden's cronies? What would you expect them to say?
Besides, al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization that would like to defeat the U.S. and I do not specifically recall, when we were ginning up to go into Iraq, that anyone at the highest levels of our government drew that connection specifically between Iraq and al Qaeda or 9/11. I could be wrong, but I just don't recall. What I do recall is that the congress and our president agreed to seek out terrorism wherever it exists so that we don't risk another 9/11 happening again. I do not believe it mattered what the affiliation of the terror suspect would be. A terrorist is a terrorist.
And the 9/11 commission's conclusion is the same: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," which is what I had stated above.
When we refer to the loss of life among the American military, which is definiely tragic, we must also not lose our perspective.
Eye of the Beholder
"Every year, over 4,000 Californians die in car crashes — nearly twice the number of Americans lost so far in three years of combat operations in Iraq."
Lots of excellent info here, and plenty of research to support the comments made, but ditto-ditto-ditto Ginny!!!!!
LOL Guess I'm just in the mood for doing research...
When we watch the news, all we hear about is the success of the enemy and the losses of the Americans. All we get on TV are the latest roadside bomb, the daily count of the death toll of U.S. soldiers, and the occasional propaganda video shot by terrorists furnished somehow to CNN which then broadcasts it. I think it's about time we hear about some successes of the U.S. and Iraqi forces and the failures of the enemy.
Here are some of the objectives that the jihadists and the militias sponsored by Tehran failed to achieve.
1) Seizing enough territory in and around the towns of Haditha and Aanah in the al-Anbar province to establish an "Islamic emirate" there. Despite several major attempts they failed, largely because a strong new coalition of Sunni Arab tribes in Anbar has entered the fight to flush the jihadists out of Iraq.
2) To gain a foothold in Mosul, Iraq's largest Arab Sunni city, and turn it into a new base as Fallujah had been in 2004. Again, despite several attempts, the plan failed - thanks to the new Iraqi army backed by U.S. forces.
3) To gain a foothold in Mosul, Iraq's largest Arab Sunni city, and turn it into a new base as Fallujah had been in 2004. Again, despite several attempts, the plan failed - thanks to the new Iraqi army backed by U.S. forces.
4) Attacking the "Green Zone" in the heat of Baghdad, where most Iraqi government offices and the U.S. embassy are located. The insurgents made at least two attempts but failed, suffering heavy casualties.
5) To paralyze the parliament by threatening to kill its members at a time they were discussing such key issues as federalism, a law for foreign investments in Iraq and the terms of an amnesty and national reconciliation. Again, despite several attempts on the lives of parliamentarians, the plot failed.
6) Muqtada al-Sadr and his Jaish al-Mahdi (Mahdi Army) tried to seize control of the southern Shiite city of al-Amarah with a well-planned attack reportedly designed by Iranian advisers. However, the attack failed and Sadr's gunmen were flushed out of the city.
7) Despite numerous murders and abductions, the jihadist promise to force the total closure of hospitals, universities, schools, newspapers, TV stations and even barber shops was not fulfilled.
The Enemy Fails
As some people who have been to Iraq come back to talk about it, it becomes painfully obvious to them that the U.S. media has no interest or intention to report anything positive in that region regarding the United States. They are glad to report positive and successful encounters and stories for our enemy, but not us.
All year the the democrats have been campaigning on Iraq. "The American people hate the war in Iraq. The American people hate Bush. The American people want us out of Iraq. " But, now here we are inside a week of the election and I don't hear any of the Democratic candidates talking about Iraq. Democratic party leaders are nowhere. If the Democrats had been right about this all year, it would be THE big push in the election. It would be the main issue that they are campaigning on because it would be a big winner for them. However, they seem to have gone silent on this issue within the past week.
The reality is that John Kerry's botched joke has blown the lid off of the Democrat leaders' agenda. The backlash from this has proven to the Democrat leaders that most Americans really do want us to succeed in Iraq.
I sorrow for the deaths of 4,000 Californians. Believe me, I take it seriously.
I find it more than a bit outrageous, however, to compare the accidental deaths of any number of citizens in auto accidents with the deaths of U.S. servicemen and women deliberately sent off to a war we should never have begun; which was begun for specious reasons which were later changed to other specious reasons which were eventually changed to "regime changing" reasons; a war that was poorly planned in terms of OK, we've won the shooting war, what do we do now?; a war in which the civilian leaders, none of whom were ever on active duty, disregarded the repeated advice of the military professionals and punished those who persisted in their advice. And, a war in which our elected and appointed leaders continue to lie to us about what is happening presently in Iraq, bluster about how we're "winning", except we aren't, say "stay the course" for 3 years and now suddenly say "oh, we were never 'stay the course'"; and when some military leaders publicly say they want and need more troops, suddenly two or three days later they say oh, no, we didn't mean that.
President Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld expected - said publicly that they expected - that the U.S. invaders of Iraq (and yes, we were invaders) would be welcomed with open arms as liberators. When that didn't happen, they got caught flat-footed, but they haven't changed from their original strategy. Yes, tactics have changed, but tactics are what an army does on a day to day or week to week basis. Strategy is the overall plans underlying the tactics, and from where I sit, the only strategy I can see is that our leadership is crossing its fingers and hoping. We have no timelines, no guideposts, no checkpoints, no benchmarks. We are fighting a losing battle, losing 2 or 3 or 5 or more lives of U.S. military personnel every day (over 100 last month, I believe), and we are no further along than we were before.
For heaven's sake, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, says that thousands of weapons the U.S. provided to Iraqi security forces cannot be accounted for. The report says that only about 10,000 of the 370,000 weapons the U.S. provided followed a Defense Department requirement that the serial number be recorded. The Defense Department says, in its defense, that nothing required themto register foreign-owned weapons - in other words, we didn't get the serial numbers of weapons we then gave to the Iraqi security forces because when we gave them to the Iraqi security forces they became foreign-owned. And with all of our giving weapons to the Iraqi security forces, of the 12 types of weapons we are giving them, we are spending $269,000 for spare parts for 5 (out of 12) types, and are unable to provide sufficient repair manuals so that the weapons we provided - assuming they are used by Iraqi security forces and not insurgents or sectarian armies - cannot be repaired. This is how we are managing to set up Iraq security forces - one of the benchmarks that has been talked about.
And now, when we have little credibility in the Middle East, when most of our available troops are tied up in Iraq (so much that we can't send more troops into Afghanistan to battle the regrouping Taliban), when our troops are being sent back and back and back again - now we have Iran, and North Korea. North Korea has proven capacity to make nuclear weapons. Iran probably will have within the next 5-10 years, if not sooner. And we are willing to negotiate, endlessly, with Iran and North Korea, who have or are more or less on the verge of having nuclear weapons. But our leaders chose to invade Iraq, which had, at best, low grade enriched uranium and not much else. Iraq could well have been a danger to its neighboring states, but was no danger to us 5 or 4 years ago.
Shortly before this war began I read a column by a very conservative columnist - I want to say Jonah Goldberg but I can't prove it, but it was someone of that ilk - who said, plainly, that the reason we should invade Iraq was because we could win. That we couldn't win in North Korea (because of the Chinese) or in Iran (because of their large, well-organized and well-supplied army), but we could easily win in Iraq. So invading Iraq - rather than North Korea or Iran - made sense. Every so often I remember that column, and I feel like crying.
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam", by George Bush, Sr. and Brent Scowcroft: excerpt
Interesting points made here...
My only comment is this. Certainly there is a plan. It may not be a plan we agree with, but it is secure information. We couldn't likely state publically this is our plan, because if we do, then all heck will break loose.
Ultimatly I do think we were lied to about why we went to war. I think the president followed advice from a non trustworthy friend (as a naive fellow, who wanted to hear what he was told). But i also think that when all the documents are out, we will find several reasons we went to war, and only a couple being shared with us.
Bush stumbles over his words, he just does, to me that indicates him speaking someone elses speeches and not from his heart, it is hard to fake it. It is interesting to listen to how well W could speak before the 2000 election, he sounded so much more intelligent.
But word stumbling or not, we are in Iraq, why we got there doesn't really matter to me, whether we should stay does. We have made a difference, yes there are still unstable parts of iraq, other parts are doing better than before.
The other kicker here is OIL!! It may not be talked about, but we are protecting those oil fields, they haven't been set on fire, we haven't lost 80% of the nations oil supply. I think that is a HUGE reason we chose to invade when we did. It would hurt us in many ways to lose those field, and us more than any other country.
Kaye, I think that's it, too! Oil!
Regarding oil, it is about keeping control of Iraq's oil out of the hands of the bad guys. Imagine what they could do with that much power over there.
Anyway, I am willing to let you have the last word on this. I am tired of the debate. It is what it is, and the only thing we can do about it is vote tomorrow.
May the best people win!
|
Members
