As Casualties Mount, Bush Ignores Reality

[gilliam]

CanonAlberic:

Joe is one of the few remaining true and actual “investigative reporters”. While not on the level of Robert Parry, and his Consortium News team, he well deserves the term “SMOKIN’ Joe Conason”. Everything I’ve read, even the items in the MSM where they do thier best to hide Dubya’s blunders bear Joe out. Thank God we still actually have newspeople who are interested in the truth!

Peace.

Well SMOKIN Joe is wrong in this case.

1. The war has turned. Less attacks occur each day (has been going on for weeks now). bin-Laden and now al-Zaharwi are running for their lives.
2. Bush’s approval rating hit 53% today.

PS: sure a lot of SMOKIN Joes around. Everytime I turn around there seems to be another one.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Celia:

I hope this is the last time I have to do this 'cause I’m getting really bored typing the same things over and over again. Anyway…
First- This is based on what I was taught in my United States history classes in college, plus a little of my own research.

You were taught in college that the United States had an income tax prior to the Civil War, and that there was a Federal Real Estate Tax?

Celia:

In everything that I have read considering core ideals and actions of both parties, the gauntlets taken up by the democratic party of the south is something more similar to what conservative republicans would take a stand on today as far as intrusion in government and states rights goes. NOT SLAVERY. (which was not the main casue of the war.) Ok? Ok.

Not okay. Read the secession ordnances of the individual states.

Celia:

Second- first answer pretty much sums this up. Ideals change. The party of Lincoln is not the Republican party of today. Don’t know what the KKK has to do with this…

You would know what the KKK has to do with it if you lived in the South – it was the muscle used to keep Blacks (and Catholics) in line. And as I pointed out, as late as the '70s my old church was desecrated and burned by the KKK.

Celia:

Third- If the south did fire that first shot, I don’t see why they couldn’t. Bush felt “threatened” by Iraqs supposed store of WMD’s.

You have a primary source where the Confederate government says they believe the Union had WMD?

Celia:

Led to close to 2,000 GI’s deaths so far. If that’s ok, why isn’t this? (sorry, a shot out of left field, but I couldn’t help it)

Because in THIS war, we were attacked. The Confederacy was not. In THIS war, we had a truce with Iraq, and they failed to live up to the terms.

Celia:

Fourth, well, and Fifth- sorry, I did my homework in college. Not doing it again, my friend. Way too lazy to look that up. I seriously remember reading about the north putting taxes on the cotton that reached overseas and keeping those profits for the growth of industrialism in the north, and the south not seeing any of the money for improvements in their areas…

Then you remember wrong. The “tax” in question would have been an export tax, and that is forbidden by the constitution.

Celia:

.if that’s not correct, I apologize, but that’s what I was taught.

Which college taught you this – I don’t want my grand daughter going there.

Celia:

We can talk about this stuff forever, but my main point is I think it is very closed-minded to have the belief that democrats are responsible for all the wars this country has ever seen. I mean, how do you explain our most recent conflicts with Iraq? Doesn’t add up.

You haven’t been reading the thread, have you?

 

[trailblazer]

Bush is well aware of reality and is doing an awsome job. Its absolutely amazing when we think of the accomplishments in Iraq and the few casualities. As a Vietnam veteran, I am completely comfortable in saying this. Is everything perfect? Well, has everything been perfect in any war we’ve been involved in? I do not think so. Has there been casualities…well…after all…this is war, not a Sunday picnic. I admire Bush for standing by his word and values, and not giving into the pressure from the media and the rest of the opposition who have quickly forgotten how they felt when all of this began!

Love in Christ,
Bob

 

[leaner]

Bush is well aware of reality and is doing an awsome job. Its absolutely amazing when we think of the accomplishments in Iraq and the few casualities. As a Vietnam veteran, I am completely comfortable in saying this. Is everything perfect? Well, has everything been perfect in any war we’ve been involved in? I do not think so. Has there been casualities…well…after all…this is war, not a Sunday picnic. I admire Bush for standing by his word and values, and not giving into the pressure from the media and the rest of the opposition who have quickly forgotten how they felt when all of this began!

Love in Christ,
Bob

Trailblazer – here’s what I think – just my humble opinion –

I think people in this country were spoiled rotten by the Gulf War – the whole “100hrs” and we’re victorious part – from that point on, any casualty became “unacceptable” and this war in Iraq, while completely different, was expected to turn out the same way; over in 100hrs. Absurd if you ask me. The people who are screaming “we’re repeating Vietnam!” are the people who really need to realize they are trying to force us to repeat 1991…and it just ain’t the same battle (ps - perhaps if Sadaam wasn’t allowed to fester and grow under the clinton administration, this could have been more what the MSM is demanding; that whole “100hrs and done”)

 

[space_ghost]

…trust me my friends, the only ones winning the war here??? The Undertakers!

http://www.wyomingprospector.com/RVingGoldFields/images/Undertaker.jpg

…i saw a quote earlier… something about how insanity is doing the same thing over and over despite the outcome always being the same…

…Two rules about war… Rule 1: Young men die in war… Rule 2: You can do nothing to change Rule 1:… Insanity???

 

[gilliam]

see:
Top terror leader arrested in northern Iraq

 

[Celia]

vern humphrey:

You were taught in college that the United States had an income tax prior to the Civil War, and that there was a Federal Real Estate Tax?

Not okay. Read the secession ordnances of the individual states.

You would know what the KKK has to do with it if you lived in the South – it was the muscle used to keep Blacks (and Catholics) in line. And as I pointed out, as late as the '70s my old church was desecrated and burned by the KKK.

You have a primary source where the Confederate government says they believe the Union had WMD?

Because in THIS war, we were attacked. The Confederacy was not. In THIS war, we had a truce with Iraq, and they failed to live up to the terms.

Then you remember wrong. The “tax” in question would have been an export tax, and that is forbidden by the constitution.

Which college taught you this – I don’t want my grand daughter going there.

You haven’t been reading the thread, have you?

First- yup. talk to my teacher with the doctorate. I was told there was taxes on the merchandise (or whatever you would call it) shipped out to other countries. And that this practice was being abused by the north. I’m not making it up, I promise!
Second- I’ll look into that, thanks.
Third-I’m sorry that happend to your church. What an awful thing. I don’t know too much about the KKK though, so I can’t really offer any comments on that. Sorry
Fourth- Um, no. I don’t think they were really capable of that just yet, lol. I was trying to make a kind of comparison to the way they felt to the way that Bush felt when he decided to start this attack. Perhaps it wasn’t the clearest example, but I was trying to make a point.
Fifth- Really? When did Iraq attack us? And if you say 9-11, I’ll tear my hair out.
Sixth- Maybe that’s why the south had a problem with it…If I see this teacher around campus next semester, I’ll ask her about it.
Seventh- I find that a little insulting. Is it possible that maybe you learned something you didn’t know? Why is that bad? I go to a state university in New York. I’m not telling my exact location as I’d rather not let the whole message board know.
And yes, I have read this thread. I’ve also been trying to be polite, up until right about now. I’d rather not discuss this with you any further if you are going to be rude. Thanks.

 

[gilliam]

Celia:

Fifth- Really? When did Iraq attack us? .

You mean other than shoot at our planes flying over the no fly zone. Before you say we shouldn’t have been there, we were there to stop Saddam from murdering more innocent Shiite Iraqis (he started a purge). They are still finding their mass graves in the Southern parts of Iraq. See:
, USAID’s Natsios saysIraq, US Excavating Iraq’s Mass****Graves

You should also read this news article from last year:

’ - Jun 18, 2004CNN****Saddam
Putin says Russia warned the US of planned attacks by Saddam’s regime …

 

[mlchance]

Celia:

Fifth- Really? When did Iraq attack us? And if you say 9-11, I’ll tear my hair out.

Hussein being involved in 9/11 is something that the anti-Bush folks like to bring up in order to immediately discredit. Never us mind that no one in the Bush administration has ever claimed Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Can we say “straw man”?

That point aside: You’re right. Iraq never fired at anyone patrolling the no-fly zone. It never happened. Nor did the Hussein regime ever attempt to assassinate any American. And this nonexistent assassin had absolutely nothing to with international terrorism, including Al-Q. Hussein also never offered rewards for suicide bombings directed against Israelis by groups like Hizballah, and none of these attacks, of course, ever hurt Americans.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Celia]

Yes, but we were talking about direct attacks in the previous posts. We were not attacked by them. This stuff doesn’t have anything to do with what we were speaking of. Threats? yes. Good intelligence reports? Seems like it. I don’t deny that Iraq was most likely plotting against us. But these last two posts are not really in that same context, I think…if anything, it proves my ideas about the south feeling threatened and therefore launching that first attack. Kind of like how Bush felt threatened (though not directly attacked, so he made the first strike.) You know what I mean? I hope I’m being clear in my response here.
I’m not against you guys, I swear…I like you…but I will never think this war was the right thing to do. I read in the paper today that 2 soldiers from my hometown died in the last few months. It breaks my heart. They were 20 and 21 years old. If it was for a clear purpose, I would understand…but this whole thing seems like a bunch of lying and madness. I don’t know how anyone can find justice in this whole thing. I didn’t like George Bush in 2000 and I can barely stand to look at him on t.v. now. What a way to feel about your president. I’d like to be proud, but I’m not.
That’s just the way I feel about it. I’m sorry if you disagree.

 

[gilliam]

Why do some people always twist these threads into a question of should we have gone into Iraq in the 1st place. That really doesn’t matter right now, what matters right now is that we have to stay there and get the job done.

You all need to realize that and stop arguing about what already happened.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Celia:

First- yup. talk to my teacher with the doctorate. I was told there was taxes on the merchandise (or whatever you would call it) shipped out to other countries. And that this practice was being abused by the north. I’m not making it up, I promise!

No. Export duties are unconstitutional. There WAS a high tarriff on INCOMING manufactured goods which worked to the North’s advantage, but no tax on outgoing shipments.

Celia:

Third-I’m sorry that happend to your church. What an awful thing. I don’t know too much about the KKK though, so I can’t really offer any comments on that. Sorry

As a Catholic, you ought to be familiar with who persecuted Catholics in this country.

Celia:

Fourth- Um, no. I don’t think they were really capable of that just yet, lol. I was trying to make a kind of comparison to the way they felt to the way that Bush felt when he decided to start this attack. Perhaps it wasn’t the clearest example, but I was trying to make a point.

In other words you made a false parallel, knowing it was false.

Celia:

Fifth- Really? When did Iraq attack us? And if you say 9-11, I’ll tear my hair out.

We were in a state of truce with Iraq – based on Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in '91. The Iraqis failed to live up to the terms of the truce – which is all by itself causus belli.

And as we now know, Iraq provided a lot of support to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Celia:

Sixth- Maybe that’s why the south had a problem with it…If I see this teacher around campus next semester, I’ll ask her about it.

I’d stay away from that teacher – he doesn’t know his business if your claims about what he taught you are right.

Celia:

Seventh- I find that a little insulting. Is it possible that maybe you learned something you didn’t know? Why is that bad? I go to a state university in New York. I’m not telling my exact location as I’d rather not let the whole message board know.
And yes, I have read this thread. I’ve also been trying to be polite, up until right about now. I’d rather not discuss this with you any further if you are going to be rude. Thanks.

When you make claims like you have, you have to expect people to respond to them.

When you draw false parallels – like between the South and Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, you have to expect some come back.

When you say things very much like the rhetoric that killed so many American soldiers in the Viet Nam War, you have to expect the Veterans of that war to set you straight.

 

[trailblazer]

Celia: I know you mean well, but I do not thing you are looking at or remembering the whole picture. The US had numerous intelligence reports regarding Iraq threat. If you remember, the US warned Suddam repeatedly of the consequences if he did not comply… he purposely did not comply and kept snubbing America like a ltlle kid saying “nah nah…you can’t get me!” When we went in, we could not do otherwise and we had support from both Democrats and Republicans. In addition to weapons, Iraq was supporting our enemies – the terrorist – even encouraging them!

You mentioned 2 people in your home town dying. How many in your home down died during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. This is war and in war casualties happen to both sides. What is remarkable is how few American casualties there have been!
The US is doing a remarkable job at getting the enemy and protecting its troups.

You mentioned not finding justice. What about the protection of America from A-Q and other terrorist who were using Iraq? What about keeping our word? What about eliminating a huge threat to America? What about the mass graves we are still finding, the mistreatment of women, raping of women, education for kids, food, health, and quality of life for Iraq?

You say that you should feel proud of your president. What about Clinton made you feel proud or not proud? I feel very proud of Bush not only for what he is doing in Iraq, but for his protection of the unborn and stance regarding the 5 Catholic non-negotiable issues!

Bob

 

[mlchance]

Celia:

Yes, but we were talking about direct attacks in the previous posts.

And I referenced direct attacks. Or were they not direct enough? Or did they not directly target a sufficiently large number of Americans?

Celia:

We were not attacked by them.

Yes, we were. Both directly and indirectly. See my most recent post above.

Celia:

I read in the paper today that 2 soldiers from my hometown died in the last few months. It breaks my heart. They were 20 and 21 years old. If it was for a clear purpose, I would understand…

The clear purposes for Operation Iraqi Freedom have been enumerated so many times that it is inconceivable that people aren’t aware of them.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mlchance]

BTW, Celia:

The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of:

First, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Result: Success.

Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Result: Mixed.

Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Result: Work in progress. Too early to tell.

Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Result: Work in progress. Too early to tell.

Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Result: Work in progress. Too early to tell.

Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Result: Success.

Seventh, to secure Iraq’s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Result: Success.

Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government. Result: Success.

Overall, Operation Iraqi Freedom is meeting its stated objectives.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[geezerbob]

mlchance:

The clear purposes for Operation Iraqi Freedom have been enumerated so many times that it is inconceivable that people aren’t aware of them.
– Mark L. Chance.

It’s unfortunate, but many people make up their minds about something based on who knows what, then see only those things which support their position. They remain blind to or obstinately refuse to accept any information, no matter how credible, that supports the other viewpoint.

I also had misgivings about the motives for invading Iraq and still do. However, those misgivings left me undecided about it, not necessarily opposed to it. Once the decision had been made, I accepted it and threw my support behind my country and her troops just as I would have done had it occurred under a prior administration. I saw the horrible way our veterans were treated in the Viet Nam era and never want to see anything like that again.

Make no mistake about it, we are involved in a war, of which Iraq is only a part, and our survival as a nation depends on our winning it. Blaming the overall situation on our past foreign policy, while probably partially true, is just an exercise in futility. Regardless of how it came to be, the situation today is what it is and is what we have to deal with. I suppose to some, though, we should just sit back and let all the lunatics and their supporters in this world continue to take potshots at us while we vainly try to get the UN to talk them to death.

Despite all the criticism some folks heap on the current administration, we seldom hear anything constructive coming from them regarding a better way of handling the terrorists, foreign policy, or whatever their rant de jour is. Everything is always about the past and present, with nothing about the future. If they had anything to offer besides condemnation, maybe they could be working for the State Department, the Pentagon, or the White House staff.

 

[Thekla]

Celia:

I don’t deny that Iraq was most likely plotting against us.

And yet there is no evidence of that either. We actually have a government that took us to war through lies and deceit, and rather than hold them accountable, we have citizens willing to cover for them.

And when I hear people say, “No one in government ever said Iraq was responsible for 9/11,” don’t you believe it. Many citizens concluded EXACTLY what the government wanted them to conclude; what many of them still believe because of repetitive statements like this…

“And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.” (5/03)
I will never stop bringing up how we went to war. There are people who say that it doesn’t matter, we are already there. Doesn’t matter? Doesn’t matter why we went to war? Why the lack of desire for critical examination? Isn’t it really because they know there is much to hide and much deception afoot? Isn’t it a choice between politicians and the nation and they choose the politicians?

 

[mlchance]

Thekla:

And yet there is no evidence of that either.

Yes, there is.

“And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.”

Note what the quote doesn’t say. It doesn’t say that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Thekla]

I’d argue that that’s exactly what it says and it’s exactly what they want people to believe.

"Question: “The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?”

Cheney: **No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection. ** If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Of course Dick isn’t surprised. American people think precisely what he wants them to think; those who aren’t outright lying to pollsters to support the government. Shall I bring up the Harris Poll where more than 40% of people say they believe there were Iraqis on the planes on 9/11? It’s a culture of deception that’s being fostered and fanned and you want to debate semantics.

 

[Celia]

vern humphrey:

No. Export duties are unconstitutional. There WAS a high tarriff on INCOMING manufactured goods which worked to the North’s advantage, but no tax on outgoing shipments.

As a Catholic, you ought to be familiar with who persecuted Catholics in this country.

In other words you made a false parallel, knowing it was false.

We were in a state of truce with Iraq – based on Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in '91. The Iraqis failed to live up to the terms of the truce – which is all by itself causus belli.

And as we now know, Iraq provided a lot of support to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

I’d stay away from that teacher – he doesn’t know his business if your claims about what he taught you are right.

When you make claims like you have, you have to expect people to respond to them.

When you draw false parallels – like between the South and Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, you have to expect some come back.

When you say things very much like the rhetoric that killed so many American soldiers in the Viet Nam War, you have to expect the Veterans of that war to set you straight.

Yayyy, here we go…
First- okey dokey. I’m willing to admit that I might be wrong on that point. It doesn’t hurt my feelings. Maybe it was the incoming tax and I had it mixed up. shrug
Second- I’m sorry if I’m not a good enough Catholic for you.
Third- I don’t believe it to be a “false parallel” now. I think you refuse to see it.
Fourth-Support isn’t an attack. We were talking about attacks.
Fifth- the teacher is a she. I already told you I will attempt to clarify that when I see her again.
Sixth-I also don’t expect to be insulted on a Christian message board. But then, I should have known to stay out of this particular part of the forum.
It’s not a false parallel. Already said that.
Really? Because my father is a Vietnam vet. And recieved a purple heart. I think he set me pretty straight on the ideals I have now. But thanks so much for caring.