posted on September 22, 2003 11:39:34 AM"Anyone who doubts the wisdom of President Bush's course in Iraq should stand, as I did, by the side of the mass grave in Halabja, in Iraq's north. That terrible site holds the remains of 5,000 innocent men, women and children who were gassed to death by Saddam Hussein's criminal regime."
Meaning - if you don't ever see the al qaeda connection or the hidden WOMD, you should still be happy because the leader gassed his own people and we ran him out of town.
And, in addition to the 7,000 killed in the Iraq war, it's been estimated that 1.4 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the sanctions, imposed after that event supposedly occurred in 1988.
There is some controversy about the basis of the story that Saddam gassed his own people.
posted on September 22, 2003 02:21:37 PMBesides, the people of the US would not vote to preemptively strike and invade Iraq with only that as justification.
Helen
ugh...helen...the "people" don't get to vote. lol They didn't get to 'vote' this time either. The president has a right to take this country to war anytime he wishes too.
posted on September 22, 2003 02:46:10 PM
I couldn't agree more with the following: But of course you liberals will wholeheartly disagree, but the facts are the facts...
Firing Up the Liberal Spin Machine By Rachel Marsden September 15, 2003
You'd think that somewhere in America, a major cafeteria that caters to liberals had just run out of chocolate milk. A mere six months into the "Iraq phase" in the war on terrorism, liberals are already whining about having to fork over a few bucks to do the job that Bill Clinton neglected for 8 years as Osama bin Laden ran around bombing embassies and American warships like he was the bad guy in a Bruce Willis movie. Meanwhile, countries like Iraq and Afghanistan -- run by ruthless, despotic regimes -- were thriving as breeding grounds for extremists.
Last week, President George W. Bush announced that he would ask Congress for $87 billion to help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan and to continue military and intelligence operations in the area. Sure, that may sound like a lot of money, but really what it boils down to about $250 per American. That's a pretty small price to pay for "security insurance" to prevent another trillion dollar 9/11 attack on the US and/or its allies -- and the Democrats know it. That's why despite their constant bellyaching and their use of this issue as a political pawn against the President, they're going to vote overwhelmingly in favor of this funding allocation. George W. Bush is doing the right thing -- and the Democrats know it, despite the fact that they're using it as a lame excuse to spin their bowls on the heads of the American people. They just figure that if they up their anti-Bush rhetoric a few more decibels, voters won't be wise enough to notice that their words don't match their actions when it comes time for Congress to approve the funding. Of course, the implied alternative is that we can just adopt the Democratic policy of the past decade: Do nothing, spend that $87 billion or more on liberal boondoggles like universal health care and the 40-year old "war on poverty" -- and just sit back and absorb whatever else the jihadists have in mind for us and then pay the bills at their leisure.
In a post-9/11 speech he made in Vancouver, BC, on November 9th, 2001, even modern liberalism's favorite poster-boy, Bill Clinton, admitted that starving and oppressed people are prime targets for terrorist infiltration and that far more money was needed to prevent another attack of 9/11 magnitude:
...We also have to create a world where we have more partners and fewer potential terrorists. And how are we going to do that? We have to spread the benefits and shrink the burdens of the 21st century world, number one. Number two, we have to deal with the fact that most terrorists come from places that aren't democracies... Ten years ago I said it ought to matter to us how people govern themselves because democracies by and large don't go to war with each other, don't sponsor terrorist acts against each other, and are more likely to be reliable partners, protect the environment, and abide by the law. Democracy is a stabilizing force. It provides a nonviolent means for resolving disputes. I believe that. And it's no accident that most of these terrorists come from non-democratic countries.
In this same speech, Clinton also emphasized that millions of dollars more in US foreign aid should be allocated to these countries. Ever the academic, Clinton understood the theory behind the need to rid these terror-breeding countries of their despot leaders, and the financial sacrifice required to do so; however, Clinton -- unlike George W. Bush -- lacked the courage and conviction to carry out what he knew would be required to prevent another terrorist attack on US soil.
Liberals who now criticize Bush's spending plans in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to forget that it was only two years ago that Bush told the American people that they were at war with a different kind of enemy, that this war wouldn't be a conventional one, and that it would require a great deal of time, money, and patience. At the time -- with the horrors of September 11th still fresh in their minds -- liberals were only too happy to oblige. Now, like little kids with Attention Deficit Disorder, they're unable to stay focused. Maybe if Bush would allow for one terrorist hit on American soil per year, it would help keep the liberals' attention. Good thing Bush is more concerned with doing what is right than he is with appeasing liberals and silencing myopic critics. No democracy was ever built in 6 months, yet this is what the liberals fully expect. Or at least they say they do -- and figure that voters are ignorant enough to believe that this is realistic.
Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy -- no stranger to throwing in big white towels (except maybe when it comes to the towel hamper at fitness facilities) -- seems keen to toss in yet another one with the war on terrorism. Bush has just succeeded in drawing the jihadists of the world into Iraq's free-fire zone, and Kennedy already wants Bush to publicize a plan that will let terrorists know when the US will be vacating Iraq. I suppose the concept of a long run, of any kind, is something that's just far too foreign for Kennedy.
Bush realizes that he does need some support from the international community, but he must be very careful in striking a balance between getting financial and military support from other countries for the ongoing efforts in Iraq, and handing over too much control to UN-member countries that don't have any experience in nation building. To do so would send a strong message to terrorists and despots that Iraq is once again open for business.
The goal is -- and should be -- to have both Iraq and Afghanistan being run by their own people in a democratic fashion as soon as possible, but this isn't going to happen overnight. No one ever said that it would. From 1948 until 1952, the United States spent the equivalent of about $100 billion today to rebuild Europe under the Marshall Plan. Even more was spent over the years on the Cold War. But of course, the liberals figured fighting communism was a waste of money, too.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told a House subcommittee in March that Iraq could generate $50 billion to $100 billion of oil revenue over the next two to three years. As such, Bush should focus on getting that oil to the marketplace as soon as possible, so that Iraq can finance its own reconstruction and repay the US taxpayers for their investment. In the meantime, if push comes to shove and some extra belt-tightening is needed, Bush may have to repeal some of the tax cuts that he granted earlier this year to some of America's most wealthy citizens. I'm sure they won't mind.
A glance back at history reveals that another President -- Abraham Lincoln -- didn't have an easy ride during the Civil War when he stood steadfast and did what was right and what needed to be done. George W. Bush is now facing the same kind of challenge from his critics -- but even many of them realize that he's doing the right thing, despite what they may be trying to get the public to believe for political reasons. And as was the case Lincoln, at the end of this long road leading to the eventual eradication of terrorism, years or even decades from now, Bush will be seen for who he really is -- the right man at exactly the right time, who did precisely the right thing.
posted on September 22, 2003 03:07:46 PM
GREAT article, bear.
I especially liked this part. Bush may have to repeal some of the tax cuts that he granted earlier this year to some of America's most wealthy citizens. I'm sure they won't mind. Laughing here because that would most likely result in the President getting some pretty substancial donations to his re-election campaign....from those who can really afford substancial donations. LOL
posted on September 22, 2003 03:27:29 PM"ugh...helen...the "people" don't get to vote. lol They didn't get to 'vote' this time either. The president has a right to take this country to war anytime he wishes too."
ugh...Linda...Of course I didn't mean vote as you narrowly comprehend the term...
The word 'vote' can indicate choice or support for an option...
posted on September 22, 2003 04:14:30 PM
Funny. I understood what Helen meant. And, why shouldn't the American people be able to vote for or against a war? It's our money being used, our sons and daughters being killed. Linda, going to war takes an act of Congress. The president cannot just make that decision (at least if he's not Bush he can't).
posted on September 22, 2003 05:24:02 PM
When somebody says something like -
"streets are lined with shops selling newspapers and books with opinions of every stripe"
It is time to stop and ask yourself if you really think this man with his heavy heavy security browsed the bookstore to see what was being sold?
No. Sorry - this is just a word picture of someone trying to jolly you along so you'll feel better about a bad bad decision that is too late to correst and for which the full price of blood is not close to being paid.....
posted on September 22, 2003 06:33:37 PMLinda, going to war takes an act of Congress. The president cannot just make that decision (at least if he's not Bush he can't. NOT true, Cheryl. There have been many presidents that have done just that in the past 50 years....including our last president, clinton.
President Clinton has ordered wars or acts of war in eight countries, including Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Sudan. In 1999, he was fighting Yugoslavia and Iraq simultaneously. He began bombing the Iraqis in 1993 and continues to strike them, and he is intervening in Colombia's civil conflict.
He may have nearly started another Korean war, in June 1994: Kim Young-Sam, then South Korea's president, told a Korean newspaper that he had talked Clinton out of plans to bomb the north, Insight magazine reported (6-26-00).
Sometimes Clinton has sought support from foreign leaders or international bodies, never obtaining prior approval by the one body that could constitutionally authorize such acts: Congress.
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 22, 2003 06:37 PM ]
posted on September 22, 2003 06:40:57 PMNo. Sorry - this is just a word picture of someone trying to jolly you along so you'll feel better about a bad bad decision that is too late to correst and for which the full price of blood is not close to being paid....
I, personally, don't need to feel better because I don't feel badly. It's easy to discount many reports of the same circumstances that have been reported by those who HAVE been there, especially since you, youself, were there to know and see differently????
posted on September 22, 2003 11:39:18 PM
Bush is a lame duck president just like his father was. The Democrats know the weak economy and unpopular war have made Bush a longshot to retain the White House and the candidates are looking for an easy win like when Clinton beat Bush the Elder. That's why Hillary may jump in now instead of 2008. This election is a freebie, Bush has little chance of re-election. Voters vote with their wallets.
-------------- sig file ----------- Most costume jewelry is unsigned. After all, the vast majority of it was made to be worn a few times, then discarded. It wasn't made to be durable. --- The Fluffster
posted on September 23, 2003 12:47:50 AM
Not hardly Ace, President Bush is still the leader to be sitting in the White House January 2005,
The Democrats have, it seems, some in-fighting going on and can't even find a legitimate candidate.
If Hilary were to leave Congress, after giving her word to finish out her term, what kind of message would that send?
Besides, I just don't think the US is ready for woman president.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on September 24, 2003 06:03:26 AM
Here is the latest Gallup Poll (9-23-03)...they're doing a year long piece on how things are going in Iraq, according to the views/opinions of the Iraqi people.
-----
quote:
Government & Public Affairs
9/23/2003
Ousting Saddam Hussein "Was Worth Hardships Endured Since Invasion," Say Citizens of Baghdad
In the first rigorous, scientifically conducted sampling of public sentiment in Iraq, residents of the country's capital say -- by a 2-to-1 margin -- that the ousting of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they might have personally suffered since the U.S. and British-led invasion.
end quote/
posted on September 24, 2003 06:11:27 AM
The American people feel differently.
Spending billions of dollars to resurrect Iraq when they may not even accept democracy is not acceptable to most Americans. And that is one reason that Bush has dropped 10 points in the polls.
posted on September 24, 2003 06:39:17 AM
helen - while I know you are enjoying the continued slide of the President's poll ratings...we do have another 13 months to go. Our economy is slowing getting better, the stock market is going back up and people are continuing to spend money. Read how the Bush tax cuts are just beginning to show results of stimulating our economy.
So...until the month before the 2004 election I'm really not concerned what his polls show. Many things can change in the next 13 months, no matter how much you and your party are hoping against America's economy turning itself around so that this President won't be re-elected. Again, it's a shame many democrats are hoping the economy does fail...for this reason alone.
A year from now the deciding factors on whether or not President Bush is re-elected will most like be how the situation in Iraq is progressing, if the economy is continue to improve and if we have no further terror attacks on American soil. I'll wait patiently and optimistically for this year to show improved results.
posted on September 24, 2003 06:52:20 AM
twelvepole - If Hillary were to leave Congress, after giving her word to finish out her term, what kind of message would that send? The same message it did when her husband said and then did exactly the same thing.
Twelve...[whipping you with a wet noodle here ]...you forget...it's okay when they do it...it's just *not* okay when they think anyone else is doing it.
posted on September 24, 2003 07:38:11 AM
Your information is false, Linda
How can you say the economy is improving with a deficit at a half billion and rising and unemployment rate still at 6.1% with 8.9 million people unemployed....Bush is spending a billion dollars a week on Iraq...most of which goes to private contractors, while soldiers go without proper equipment. And remember, this is a permanent war, Linda....permanent as long as your lousy president is in office.
This situation is recognized by people in your gallup poll also. Only 21 percent are satisfied with the ecomomic condition today.
The more that you scratch around looking for 'good' news the dumber you look.
posted on September 24, 2003 08:05:56 AM
helen - calling me stupid is not going to change any of the 'facts' that have been reported. There have been many reports on our economy beginning to improve....maybe just not on your left-leaning media outlets because they don't want to show anything positive about anything this administration is doing....but are in print...on statistics that have always been made public by our government agencies. Many economists report on the areas where improvement is occurring. You choose not to believe them...I see them as a hopeful sign things are beginning to turn around. Because, for me, I want our economy to prosper no matter the political party in office.
You keep repeating yourself by saying what I report is *my* views. Simple not true. The articles I have shared in the are credible reports from others who results you have been willing to accept when they favor your slant. Just as you are willing to accept that the Gallup poll shows the President is currently having a slip in his ratings. You buy that but not that 2/3 of the Iraqi's are pleased with the changes in their country? And you don't see that as being just a little hypocritical? lol
And on the unemployment stats....I have provided you, in the other thread, with the chart that showed the US unemployment rate has many, many times exceeded the % it is now at. And was just as, at times, high during the clinton administration, as it is now.
posted on September 24, 2003 08:33:21 AM
Here's an article by someone else who's there....in Iraq.
I believe someone else may have posted this article and to them, I hope you don't mind me reposting it here.
This is from ajc.com [Atlanta Journal]
-----------
Media's dark cloud a danger
[b]Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq[/b
By JIM MARSHALL
On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death.
News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president's premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives -- a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself.
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.
---------
Again, helen, not *my* facts.....just continuing reports from those who are [or have been] there...reporting what they've seen and pointing out how very different the picture is over there from what all the left-slanting media over here reports.
You continue to assign thoughts and opinions to me that I don't have. Where did I indicate that your information that 2/3 of some Iraqis were pleased is incorrect? I did not.
I stated that most Americans are not pleased with a war that is costing 1 billion dollars a week and with an economy in which the employment rate is still 6.1%.
And this rating was also from the Gallup group, who have always been very kind to George.
Other than Fox, the media is reporting that the economy is a serious problem, Linda. Maybe you should widen your horizons and get in touch with what's happening.
A goodie for you, Linda. The killing fields will be replenished!
The slumping American economy has proved to be a boon to the Army's efforts to recruit the 100,000 enlisted soldiers it says it needs this year to fill its active-duty and reserve ranks, senior Army officials say, so far relieving concerns that the turmoil in Iraq could crimp new enlistments.
The sagging economy mostly affects the recruiting of active-duty soldiers. About two-thirds of all enlisted troops resign by the end of their first tour, so the Army needs more than 70,000 new recruits a year to replenish its ranks.
posted on September 24, 2003 08:57:39 AM
helen Other than Fox, the media is reporting that the economy is a serious problem, Linda. Maybe you should widen your horizons and get in touch with what's happening.
Not true, again. Anyone can check online and see what the figures are. No political sides...just the crunched numbers by our government agencies that have always been relied on for keeping us aware of where our economy currently is. And they can also see that this is not the first time unemployment has been where it currently stands. Those are FACTS helen, that have absolutely nothing to do with me widening my horizons.. Facts...
posted on September 24, 2003 09:11:03 AM
Wrong, Linda. There are NO facts that dispute that 6.1% of Americans are unemployed and NO facts that dispute the cost of Bush's war and NO facts that dispute the alarming deficit.
And, there are no facts that dispute that Americans will pay for the cost of this war.
