posted on July 10, 2005 07:53:07 AM new
kraft- that is my point exactly. Neocons put the squeeze on public education because they can't stand the idea of it. But they are not willing to put the same squeeze on the things they promote. They refuse to be held accountable for their actions under any circumstance.
posted on July 10, 2005 12:12:57 PM new
No kiara....I speak the truth. YOU always refuse to answer questions directed to you when they require any thought or decision making abilities. Or when they ask you to take a stand on any issue. That's why you always use your favorite line 'you don't know how I feel about that'. BECAUSE you won't ever answer the questions.....valid questions put to you.
You fool no one except yourself. And you're the one who continually takes threads off topic and starts in with the 'game playing'. I enjoy discussion/debate....but don't like playing with you in your sand box.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 10, 2005 12:15:09 PM newAnother totally false statement by someone who obviously has no clue on this issue either.
Neocons put the squeeze on public education because they can't stand the idea of it.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
edited to add:
Actually, as we reported last March, funding for the federal Department of Education grew a whopping 58% under Bush during his first three years, and Bush proposed another 5% increase for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, including sizeable increases in spending for children from low-income families and for special education for disabled children.
Same thing on Pell grants....the left just continues to lie and lie and lie.
Kerry claimed the Bush administration had cut Pell Grants for low-income students to attend college.
Bush said Pell Grants have been increased by a million students. Bush was correct.
Department of Education figures show the number of Pell Grants awarded the year before Bush took office was 3.9 million. The number grew to 5.1 million for the most recent academic year -- an increase of 1.3 million, actually.
Spending for Pell Grants grew from just under $8 billion in the academic year that was underway when Bush took office to nearly $12.7 billion three years later, a jump of nearly 60%.
posted on July 10, 2005 12:38:58 PM new
Linda, I dont know why some people think they can bully somebody else into replying to them. Like you have no choice whether to answer to some blowhard because they think they're the boss of you or something? Thats the biggest joke here.
posted on July 10, 2005 01:54:04 PM new
dbl, exactly. I'm always willing to answer questions from anyone....unless they can't be civil, time after time aftertime, or won't answer any of my questions. But as we all know, there are different rules here for each political side of the aisle.
------------------
And to inform the uninformed about our actions in Afghanistan.....our troops are STILL dying in their attempt to locate and capture bin laden. NO matter you aren't aware of what's actually going on over there.
from the TimesOnline LTD
July 10, 2005
Downed US Seals may have got too close to Bin Laden
Tony Allen-Mills, Washington and Andrew North, Kabul
THE first sign of trouble was a radio message requesting immediate extraction. A four-man team of US Navy Seal commandos had run into heavy enemy fire on a remote, thickly forested trail in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. Trouble turned to disaster when a US special forces helicopter carrying 16 men was shot down as it landed at the scene, killing all on board.
Almost two weeks later, a mission that led to the worst US combat losses in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001 has turned into an extraordinary manhunt. It has also opened an intriguing new front in the coalition's battle against terrorism.
The story of Operation Red Wing, a US-led search for Taliban and Al-Qaeda guerrillas in the mountain wilderness of Kunar province, contains remarkable human drama and an unresolved military mystery.
For five days amid the hostile peaks and ravines along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, a lone American commando eluded the guerrillas who had killed at least two of his colleagues and destroyed the Chinook helicopter. When the unnamed Seal finally collapsed from exhaustion he was found by a friendly Afghan villager who summoned US forces.
The subsequent search for his colleagues turned up two bodies and the manhunt for the fourth commando continues this weekend despite claims by Taliban guerrillas yesterday that he had been captured and beheaded.
"We killed him at 11 o'clock today; we killed him using a knife and chopped off his head," declared Abdul Latif Hakimi, a Taliban spokesman who has made several false claims in the past.
Yet whatever the final death toll from the worst incident in the history of the Seals — the Sea Air Land Commandos — there were tantalising hints that the original mission had been far from routine.
According to former special forces officers and other military sources, the four-man Seal strike team may have come too close to one of the US-led coalition's highest-priority targets — perhaps Mullah Muhammad Omar, the former Taliban leader, or even Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda.
Other military sources suggested the target was a regional Taliban commander suspected of links with Al-Qaeda.
More than 300 US troops were yesterday combing the area for signs of the missing commando and the militants who apparently used a portable rocket-propelled grenade launcher to destroy the Chinook.
Other helicopters and remotecontrolled aerial drones were flying over deep, inaccessible valleys. Rainstorms were slowing the search, and there was a danger of growing local hostility after claims that up to 25 civilians died when US aircraft bombed a compound in Kunar province last weekend.
US officials insisted the compound was used by militants and one spokesman said the attack with precision guided weapons was part of an "intelligence-driven" operation.
But Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's pro-US president, warned Washington that civilian casualties could erode public support for the coalition.
It was late in the evening of Tuesday, June 28, that Lieutenant Michael Murphy and the three members of his specialist team reported an encounter with the enemy.
Pentagon spokesmen said Murphy's unit was engaged in general reconnaissance as part of a sweep through the region amid fears that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have quietly been regrouping and are preparing for an Iraq-style insurgency.
Yet other special forces sources noted that small Seal units like Murphy's are primarily designed for concealment and stealth, which indicated a more specific mission.
"Its insertion represented an extraordinary risk," said the author of an influential military blog known as Wretchard. "They would be operating in an area known to be a stronghold of the Taliban, where any contact with the enemy automatically meant they would be grossly overmatched."
Another source noted that Murphy's unit bore all the hallmarks of a long-range sniper team sent to hunt down a particular target. US Navy Seals are trained to spend long periods operating clandestinely.
"The fact that the US did not send in several hundred troops for a sweep instead of the four-man recon team strongly suggests the team's mission was to fix a very high target before it could flee from an airmobile assault," Wretchard said.
Whatever the team's real objective, it found itself trapped in heavy rain with darkness falling. Seal veterans boast that they never call for help unless absolutely desperate. Exactly what befell Murphy and his team remains unknown, but commanders at Bagram airbase near Kabul wasted no time in dispatching eight more Seals on a helicopter crewed by eight members of an elite army unit.
As it was coming in to land in the Waigal valley, near the provincial capital of Asadabad, the helicopter was struck by what officers believe was a rocket-propelled grenade fired from the cover of nearby trees. Lieutenant-General James Conway, chief of operations at the Pentagon, described it as a "pretty lucky shot" but when communications with the Chinook were lost, commanders were taking no chances. The next wave of troops landed a safe distance away and took 24 hours to reach the site, where it was confirmed that all 16 men on the helicopter had died.
For the four Seals on the ground, a desperate battle for survival had begun. Their story may not be told in full until the fate of the fourth member of the team is clear — the one Seal who survived has been debriefed by military officers but the Pentagon has released only the barest outline of his story for fear of compromising continuing operations in the area.
From the details released, it appears that the Seals may have dumped their backpacks to move faster on steep terrain. Former special forces sources said that when facing a superior enemy, the commandos would give each other covering fire as they mounted a phased retreat.
Coalition commanders acknowledge that for all their superior weaponry and communications, US forces are at a disadvantage in fighting in the Afghan mountains.
At some point in the mountain battle, Murphy, 29, was killed. So was Petty Officer Danny Dietz, 25. But at least one of the four Seals survived. When he was found last weekend he was several miles from the helicopter wreckage. A friendly tribal elder notified authorities that he was caring for a wounded American. The commando was airlifted to Bagram, where his injuries were said not to be life-threatening.
US officials have not yet explained how the surviving Seal might have become separated from his missing colleague. The two dead commandos were said to have been "killed in action".
To some US military sources, the strength of the force sent into the area suggested more than a simple search for a soldier who has been missing for 11 days. The manhunt may be providing cover for what might have been the original mission — to track down an elusive "high value" target who may once again be about to slip away.
----------
Andrew North is the BBC's Kabul correspondent. His reports on the security situation in Afghanistan are broadcast on all BBC news programmes
posted on July 10, 2005 02:06:08 PM new
3 years since we attacked the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan we haven't finished the job. Why is that? Because most of the troops were pulled to serve duty in Iraq. Bush took his eye off the ball, and unfortunately, us and the rest of the world are paying the price.
posted on July 10, 2005 04:33:22 PM new
More lies from those not in control.
clinton allowed attacks THREE times on our National interests from the AQ...and did almost NOTHING......
the left has no room to talk....kerry would have been a disaster had he been elected....they guy couldn't make up his mind about anything. One day it was this way....the next it was the opposite way.
The President didn't take his eye off anything. We've had troops and other nations have had troops that remained in Afghanistan for the only purpose of finding bin laden. Do you place ANY of the blame that hasn't yet been accomplished on Canada or the other Nations that are serving there.
No...of course not....just have to blame everything on the wrong person. Never blame a terrorist.....never blame other countries like Pakistan for allowing him to hide out there for a while. But boy...if we'd decided to attack Pakistan....you Bush bashers would have had a field day. Because there's just no pleasing you....because you aren't running the show.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 10, 2005 04:44:43 PM new
oh, is that more yapping from the pigpen? lol. as usual, taking no responsibility, not holding her leaders accountable. what else would you expect from Linda... oh, I know... LIES.
posted on July 10, 2005 04:48:20 PM new
This is Al Qaeda's timeline from the beginning. It's interesting to view all the happenings, especially those leading up to September 11, 2001 and the frequency of warnings which didn't seem to be taken seriously all during that year.
posted on July 11, 2005 06:19:18 PM newlet's hear your brilliant solution as to what you see our country doing to avoid another 9-11 attack.
Once again Linda wants other people to voice their opinions and then criticizes them, but she herself fails to add her own solution to prevent another 9-11 attack.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 11, 2005 06:27:07 PM newDuring the Vietnam war, the Republicans said he had to fight the war because if we didnt, the Communists would take over us.
How old are you? Were you even born during the VN war? Or were you just a child? You obviously don't have your facts straight about it at all.
Linda, I see you are trying to re-write history once again so it fits your agenda. I guess you were to high on weed to remember what actually took place during the Vietnam war.
During the 1950's, America had developed her Domino Theory. This was the creation of John Foster Dulles, America's Secretary of State. He believed that if one country was allowed to fall to communism, the country next to it would be the next to tumble just as when one domino falls the rest go with it if they are connected. In view of the fear in America of communism spreading throughout the world, the thought of Vietnam starting this process of turning to communism and then it spreading was unacceptable.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 11, 2005 07:22:27 PM new
again, logan, you speak about something personal about me that you have absolutely no idea about.
I don't use drugs and see that you too have to resort to false accusations in order to have anything to say.
I'm glad you finally looked up some history....and found the reason we went into VN. NOT what you had initally said at all....which was:
"During the Vietnam war, the Republicans said he had to fight the war because if we didnt, the Communists would take over us.
But rather because communism WAS spreading in THAT part of the world.
To answer your other question....I think the way the Iraq situation is currently being handled is working just fine. Even hillary clinton very recently said that she supports doing the same thing as this administration is doing.....STAYING in Iraq until they can defend themselves.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 12, 2005 12:18:41 AM new
LindaK , don't go falling in love with Senator Clinton just yet, read the thread with Alfred E Neuman in the title. Senator Clinton doesn't agree with too much of what Bush has done, too smart for that.
If you -- think the way the Iraq situation is currently being handled is working just fine. --
that only means YOU have water, electricity and aren't being blown to bits. The Iraqis may have a different point of view.
posted on July 12, 2005 10:47:58 AM new
"During the Vietnam war, the Republicans said he had to fight the war because if we didnt, the Communists would take over us.
But rather because communism WAS spreading in THAT part of the world.
I stand behind my statements. Republicans then used the fear of communism as their basis to keep America in the war. Bush is usuing the same tactic now with the War on Terrorism.
To answer your other question....I think the way the Iraq situation is currently being handled is working just fine. Even hillary clinton very recently said that she supports doing the same thing as this administration is doing.....STAYING in Iraq until they can defend themselves.
You avoided the question. This says nothing how you prevent another 9/11 attack. Your answer shows how you support the war. It gives no solutions on how to prevent another terrorist attack.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
This topic is 8 pages long: 123new4new5new6new7new8new
BECAUSE you won't ever answer the questions.....valid questions put to you.
