posted on May 1, 2006 09:22:10 PM new
maggie.....you know what?
This is the last of my attention I'm going to give you. You have NOTHING to discuss....only more insults. That's your MO too. Personal insults....trying to convince us just how beautiful YOU are...how wonderful your life if....etc. But you spend as much time here and following me around to prove your life isn't so great. LOL
You're bi-polar....going from pretending to be nice to being as vicious as I beleive you really are in real life.
I find it ironic that you spend all your time here....can't post anything in a typical thread EXCEPT more nastiness....because you have no ability to discuss anything except how special YOU think you are.
I could care less about you living ALONE for three months in order to spend 10 days with your husband. And YOU expect ME to be jealous of that? ROFLOL.....not in a zillion years.
I had something you'll NEVER have....and I doubt you EVER had. You're a 'material girl'....only what a man can provide for you is what pleases you the most.
You're a sad, sad woman....and I'd NEVER be jealous about ANYTHING about you....especially your character. IT SUCKS....big time.
Now....I'll ignore your vicious posts....I have NO interest in talking to a racist who thinks she's so much better than anyone else.
posted on May 2, 2006 05:06:51 AM new
Iraq War update 5/2/2006
Total 2405 Dead American Troops.
Total 17469 Wounded American Troops
05/02/06 AP: More bodies found on Monday
On Monday, at least 15 bullet-riddled bodies were found in the capital, Iraq's Interior Ministry said. The victims were men aged 20-40 years; all were handcuffed and blindfolded.
05/02/06 AP: Bomb Hidden in Minibus Kills 2 Iraqis
A bomb hidden in a parked minibus exploded in Baghdad's main wholesale market on Tuesday, killing two Iraqis and wounding five, police said. Insurgents also killed a U.S. Army soldier and two Iraqi civilians in attacks using roadside bombs.
05/02/06 AP: US soldier killed Monday night
A roadside bomb killed the U.S. soldier Monday night about 40 miles south of Baghdad in the Sunni-dominated "Triangle of Death," a farming region rife with sectarian violence and the scene of numerous ambushes against U.S. and Iraqi troops.
COME JOIN THE GREAT AMERICAN PROTEST AGAINST CONSERVATIVE LAWMAKERS ON NOVEMBER 7th 2006
posted on May 2, 2006 07:44:50 AM newNow....I'll ignore your vicious posts....I have NO interest in talking to a racist who thinks she's so much better than anyone else.
linda you're a stupid dried up old witch.
I hope you keep your promise and ignore my posts. You're a worthless gas bag nag. So eaten up with jealousy that someone like myself has had a good life and continues to do so with very little effort.
While you are fat and ugly and stuck on your couch with a web TV to show for your long life, alone and nothing else but strangers to keep you company on the Internet.
I know you are sensitive to the fact that I choose not to marry out of my race because your boy married outside of your race, and now you have mixed race grand children. I assure you that mixed race children don't bother me one bit, so stop with your slanderous racist statements about me, I don't take them lightly.
posted on May 3, 2006 05:59:00 AM new
Iraq War update 5/3/2006
Total 2406 Dead American Troops.
05/03/06 Reuters: Yarmouk hospital official says its morgue was full
An official at Yarmouk hospital in Baghdad said its morgue was full after receiving 65 corpses over the past three days of people who mostly died from gunshot wounds. Some others were beheaded. The victims included three schoolteachers...
05/03/06 Reuters: Iraq suicide bombing kills at least 18 (update)
A suicide bomber blew himself up among a crowd of men waiting to sign up to join the police force in the Iraqi city of Falluja on Wednesday, killing at least 18 people, doctors said.
05/03/06 AFP: Dozens of bodies surface as Iraq parliament meets
Iraqi police have found 36 bullet-riddled bodies of men shot dead in apparent sectarian killings as lawmakers convened the first working session of parliament since it was elected in December.
posted on May 3, 2006 08:11:25 AM new
Women's Lib
Saddam wasn't a feminist.
BY A. YASMINE RASSAM
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Some radical feminists and anti-war liberals have very short memories. It's just three years after Saddam Hussein's ouster and some would have us believe the tyrant was in fact a protector of women's rights in Iraq. That Iraq under Saddam actually had progressive, pro-women policies that are now being "rolled back" thanks to the Bush administration.
A recent report by "Global Exchange" and "Code Pink" entitled "Iraqi Women Under Siege" concluded that "the occupation of Iraq has not resulted in greater equality and freedom for women" than they had under Saddam Hussein. Published by two radical feminist anti-war groups whose primary activities include protesting military recruiting stations, organizing anti-WTO protests and sympathizing with the regimes in North Korea and Cuba, this report echoes a long line of blatant pronouncements. Hillary Clinton who once said that after liberation there were "pullbacks in the rights that [women] were given under Saddam Hussein" and Howard Dean's infamous remark that "Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein."
Anti-war revisionist liberals and radical feminists alike are trying their best to come up with comparisons of the Saddamist and post-Saddamist eras in Iraq with the aim of discrediting the historic liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein in 2003. With Iraqi women they think they have found a seemingly incontrovertible argument since Saddam, according to his apologists, was a "secular" ruler who gave liberal rights to women.
In a complex society like Iraq's, with its labyrinthine political and social development over the past 40 years, it is foolhardy to make simplistic comparisons based on a mere three years of post-Saddam liberation. Still, it is worth setting the record straight on how women really fared under the rule of this allegedly "benign" dictatorship. Revisionist history-writing must not prevail.
Much of the anti-war propagandists' defense of Saddam as a champion of women's rights rests on his willingness to allow women to vote (for him), drive cars, own property, get an education and work. What they choose to ignore, however, is the systematic rapes, torture, beheadings, honor killings, forced fertility programs, and declining literacy rates that also characterized Saddam's regime. A few examples can only begin to illustrate the cruelty and suffering endured by thousands of Iraqi women.
One torture technique favored by Saddam's henchman and his sons involved raping a detainee's mother or sister in front of him until he talked. In Saddam's torture chambers women, when not tortured and raped, spent years in dark jails. If lucky, their suckling children were allowed to be with them. In most cases, however, these children were considered a nuisance to be disposed of; mass graves currently being uncovered contain many corpses of children buried alive with their mothers.
During Saddam's war with Iran, nearly an entire generation of Iraqi men were killed, injured or captured, leaving a dearth of men of military age in Iraqi society. As a result, Saddam launched "fertility campaigns" that forcibly administered fertility drugs to school girls as young as 10 in an effort to drive up the population rate.
After the Gulf War--particularly after crushing the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings of 1991--Saddam reverted to tribal and "Islamic" traditions as a means to consolidate power. Iraqi women paid the heaviest price for his new-found piety. Many women were removed from government jobs and were not allowed to travel without the permission of a male relative. Men were exempted from punishment for "honor" killings--killings carried out on female relatives who had supposedly "shamed" their family. An estimated 4,000 women died from honor killings in the ensuing years. By 2000, Iraqi women, once considered the most highly educated in the Middle East, had literacy levels of only 23%.
Under the pretext of fighting prostitution in 2000, Saddam's Fedayeen forces beheaded 200 women "dissidents" and dumped their head on their families doorsteps for public display. These women obviously lost whatever "rights" granted to them once they got in Saddam's way.
Saddam Hussein was an equal opportunity killer who tortured, raped and gassed men, women and children alike. From Dujail in the South (the murder of hundreds of villagers for which he is on trial now) to the chemical obliteration of Halabja in the North, all Iraqis bore the brunt of the tyrant's wrath.
The revisionist history offered by those opposed to the Bush administration--whether it comes from bad judgment, a lack of information or a desire for political advantage--has grave consequences. A brutal dictator who tortures his own people cannot be a champion of women's rights. To pretend otherwise is to dishonor the memory of the thousands of innocent Iraqi women who died in a senseless brutal reign of terror. It also does a grave disservice to the men and women of this country who died or were injured to liberate Iraq.
The political participation of Iraqi women is a critical component in building a stable democracy in Iraq that respects human rights. So here, at the Independent Women's Forum, we've launched the Iraqi Women's Democracy Initiative which trained over 150 pro-democracy women from every region, ethnicity and religion in Iraq in areas such as good governance, rule of law, civil society and the pillars of democracy. We had the privilege of working with many extraordinary women who went on to become members of parliament, ministers, local officials and key leaders in civil society organizations. We're also building the capacity of women-led non-governmental organizations in South Central and Southern Iraq through a small grant program, technical assistance and skills training. Hopefully, the brave Iraqi women who once suffered under Saddam can now freely promote change within their own society.
When we think about the women who lived under Saddam Hussein, we should recall the nameless young mother cradling her baby's lifeless body in the killing fields of Halabja. Iraqi women will never forget what life under Saddam was like. And the American forces who ousted Saddam deserve to be remembered for their heroic efforts and to go down in history as liberators.
Ms. Rassam is director of international policy for the Independent Women's Forum.
posted on May 3, 2006 02:50:28 PM new
Bear and I share the same worry about women in the Iraq War. update 5/3/2006
Civilians men,women,and childred reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min
34711
Max
38861
Dead Female American Troops in the Iraq War and still counting.
04/08/06 NavarroArellano, Juana Lance Corporal U.S. Marine US Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
03/16/06 Pinson, Amanda N. Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack
03/11/06 Duerksen, Amy A. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Non-hostile - weapon discharge
03/01/06 Priest, Tina M. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Non-hostile - unspecified cause
01/07/06 Campbell, Jaime L. 1st Lieutenant U.S. Army National Guard US Non-hostile - helicopter crash
12/24/05 Maravillosa, Myla L. Sergeant U.S. Army Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack
12/23/05 Reali, Regina C. Sergeant U.S. Army Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
12/10/05 Atkins, Julia V. Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
10/28/05 Banaszak, Debra A. 1st Lieutenant U.S. Army National Guard US Non-hostile - unspecified cause
09/28/05 Jacobson, Elizabeth Nicole Airman 1st Class U.S. Air Force US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
08/14/05 Green, Toccara R. Specialist U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
07/19/05 Johnson, Lavena L. Private U.S. Army US Non-hostile - weapon discharge
07/14/05 Jameson, Tricia L. Staff Sergeant U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
06/23/05 Valdez, Ramona M. Corporal U.S. Marine US Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb
06/23/05 Charette, Holly A. Lance Corporal U.S. Marine US Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb
06/23/05 Clark, Regina R. Petty Officer 1st Class U.S. Naval Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb
06/05/05 French, Carrie L. Specialist U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
06/03/05 Villar, Linda J. Civilian U.S. Dept. of the Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack
04/18/05 Huff, Sam W. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
04/15/05 Ramirezgonzalez, Aleina Specialist U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack
03/04/05 Salem, Adriana N. Specialist U.S. Army US Non-hostile - vehicle accident
03/01/05 Robles, Lizbeth Specialist U.S. Army US Non-hostile - vehicle accident
02/16/05 Bell-Johnson, Katrina Lani Specialist U.S. Army US Non-hostile - vehicle accident
02/09/05 Housby, Jessica M. Sergeant U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
01/29/05 Heald, Barbara Civilian U.S. Dept. of the Army US Hostile - hostile fire - rocket attack
01/09/05 Pietrik, Vira Senior Sergeant Ukrainian Army UKR Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
12/13/04 Time, Tina Safaira Sergeant U.S. Army Reserve US Non-hostile - vehicle accident
12/04/04 Gasiewicz, Cari Anne Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
10/31/04 Rose, Denise Michelle Staff Sergeant British Army UK Non-hostile - weapon discharge
10/11/04 Osbourne, Pamela G. Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - rocket attack
10/06/04 Cawvey, Jessica L. Specialist U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
09/05/04 Morrison, Shawna M. Sergeant U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack
07/22/04 Reed, Tatjana Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
07/11/04 Tarango-Griess, Linda Ann Sergeant 1st Class U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
06/06/04 Hobart, Melissa J. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Non-hostile - illness
05/20/04 Jackson, Leslie D. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
05/08/04 Rubalcava, Isela Specialist U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack
04/09/04 Witmer, Michelle M. Specialist U.S. Army National Guard US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
04/07/04 Felder, Tyanna S. Specialist U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
03/09/04 Holland, Fern L. Civilian U.S. Dept. of the Army US Hostile - hostile fire
03/07/04 Jones, Gussie M. Captain U.S. Army US Non-hostile - illness - heart attack
02/16/04 Frye, Nichole M. Private 1st Class U.S. Army Reserve US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
01/31/04 McGeogh, Holly J. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
01/13/04 Hines, Keicia M. Sergeant U.S. Army US Non-hostile - vehicle accident
01/02/04 Hampton, Kimberly N. Captain U.S. Army US Hostile - helicopter crash
12/14/03 Voelz, Kimberly A. Staff Sergeant U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
11/08/03 Jimenez, Linda C. Sergeant U.S. Army US Non-hostile - accidental fall
11/07/03 Swartworth, Sharon T. Chief Warrant Officer (CW5) U.S. Army US Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack)
11/02/03 Vega, Frances M. Specialist U.S. Army US Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack)
11/02/03 Lau, Karina S. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack)
10/26/03 Bosveld, Rachel K. Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack
10/25/03 Cannon, Jakia Sheree Seaman U.S. Navy US Non-hostile
10/01/03 Ramos, Tamarra J. Specialist U.S. Army US Non-hostile - unspecified injury
10/01/03 Gutierrez, Analaura Esparza Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - grenade
09/15/03 Peterson, Alyssa R. Specialist U.S. Army US Non-hostile - weapon discharge
07/09/03 Valles, Melissa Sergeant U.S. Army US Non-hostile - weapon discharge
03/23/03 Piestewa, Lori Ann Private 1st Class U.S. Army US Hostile - hostile fire - ambush
posted on May 4, 2006 11:52:57 AM new
Iraq War update 5/04/2006
Total 2409 Dead American Troops.
On the Verge of Collapse
By Bernhard Zand
The British and the Americans are guarding Iraq's Persian Gulf oil platforms -- the troubled country's only real sources of revenue -- like crown jewels. But Iraqi oil is flowing sluggishly at best, while hoped-for investments haven't materialized and the Iraqi oil industry is on the verge of collapse -- both technical and political.
05/04/06 CBS/AP: Despite Upgrades, Humvee Deaths Up
Coming on the heels of insurgent violence in Iraq on Wednesday, a new report says that despite stronger armor on over 50,000 Humvees and other military vehicles throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, roadside bombs have killed more U.S. troops...
05/04/06 AP: Attacks on Iraqi Shiites give rise to new songs
Gesturing fiercely, Bassem al-Karbalai sings the pain of Shiite wounds both old and new as the faithful rhythmically thump their chests in grief. ``It's a gang that appears in every era/ The same injustice, the same oppression...
posted on May 4, 2006 11:59:27 AM new
You just enjoy wallowing in the misery of others don't you peepa.
Why else do you post this crap, does it give you some kind of physical pleasure also? You masterbating like a teenage kid with his father's porn over this stuff aren't ya. You are one sick bastard. First ripping off the elderly and now your enjoyment of American deaths in Iraq.
posted on May 4, 2006 12:13:30 PM new 05/04/06 CBS/AP: Despite Upgrades, Humvee Deaths Up Coming on the heels of insurgent violence in Iraq on Wednesday, a new report says that despite stronger armor on over 50,000 Humvees and other military vehicles throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, roadside bombs have killed more U.S. troops...
Are you really dense enough to fail to recognize that the terrorists are increasing the size of the IED to the point that no amount of increased armor will fully protect a Humvee.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on May 4, 2006 12:35:09 PM new WashingtoneBayer posted... "You just enjoy wallowing in the misery of others don't you peepa.Why else do you post this crap, does it give you some kind of physical pleasure also? You masterbating like a teenage kid with his father's porn over this stuff aren't ya. You are one sick bastard. First ripping off the elderly and now your enjoyment of American deaths in Iraq.Liar and a loser.
WashingtoneBayer/Ron/Twelvepole.
The fact that you refer to a list of the dead in Iraq as "crap" and "stuff" and associate that list with porn while falsely suggesting that bigpeepa enjoys the list only serves to illustrate your gross lack of compassion, decency and propriety. It's clear who is really the "sick bastard".
posted on May 4, 2006 12:45:52 PM new
washingtonebayer/twelvepole, you are one sick individual.
Bigpeepa is posting facts and it is a reality no matter how much some wish to cover it up or pretend otherwise.
Insurgents are changing their tactics, planting more powerful bombs and using different triggering methods to evade U.S. countermeasures, say experts. Newer IEDs are powerful enough to blow apart a 22-ton Bradley Fighting Vehicle or an M1A1 Abrams tank.
"The enemy adapts to everything we do," said military analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank in Arlington, Va. "It's not that we haven't found solutions. It's that the enemy has found ways to work around our solutions."
Just more proof that Bush is having a difficult time dealing with that 'handful of thugs' that he thought he could take out so easily. That's why it's scary to see him trying to talk tough about taking on Iran. With Iraq and Afghanistan he's taken on much more than the US can ever handle now.
posted on May 4, 2006 12:48:35 PM new
Helenjw/helen/hjw
posted on May 4, 2006 12:35:09 PM
WashingtoneBayer/Ron/Twelvepole.
The fact that you refer to a list of the dead in Iraq as "crap" and "stuff" and associate that list with porn while falsely suggesting that bigpeepa enjoys the list only serves to illustrate your gross lack of compassion, decency and propriety. It's clear who is really the "sick bastard".
posted on May 4, 2006 01:42:57 PM newNewer IEDs are powerful enough to blow apart a 22-ton Bradley Fighting Vehicle or an M1A1 Abrams tank.
The [b]Aluminum{/b] Bradley was not build to survive hundred(s) pound IED's, that is why they have been replaced by the Stryker combat vehicles in urban settings.
The Abrams maight lose a track when a large IED is detonated near it, but it will not be Destroyed by the explosion.
Fact of the matter is that more IED's are being reported by Iraqi citizens and disarmed or blown in place than are sucessfully used against the troops.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on May 4, 2006 02:57:06 PM new
WashingtoneBayer,
First, no I do not enjoy bringing the Iraq War updates. I wish there was no Iraq War updates to bring.
I do believe people should know that years after DUMBO BUSH stood on an Aircraft Carrier and declared "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". The U.S. is still losing Troops IN IRAQ ALMOST EVERYDAY. I will continue to post Iraq War updates for you and everyone to read.
I also believe people should know that just a couple weeks ago DUMBO BUSH DECLARED, another U.S. President would have to end the Iraq War. DUMBO BUSH admitted he had no plan to end the Iraq War during his term as President.
I also believe people should know the money DUMBO BUSH is spending on the Iraq War is adding more debt to our already HUGH NATIONAL DEBT.
Now about me Masturbating. Your words are empty and meaningless as usual and LOW LIVE.
About my antique business. You have no idea what I make or don't make in profits and you never will. So again your words about what I pay or don't pay are empty and meaningless as usual.
Simply put PUNK you got nothing to say as usual. PUNKS like you is one of the many reasons I am working to EXPOSE the CON in the word conservative.
posted on May 4, 2006 03:31:13 PM new
You and Kiara can both go to hell helen.
You both are in peepa's sick little world of enjoying other people's misery. All three of you are sick bastards.
You can keep calling me this other person all you want it won't change the fact of what low life scum you and peepa and kiara actually are.
You don't think people can't read this or see this daily in the news, only someone who gets thier kicks out of someone eles's misery would continue to post this crap. and those who enjoy reading it are just as fckn sick.
posted on May 4, 2006 04:31:57 PM new
Trying hard to kick ass again, Ronnie?
There is nothing wrong with anyone posting facts to counter the continuous propaganda machine that keeps churning here by the neocon side who keep trying to tell everyone that things are going better than they really are in Iraq.
Does it bother you that we actually support the troops by wanting the best for them while some of you drool over more war casualties to the point where you want to take on Iran and send even more of your countrymen to death just so you can keep cheering on your stupid failure of a leader no matter the cost?
Is the truth too scary for you to deal with when you see it in print that you have to pout and throw a few bad words around? Do you realize how silly and frustrated you sound?
posted on May 4, 2006 07:15:41 PM new
I am sure most of you know that the BUSH government planted false good news stories in Iraqi newspapers. They did it in hopes that American newspapers and right wing Internet web sites would copy them and spread the false info back to America.
Several neocon Kool-Aid drinkers on this board fell for the FAKE planted info and copied and pasted the FAKE articles here.
Planting false info in Iraqi papers was a way for DUMBO BUSH to spread more lies about the Iraq War without breaking American laws.
Cleaver but just another crooked CON in the word conservative exposed.
COME JOIN THE GREAT AMERICAN PROTEST ON NOVEMBER 7th 2006
posted on May 4, 2006 08:12:52 PM new
kiara, poor misguided, confused kaira....said in part: "wanting the best for them while some of you drool over more war casualties...."
Looks to me like it's YOU, kiara, helen and peepa who are DROOLING over our war casualties.
You're the ones who enjoy focusing on/mentioning their numbers....not those who actually support their efforts and brave actions.
YOU all who would just as soon see them weave baskets as the 'duty' THEY volunteered for.
And the list of women soldiers who have died....wasn't it the left that MOST supported women being allowed in combat....even direct combat? Yep...those feminists and feminist supporters....women are equal and all. Now....making a big deal out of their deaths????? as opposed to them just being soldiers who also have chosen to give up their lives/put their lives on the line, for a cause THEY believed in.
tsk tsk tsk
You liberals need to quit DROOLING over their deaths, EACH AND EVERY DAY....that's pretty sick - and definitely a BIG OBSESSION of yours.
posted on May 4, 2006 10:54:26 PM new
Such sweet memories....... of when lindak was so ignorant that she didn't even realize that women served in Iraq.....
......... and Ronnie always a troll no matter what screen name he chooses.
posted on May 5, 2006 03:49:24 AM new
What is the matter afraid to answer the question kiara?
I guess you really don't have to, everyone knows you don't support the US troops in Iraq, and just like peepa seem to get your enjoyment in reading about their deaths.
posted on May 5, 2006 04:52:50 AM new
Ron, You simply want to hide the fact that these poor troops have been slaughtered in order to cling to some degree of support NOT for the troops but for the corrupt agenda of George Bush. Anyone who sees through the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration in this ill conceived and incompently managed war DOES support the troops.
For the corrupt agenda of George Bush over two THOUSAND young men and women have been SLAUGHTERED. Let that fact penetrate your wee little brain and then ask yourself, why did they have to die?
Then, Piss off, because all of you, who support this bungling administration are nothing but pathetic sheep following creeps who offer NO support to the troops.
posted on May 5, 2006 05:26:19 AM new
Iraq War update 5/05/2006
Total 2411 Dead American Troops
Total 17874 Wounded American Troops
OVER 2,000 DEAD AMERICAN TROOPS SINCE DUMBO BUSH SAID "BRING THEM ON" ON JULY 2nd 2003
05/04/06 independent: Iraqi police 'killed 14-year-old boy for being homosexual'
Human rights groups have condemned the "barbaric" murder of a 14-year-old boy, who, according to witnesses, was shot on his doorstep by Iraqi police for the apparent crime of being gay.
05/05/06 Reuters: Iraqi Kurds caught between rebels, foreign forces
Kurdish villagers are fleeing their homes in northern Iraq after shelling and incursions by Iranian forces and a massive build-up of Turkish troops as both militaries move to crush separatist guerrillas.
HEY DUMBO BUSH WHO IS IN CHARGE IN IRAQ?
COME AND JOIN THE GREAT AMERICAN PROTEST ON NOVEMBER 7th 2006
posted on May 5, 2006 07:02:23 AM new
Helen you another liar who doesn't support the troops, you and your ilk can go to hell. Your feigned support is as transparent as you are.
posted on May 5, 2006 08:08:51 AM newWhat is the matter afraid to answer the question kiara?
I don't have to answer such a silly question, washingtonebayer. Those that matter know that I've always supported the troops. Too bad a few of you think Bush is synonymous with them so you can't separate him from them in your minds. Fact is, your leader was a coward many years ago while he hid out and let others do the dirty work and he's even worse today.
I think much of your anger comes from the fact that you are becoming more frustrated trying to find reasons to keep supporting Bush. So it's easier for you to try to take it out on those of us who were mostly correct all along than for you to face the truth and admit he's done wrong.
posted on May 5, 2006 09:22:04 AM new
Piss off, Ron. You are NOT supporting the troops when you approve of their abuse and use as fodder. They are being led by incompetency in a war justified to the American people only by lies and propaganda.
posted on May 5, 2006 01:15:16 PM newThey are being led by incompetency in a war justified to the American people only by lies and propaganda.
Once again Helen you forget that all your demogog senators saw and agreed with the same evidence. And have you forgotten the UN resolutions that enabled the US to legally take actions against Saddam.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on May 5, 2006 01:41:28 PM new
Facts on the Iraq war you libs fail to recognize.
Liberal myth
The war in Iraq is premised on lies and distortions, so America should withdraw its forces quickly.
The facts
Congress voted to go to war in Iraq to secure American national security and to establish a secure and free Iraq. A rapid withdrawal would be a catastrophic mistake.
* There existed a substantial consensus for a decade before the 2003 invasion that Iraq posed a threat to American national security
* While substantial stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's regime failed to cooperate fully with UN arms inspectors and significant evidence exists that his regime sought to retain technical knowledge and capabilities to resume secret WMD programs when sanctions were lifted
* Not only has al-Qaeda sought to obtain weapons of mass destruction, but mounting evidence suggests that it had numerous contacts with Saddam's regime, which had a long history of supporting terrorism
American interests secured
U.S. national security has been enhanced by the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
* American investigators uncovered components of Saddam's illegally concealed weapons of mass destruction programs, including undeclared “laboratories and safe houses” and “reference strains of biological organisms” for the production of germ agents
* The United States has an opportunity to recast Iraq as a stable democracy that will be a force for stability in the volatile Middle East and a useful ally in the war against terrorism
Iraqi ties to terrorists
Iraq had a long history of supporting terrorism and numerous contacts with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
* Coalition forces discovered signs of terrorist activity at the Salman Pak training facility near Baghdad
* A Hussein-era Iraqi intelligence document has identified “the Saudi Osama bin Laden” on a list of “collaborators”
Iraq viewed as a threat
For several years before the Iraq war began, liberals, like conservatives, believed Iraq and its weapons programs posed a growing threat to American security.
* Liberal former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) said in 2003 that “there is a long line of evidence going back to the early ’90s that Saddam Hussein had lots of weapons of mass destruction and that he used them against his own people. The UN believed that. Hans Blix believed that; President Chirac, President Schroeder, certainly Bill Clinton and his administration and now this administration.”
* In 1998, President Clinton told Congress that “the policies and actions of the Saddam Hussein regime continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, as well as to regional peace and security.”
* President Clinton told military leaders in 1998 that if America failed to act against Saddam Hussein, “he will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”
* Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said Saddam Hussein should be treated as a threat since he was “a weapons of mass destruction repeat offender.”
* Former Secretary of State Albright insisted Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat: “I don’t think that the world has seen, except maybe since Hitler, someone who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. ... If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far—that he can do untold damage.”
* Liberal congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in 2002 that “Saddam Hussein is evil, has evil intentions, is developing weapons of mass destruction, have used them on his own people, these facts we have known for a long time.”
Rapid withdrawal would be a military disaster
A politically driven pullout would be a military disaster.
* A political pullout would send a dangerous signal of weakness and fecklessness to both our allies and enemies
* The Iraqi government forces would be demoralized and could begin to hedge their bets by making deals with, or even defecting to, the insurgency
* Insurgent groups would be emboldened to redouble their efforts against Americans to strengthen their claim to a military victory and attract more recruits
An Al Qaeda victory
Many would perceive a sudden U.S. withdrawal as a major victory for Al Qaeda.
* Al Qaeda has made Iraq a crucial theater in its global terrorist campaign
* Osama bin Laden would gain a flood of new recruits inspired by the successful “jihad” in Iraq
* Iraq would be transformed into a base for a global terrorist network
* Bin Laden or other Islamic extremists might be able to use Iraq’s oil wealth to finance terrorism around the world.
Political disaster
* A withdrawal would undercut efforts to increase international support for the Iraqi government, just when it appears to be gaining momentum
Bear, Bush lied to Congress just as he lied to the American public. Bush expressed no doubt that Iraq had weapons ready to fire and even claimed to know exactly where they could be located. There was a rush to vote in order to give Bush the authority, based on that lie to invade Iraq. I don't believe that I need to bring you up to date on all the lies used by this administration. If anyone is not angry about such needless carnage to our young people based on lies, they must be brain dead.
The Iraq war is illegal. It violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter, which requires countries to first try every peaceful method available to maintain global security before taking military action. Even the use of force in self-defense is permitted only in response to actual or imminent attacks. The U.S. led invasion failed to satisfy either condition. The unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq was in violation of the United Nations mandate and international law. Now, we are an occuyping power in a bitterly hostile land...a situation that Bush's father made a concerted effort to avoid.
posted on May 5, 2006 02:27:58 PM newBear, Bush lied to Congress just as he lied to the American public.
BS, you know that has been disproved. To have lied he would have to have known the evidence was false.
How many clinton era dems called Saddam a danger to the US? Willie did, hillary did, kennedy, kerry and most all other did too.
Saddam has been positively linked to Bin Laden.
Claims of Bush lies
Here is a small list of Lies by Bush claimed by the left, for which there has been found no substantiation:
1. Bush lied to the nation about Weapons of Mass Destruction.
What is substantiated:
a. Saddam has, in fact, possessed chemical weapons of mass destruction and used them against his own people; up to half a million of them.
b. At the time we invaded Iraq, the VAST majority, liberal and conservatives in government, were of the same conviction: if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, then he would eventually use them AGAINST OTHERS as well.
b. Presently, there are numerous indications that weapons of mass destruction exist or existed; and more are being discovered daily.
c. NOBODY yet knows the disposition of these weapons, for certain.
d. What IS CERTAIN, whether they are ever found or not, Saddam will never again be able to employ ANY weapon against others.
2. Bush lied to the nation that there was no "conspiracy" at Abu Graib to mistreat imprisoned Iraqis.
What is substantiated:
a. The problem was discovered AND reported by others within the military system, months ago. Immediate action was taken to stop what was occurring.
b. The appropriate individuals all the way up to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were notified immediately.
c. Within a few days of discovery, on January 16, 2004, the Pentagon issued a public press release.
d. The Pentagon issued another press release in March 2004, to update the Public on the status of investigations.
e. A major series of investigations, including one of over a thousand pages, by Major General Taguba, had been completed by the time the occurrence of the Abu Graib incident was aired by CBS in May 2004. In that investigation, he concluded that the problem was due to a leadership failure in the local chain of command.
f. There is NO conspiracy to treat prisoners inhumanely "extending all the way to the top".
g. Dan Rather and CBS aired the incident for no constructive purpose. This was AGAINST the personal request of the Major General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who called CBS prior to the airing of the episode on "60-Minutes" and told Dan Rather that it could give Islamic Terrorists "an excuse" to Kill more people. He also told Dan Rather that ALL the correct actions had been implemented. Rather turned around reported to some Senators that Myers called him and asked him to partake in a Bush cover-up "keep the story quiet".
h. What IS CERTAIN is, as a result, at least two civilians have been publicly beheaded with more to come, and no end in sight. Myers was right. Dan Rather is culpable. "Loose Lips Sink Ships". In this case, "Loose Lips kill Innocent Civilians."
3. Bush lied to the nation about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
What is substantiated:
a. Misquoting the Chairman of the 9-11 commission, those in liberal media continue to be QUICK to MAKE Bush look like a LIAR, by asserting that the finding of the commission was that there was NO LINK between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
b. The Chairman of the 9-11 commission reported that those in the media were MISQUOTING the findings of the Commission: the commission found no evidence of a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda IN THE COURSE and SCOPE of its investigation. That does not MEAN there is NOT A LINK.
c. Other investigations find that there ARE many covert connections between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
d. What IS certain, is that there will NEVER AGAIN be another opportunity for such and alliance, covert or not.
4. Bush lied to the nation by declaring that the nation was in "Imminent Danger".
What is substantiated:
a. Bush never declared the nation in "imminent threat" from Saddam Hussein. This was a concoction solely of the media.
b. It took many months from 9-11-2001 to the time we attacked Iraq, in 2002.
c. During that interval, the US gave the UN a chance to complete another inspection, under a pressure on Saddam cooperate, or face a war with the United States. Saddam did not cooperate with the Inspectors.
d. BUSH also gave Saddam and his family time to leave IRAQ.
e. What IS CERTAIN, that excluding the 12 prior years of violations of UN Resolutions without consequence, Bush was STILL publicly and visibly giving Saddam a chance to be part of the Solution, which Saddam rejected.
5. Bush lied to the nation by getting us into IRAQ without an "exit strategy".
What is substantiated:
a. Bush said MANY times, the Strategy is this: "We go in, We WIN, We get out!"
b. If "WINNING" means to go in, topple Saddam, and then get out, We Won.
c. If "WINNING" means to go in, topple Saddam, and reconstruct the nation better than it was before, We Won.
d. If "WINNING" means to go in, topple Saddam, and reconstruct the nation better than it was before, and establish a provisional government, We Won.
e. As of June 30, if "WINNING" means to go in, topple Saddam, and reconstruct the nation better than it was before, and establish a provisional government, then transition to an Iraqi government, then We Won.
f. After June 30, if "WINNING" means to go in, topple Saddam, and reconstruct the nation better than it was before, and establish a provisional government, then transition to an Iraqi government, and withdraw but leave a stabilizing presence, then We Won.
g. What IS CERTAIN, this was the exit strategy of FDR after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, in FDR's Declaration of War on Dec 8, 1941, when FDR had almost unanimous support of the Nation and across Party Lines:
"But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us. "
6. CONCLUSION: There are some that are so accustomed to lying as a normal part of their daily existence without getting caught or confronted on it, that they cannot fathom that others can exist without habitually lying. I presume that they cannot comprehend that Bush can be a president, without lying, so they attack him out of a "GUT FEELING" without substantiation, that he is "like" them and lying, too.
Now Who's Lying? - by David Limbaugh
June 22, 2004
One of the most reprehensible things about the past year's campaign against President Bush is that his accusers have repeatedly lied in calling him a liar -- and they've marshaled nonexistent evidence to support their fraudulent claims. One of the principal complaints against President Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror is that he distorted the facts to tie Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks against the United States in order to strengthen his case for attacking Iraq.
Indeed an interim report by the 9/11 commission staff stated there is no credible evidence that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda on any attacks against America. A salivating partisan media, Senator Kerry and other assorted Bush-haters seized on that headline as if it were one of the final nails in the president's electoral coffin. But just like almost every other wished-for smoking gun against President Bush, this "finding" has ended up being an embarrassing, impotent little water pistol.
The Bush administration is guilty of no misrepresentations on this issue. If someone sets about to prove another person lied, at the very least he should accurately quote the accused. After all, if you don't even know what the alleged liar said, how can you begin to determine whether he lied?
In all their gotcha-mania the accusers failed to meet this threshold requirement. They, including the New York Times, accused the administration of misrepresenting something it never said. You've got to have a representation before you can have a misrepresentation.
But now the Times has belatedly admitted that the Bush administration never claimed there was a specific connection between Saddam and 9/11 attacks, "only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Don't just brush over this as if it's a minor detail. The Times just confessed that neither Bush nor his team ever said Saddam was tied to 9/11. The Times even provided statements from various administration officials claiming there were connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but never positing a 9/11 conspiracy. This is a major, painful admission by the Times. Suffice it to say that if administration officials had made such an assertion, the Times would have discovered it in their frantic Nexis searches.
But true to form, the Times refused to remove the Bush smear completely, ending its paragraph with this tacky little bit of innuendo: "although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say." Translation: "While we grudgingly concede the Bush team made no express claims tying Saddam to 9/11, it may well have tried to imply there was such a connection by confusing the issue."
What a cheap shot! Not only do we not get an apology from the Times for its own misrepresentations on this very issue, we get a parting shot trying to negate its lame pretense of correcting the record.
But we deserve an apology from the Times for just recently attributing statements to the administration it didn't make and then accusing it of lying about those statements. A scathing, rush-to-judgment Times editorial the day after the release of the commission's interim report makes the point.
The Times editors wrote, "It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11. Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different."
So one week the Times said Bush fraudulently alleged a link between Saddam and September 11, and just a week later, they admit he made no such allegation. But the Times didn't apologize, nor did it withdraw its demand for the president's apology.
But the Times is not the only guilty party here. Senator Kerry, feeling his oats upon release of the commission's interim report, demanded that the president provide "a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose it now turns out is not supported by the facts."
Well, President Bush did not lie about the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection. There is so much material on this it would take a full chapter in a book to do it justice. Regardless, it was just one of many reasons offered to go to war against Iraq.
And since we're on the subject of mea culpas, the commission itself might want to consider sending one President Bush's way. After all its hindsight-based judgmentalism, it can't even get its own story straight about the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection, as witnessed by panel member John Lehman's statements on "Meet the Press."
The next time the chorus of Bush-haters begins its incessant refrain, "Bush lied, Bush lied," perhaps more people will consider the source.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
