posted on April 5, 2007 01:56:26 PM new
From the April 4 New York Times article "Bush Blames Democrats for Impasse Over Iraq Bills":
Mr. Bush warned that a failure by Congress to approve the $100 billion he had requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would prolong some tours in Iraq and shorten time at home between tours for others. "That is unacceptable to me," he said. "And I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.
Bush blames the Democrats but he has been increasing the length of the tours for years.
Most recently, the Pentagon announced April 2 that "additional major units scheduled to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom," totaling approximately 9,000 troops. On the April 2 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbra Starr reported that while "[t]rying to make the troop levels stick at least into 2008," the Pentagon's announcement was indicative that "the Army is stretched thin ... to the breaking point." According to Starr, at least two divisions -- the 4th Infantry Division in Texas and New York's 10th Mountain Division -- will see their dwell time shortened to accommodate the troop rotation, while at least one unit -- the 82nd Airborne Division -- will see its tour extended by three months. Also, a March 26 Marine Corps Times article reported that "[t]he Corps" recently "extended the deployments of 4,000 Marines to increase force levels" in Iraq.
On January 11, the Department of Defense announced that Minnesota's 1st Brigade Combat Team would have its tour extended by four months in order to accommodate Bush's troop increase. According to the Pentagon's press release, "The extension until August also affects more than 1,000 Guard members from Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, Nebraska and other states who are deployed with the 1st Brigade. In all, about 4,000 Guard members are affected" by the 1st Brigade's tour extension.
During a February 27 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in which Defense Department officials discussed the need for emergency supplemental funding for the wars, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) noted that "under the president's proposed surge that is now occurring," the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division "is going to deploy a couple weeks early, and the" 3rd Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, "which was deployed in June for a year, has now been extended." On March 12, the 4th Stryker Brigade deployed for Iraq a month sooner than originally expected.
As The Indianapolis Star reported, on February 22, "[t]he Indiana National Guard announced ... that the state's largest call-up since World War II could head for Iraq in 2008 to bolster the surge of U.S. troops there." The Guard reportedly expects as many as 3,500 troops to be called to Iraq in 2008.
On February 27, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that "Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn, director of the Army National Guard, said that over the next 18 months some National Guard soldiers will be heading back to Iraq or Afghanistan sooner than first planned." According to the Democrat-Gazette, "Pentagon planners have identified four National Guard brigades for consideration for early deployment if a second wave of surge troops is needed. Those are brigades in Ohio, Oklahoma and Indiana, along with Arkansas' 39th Infantry Brigade." The article further noted that Bush's "surge has already resulted in extended deployment of some brigades in both Iraq and Afghanistan and early call-ups of others."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 5, 2007 01:57:51 PM new
Lie Number 2 from Bush
BUSH: Congress shouldn't tell generals how to run the war. Congress should not shortchange our military. Congress should not use a emergency war spending measure as a vehicle to put pet spending projects on that have nothing to do with the war.
In fact, not only has every previous supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war contained money for projects unrelated to those missions, some of those projects were inserted into the bills at Bush's request, as an April 4 Washington Post article reported:
To President Bush, they are "pork-barrel projects completely unrelated to the war," items in the House and Senate war-spending bills such as peanut storage facilities and aid to spinach farmers that insult the seriousness of the conflict and exist only to buy votes.
But such spending has been part of Iraq funding bills since the war began, sometimes inserted by the president himself, sometimes added by lawmakers with bipartisan aplomb. A few of the items may have weighed on the votes for spending bills that have now topped half a trillion dollars, but, in almost all cases over the past four years, special-interest funding provisions have been the fruits of congressional opportunism by well-placed senators or House members grabbing what they could for their constituents on the one bill that had to be passed quickly.
[...]
The president's own request last year for emergency war spending included $20 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, $2.3 billion for bird flu preparations, and $2 billion to fortify the border with Mexico and pay for his effort to send National Guardsmen to the southern frontier.
[...]
The 2005 emergency war-spending bill included $70 million for aid to Ukraine and other former Soviet states; $12.3 million for the Architect of the Capitol, in part to build an off-site delivery facility for the Capitol police; $24 million for the Forest Service to repair flood and landslide damage; and $104 million for watershed protection -- the lion's share meant for repairing the damage to waterways in Washington County, Utah, at the request of the state's Republican senators.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 5, 2007 01:59:34 PM new
Lie number 3 from Bush
Bush strode alone into the Rose Garden and complained that "it has now been 57 days" since he asked Congress for more money for the Iraq war and still has not gotten it. For President Bush, the fight over war-spending legislation has become the only talking point -- an opportunity, his strategists hope, to demonstrate strength and turn the tables on a Democratic Congress that may be overreaching.
However, as the weblog Think Progress noted, in both 2005 and 2006, when Republicans controlled Congress, legislators took significantly longer than 57 days to approve Bush's supplemental war-funding requests:
February 14, 2005: Bush submits $82 billion supplemental bill
May 11, 2005: Bush signs the supplemental
Total time elapsed: 86 days
February 16, 2006: Bush submits $72 billion supplemental bill
June 15, 2006: Bush signs the supplemental
Total time elapsed: 119 days
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 5, 2007 02:04:25 PM new
Lie number 4 from Bush
Bush: "if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here."
According to a March 18 Washington Post article, "U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts" have said that Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) "poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland." The article differentiated AQI from Osama bin Laden and his desire to continue to carry out attacks inside the United States. However, the article continued:
But the likelihood that such an attack would be launched from Iraq, many experts contend, has sharply diminished over the past year as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has undergone dramatic changes. Once believed to include thousands of "foreign fighters," it is now an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization whose aims are likely to remain focused on the struggle against the Shiite majority in Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials said.
The Post added that according to "government and outside experts," "AQI's new membership and the allied insurgents care far more about what happens within Iraq than they do about bin Laden's plans for an Islamic empire" and "[t]hat is likely to remain the case whether U.S. forces stay or leave."
The article also noted that according to terrorism expert and Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman, AQI "owes its existence to the U.S. invasion." Hoffman noted that "[t]here were no domestic jihadis in Iraq before we came there. Now there are. ... But the threat they pose beyond Iraq is not so certain. There will be plenty of fighting to keep them there for years."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 5, 2007 02:39:00 PM new
From now on the American Troops getting KILLED or WOUNDED in THE BUSH CIVIL WAR can be blamed directly on republicans.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Apr 5, 2007 04:29 PM ]
posted on April 5, 2007 08:55:11 PM new
Like the NY Times is the most credible source out there. PLEASE. It's been proven time and time again that the majority of their stories are filled with many implied facts.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on April 5, 2007 09:30:08 PM newMedia Matters for America
Media Matters for America is a non-profit organization founded in 2004 by formerly conservative (now liberal) journalist and author David Brock; it is an organization that hosts a website featuring watchdog journalism. Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters for America defines "conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda."
Media Matters scrutinizes news reporting and political commentary that it perceives to contain conservative distortions or falsehoods. Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, as well as self-described independent Bill O'Reilly are often targets, but reporting from mainstream news outlets is also scrutinized.
Research Work
Media Matters uses a variety of techniques to demonstrate how it believes information is manipulated by right-wing media figures. Employing methods such as content analysis, fact checking, monitoring, and comparison of quotes or presentations from media figures to primary documents such as Pentagon or Government Accountability Office reports, MMfA provides daily analysis to its readers.
posted on April 5, 2007 09:30:46 PM new
"But such spending has been part of Iraq funding bills since the war began, sometimes inserted by the president himself ..."
Can someone please show me where the President has the authority to do this?
posted on April 5, 2007 11:54:25 PM new
No, the repugs are more likely to believe bought and paid for "journalists" like Armstrong Williams who the BUSHITS PAID to present their agenda as the facts...as truth LOLOL!!!!
posted on April 6, 2007 06:43:10 AM newyea you're sure to get UNBIASED, FULL reporting of each story from them
JUST LIKE YOU GETTING THE NEWS FROM ALL THE CONSERVATIVE SITES LIKE THE WASHINGTON POST AND FOX NEWS.
We all know how unbiased those sites are. What's the matter, you can not handle the truth. I know you do not like it when the public finds out the truth about the Cheerleader in Chief's propaganda.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 6, 2007 06:50:15 AM newWhat LD no GUTS to show everyone where you get this distorted posts? Ashamed to let them KNOW your source?
I chose not to post the source because anyone with half a brain could find out where I got them from. And you finding them proves my point. Afraid to do a little of your own work do to some research? I guess you just want everything handed to you on a platter. Real people have to work.
What a JOKE you are.
You are the biggest joke Linda. You believe the only reliable news sources are your conservative choices. You can not handle the truth.
Now why don't you just run along and play with Stonecold's pre-school class because you can not take playing with the big boys.
Are you going to cry and whine now that Bush continues to be exposed for the fraud that he is. Don't worry I will send Bush your email address so you and he can remain pen pals after he is IMPEACHED.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 6, 2007 06:57:03 AM new
""I chose not to post the source because anyone with half a brain could find out where I got them from. And you finding them proves my point.""
LOLOL!!!!!
See it's only linduh who can post without giving the source and then if asked she replies, ""Afraid to do a little of your own work do to some research? I guess you just want everything handed to you on a platter. Real people have to work.""
posted on April 6, 2007 09:33:56 AM new
Oh yes, we're to believe that the administration that has been FIGHTING the terrorist are the ones who are LYING.
Not those who are cheering for American troops to ADMIT DEFEAT in Iraq and come home.
We're supposed to believe them. right.....
I choose to believe those I see as being PRO-America not un-American who want our DEFEAT and a WIN for the TERRORIST.
And they call themselves patriots. right....
=================
RUSH: Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance, to the concept of US defeat?
[speaking about the liberals in congress]
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't. It seems to me so abundantly clear, Rush, that we really need to prevail in this conflict, that there's an awful lot riding on it. It's not just about Iraq. It's about our efforts in the global war on terror, and that entire part of the world, affects what's going on in Iran where we're trying to make sure they don't develop a nuclear weapon. You can imagine the extent to which the Iranians would be heartened in that effort, if they see us withdraw from Iraq next door.
We got Musharraf and Pakistan and Karzai in Afghanistan, who put their lives on the line every day, in effect, supporting our efforts to deal with the extremists and the terrorists in part of the world. If they say us bail out in Iraq they clearly would lose confidence in our capacity to carry through and get the job done. So, it's absolutely essential we do it. I don't know what the motive is. They seem to think that we can withdraw from Iraq and walk away from it. They ignore the lessons of the past. Remember what happened in Afghanistan.
We'd been involved in Afghanistan in the eighties, supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets and prevailed. We won. Everybody walked away, and in the nineties, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, an area for training camps where Al-Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late nineties, and the base from which they launched attacks on the United States on 9/11.
So those are very real problems, and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it seems to me, simply would play right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.
RUSH: It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08, is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes, but they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill, and thus official government language, of that term. Does that give any indication of their motivation, or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton. I worked closely with Ike when I was secretary of defense. He's chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike's a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about it. Just to give you one example, Rush. Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the booming of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni.
This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. There's no way you can segment out and say, "Well, we'll fight the war on terror in Pakistan or Afghanistan but we can separate Iraq. That's not really, in any way, shape, or form related." It's just dead wrong. Bin Laden has said this is the central battle in the war on terror.
RUSH: I have to think the Democrats know all of this, too, which puzzles people even more as to why they seem devoted to pulling out of there with defeat securely in hand. Not only would what you detail happen, but the next conflict, the next battle that we find ourselves in -- there will be one -- how tough is it going to be to assemble allies if they think we might just pull out in the middle of the whole thing before it's complete?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it would be very tough. Remember what Al-Qaeda is betting on here. They cannot beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have. What they're betting is that they can break our well, that they can in fact force the American people to retreat, that we'll finally get tired of the battle and go home, and then they win. The only way they can win is if we quit, and to adopt a policy that says, "We're going to withdraw from Iraq," would do precisely that. It in effect hand the victory to the terrorists. It validates the whole Al-Qaeda strategy.
The other thing you can be sure of is, once they figure out if they attack America often enough we'll change our policies, they'll keep attacking America.
RUSH: You have a lot of supporters in this audience, obviously, and they're chomping at the bit to help. What could people in this audience do to assist the effort to get the supplemental passed as the president wants it?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think they ought to make it clear to their member of Congress that this is a question of supporting the troops. These are young men and women who put their lives on the line every day for this country. They deserve the absolute, unequivocal support of the United States, the Congress, the funding that's in that bill, the resources that they need to do the job we ask them to do for us.
This is a real test. You cannot pursue this fiction that some of them like to pursue that they quote, "support the troops" but they're opposed everything the troops are doing. That's just a nonsensical statement. It's very, very important that this legislation go forward and that members of Congress be judged based on whether or not they really do support the troops when they're put to the test.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 10:01:10 AM new
The only one that continues to believe Saddam and Al_Qaeda worked together is Cheney. It is the only way he continue to justify the war.
Linda's proof of the Iraq and Al-Qaeda link is an interview between Rush and Cheney. If Cheney speaks, it must be true. No wonder why she keeps living in a fantasy world.
‘No conclusive signs’
From these sources, the report added, "the terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida were validated, [namely] 'no conclusive signs,' and 'direct cooperation . . . has not been established.' "
Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 6, 2007 10:40:06 AM new
"no conclusive proof"
doesn't mean IT NEVER HAPPENED. get a clue you two.
===========
And YES, since 9-11 I'll believe Cheney with his VAST DECADES long security background over someones GUESS.
=============
He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June.
I'll WAIT until you two have actual PROOF that what Cheney said above....is a LIE.
I challenge you to PROVE Abu Musab al-Zarqawi wasn't in Iraq before we invaded.
YOU CAN'T....no matter how many liberal MSM press articles you provide.
NO one has proven he wasn't in IRAQ before we invaded.
ACTUAL PROOF of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's
where-abouts.
posted on April 6, 2007 11:00:14 AM new
It's up to Cheney to prove his fabricated statement isn't a lie. Until he can submit proof, it's not to be believed by anyone. The reason he does this is because he's in a position of power but he knows he's circling the drain and has to hold on to the small percentage that still believe everything he says. That's why he smirks, because he knows they will still believe anything that comes from his mouth, no matter how ridiculous.
Did you see him lurking in the bushes when Bush spoke the other day? Creepy!
posted on April 6, 2007 11:12:47 AM new
You know kiara I don't really give a #*!@ what you think. You don't live here and they're not saying they're going to destroy canada.
So your liberal anti-American statements mean NOTHING to me.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 11:16:55 AM new
Linda_k, I wasn't addressing you. I was giving my opinion that Cheney has to prove his statement. That's his responsibility.
posted on April 6, 2007 11:17:16 AM new
Haha Kiara, she doesn't care what you say but it sure gets her in a swearing tizzy! LOL! Shows that she knows she's wrong but just can't admit it !
How long is ""VAST DECADES long"" ?
A decade can only be 10 years and no "vaster" LOL!
Gee, and NO war experience whatsoever...vast decades of no war experience....
posted on April 6, 2007 11:33:54 AM new
Mingo, I know Linda_K doesn't want to hear differing opinions from me. Just because I don't live in the US at this time, it doesn't mean that I should close my eyes to what's happening there or anywhere else in this world. The United States is a wonderful country with good people, some being my relatives and friends too, so of course I'm concerned what happens now and in the future. Everyone I associate with is concerned.
Oh ya, may I add that there is also free speech in North America and I'm happy to see that more people are asking questions and speaking out...... even if it does cause someone to go into a complete tizzy because it hinders their propaganda machine.
posted on April 6, 2007 11:51:43 AM new
"Although Feith's assessment in mid-2002 offered several examples of cooperation between Saddam's government and al-Qaida, the report said, the CIA had concluded months earlier that no evidence supported the existence of significant or long-term relationships."
It's ALL in how any article is worded. NO WHERE it is explained just WHAT cooperation there was between saddam's gov. and al-qaida.
But just as with the world KNOWING saddam HAD nuclear weapons....and USED them....the wackos will DENY ANY and ALL 'friendship' between those with the common goal of destroying America.
As they have about nuclear weapons BECAUSE on little amounts were found.
Doesn't prove they DIDN'T hide them...ship them off somewhere....etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 6, 2007 11:57 AM ]
Are YOU a Bunghole?