NewsHour hosted Melanie Morgan on Iraq war despite her history of misinformation and smears
SUMMARY: PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer hosted a segment on grassroots groups seeking to influence Iraq policy that included conservative radio host and Move America Forward chairman Melanie Morgan, whose history of false, misleading and unsubstantiated claims regarding the Iraq war went unmentioned during the segment, as did her numerous smears.
On the May 8 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, correspondent Judy Woodruff hosted a segment titled "Grassroots Groups Seek to Influence Iraq Policy" featuring Jon Soltz, co-founder and chairman of VoteVets.org, and Melanie Morgan, chairman of Move America Forward (MAF). Morgan, a conservative radio host who has appeared several times on MSNBC's Hardball, has previously spread several false, misleading and unsubstantiated claims regarding the Iraq war, which went unmentioned by Woodruff.
Also, as Media Matters for America has noted, Morgan, referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said, "We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big, wide laughing eyes," and that "it's time to put the bull's-eye" on Pelosi. Morgan has also said that she "would have no problem" with New York Times executive editor Bill Keller "being sent to the gas chamber" if he "were to be tried and convicted of treason" for the paper's reporting of a Treasury Department program that monitors international financial transactions for terrorist activity. Morgan recently attacked Media Matters as "left-wing free speech Nazis" and likened Media Matters to the Virginia Tech gunman who killed 32 people before shooting himself to death.
During the segment, Morgan claimed that MAF is "a group that speaks loudly for the military families" and told Soltz, an Iraq war veteran, that his organization was focused on "political games." Morgan also offered a brief assessment of the Iraq war:
MORGAN: The Iraqi army is working very hard to accomplish that [stabilize Iraq]. We are working very hard with them. We have attained many of the benchmarks already that the president set out when we invaded Iraq. We have deposed President Saddam Hussein. He's now dead. We have a democrat, freely elected government in place, and we are trying now to secure that peace. And that is the difficult and grinding slog that we face.
In July 2005, Morgan traveled to Iraq with other conservative radio hosts as part of the " 'Voices of Soldiers' Truth Tour" that, in Morgan's words, was intended to "get the story straight from them [the troops] without the filter of the liberal media." The tour was organized by MAF, a conservative activist group. Media Matters for America noted that in an appearance on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews following the tour, Morgan said that during the tour, a top-ranking Iraqi military leader told her that "4,000 terrorists who were related to Al Qaeda" were working in Iraq under the direction of Saddam Hussein prior to the March 2003 U.S. invasion. But despite the explosive nature of this allegation, the claim has not appeared in any news reports, nor has any additional evidence been provided to substantiate it.
As Media Matters also noted, the 9-11 Commission found "no evidence" that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda "developed into a collaborative operational relationship." Also, on April 5, the inspector general of the Defense Department declassified a report that reviewed the pre-Iraq war intelligence gathering activities of the department's Office of Special Plans, run by then undersecretary of Defense for policy Douglas J. Feith. While the report stated that the actions of Feith's office were "inappropriate," it also reported that "[t]he Intelligence Community discounted conclusions about the high degree of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida," adding that it is "noteworthy" that the post-war debriefs of Saddam Hussein and other former high ranking Iraqi government officials "as well as document exploitation by [the Defense Intelligence Agency] all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories" before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as The Washington Post reported.
Morgan also asserted that, according to the "troops" and "top brass" with whom she spoke on the 2005 trip, the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last gasps" and the U.S. can begin "drawing down" its troop deployments following election of a permanent constitutional government in Iraq the upcoming December. Yet Media Matters for America noted that evaluations of the conflict at that time by top military and defense officials suggested that the insurgency had maintained its strength, and President Bush has repeatedly stated that the U.S. will withdraw its forces only once the Iraqi military is prepared to fight the insurgency.
Also, in another August 2005 appearance on Hardball, Morgan falsely suggested that Iraqi armed forces had reached 60 percent "readiness." In fact, while Iraqi forces had reached 60 percent of their recruiting goals, a July 2005 Pentagon brief contradicted Morgan's claim of readiness. The brief indicated that only a small fraction of current Iraqi units were capable of fighting insurgents without coalition support.
Duriing the May 8 NewsHour segment, Morgan claimed that she would like to see Soltz "say to the troops in the field" "that they are failing, that they have failed, miserable performance, that they are losing." She also said that Soltz was "shameful and really disrespectful to our troops." Soltz replied, "I am the troops."
From the May 8 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:
WOODRUFF: And, Melanie Morgan, whom does your organization, Move America Forward, whom do you speak for?
MORGAN: Well, we have over a million people who belong to our organization, which is the largest pro-American, pro-troop organization in the United States. And we are a group that speaks loudly for the military families, Gold Star family members who still support the war, who still support the president, and our efforts to stabilize Iraq, and the global war on terror, which is even more important in the long term.
[...]
WOODRUFF: And, Melanie Morgan, Move America Forward, what do you want to see happen in Iraq?
MORGAN: I want to see victory, and apparently the Democrats don't, because otherwise why would you possibly conceive of funding a war in six-month increments? I would like to see Congressman Rahm Emanuel [D-IL] explain that plan or whatever it is that he seems to be proposing, along with commander in chief Nancy Pelosi, to our troops directly to their face.
Tell them that they are failing; that they have a failed, miserable performance; that they are losing. I'd like to see Mr. Soltz say that to the troops in the field, as well. I don't think that you would get that exact same opinion from them, nor from the millions of other Americans who wish for us --
SOLTZ: We are the troops.
MORGAN: -- to succeed, to find a strategy that will work, to give it time to work, to be patient, and to win.
WOODRUFF: And I'm going to have Mr. Soltz respond to that, but, just to be clear, you're saying you want the troops to stay how long?
MORGAN: I want the troops to stay until the job is done. And that will be determined by our generals who are running and prosecuting this war.
When there have been political benchmarks that have been reached, when we have a stabilization -- I have often said, we've already won the war in Iraq. We have not won the peace. And that is the difficult job.
The Iraqi army is working very hard to accomplish that. We are working very hard with them. We have attained many of the benchmarks already that the president set out when we invaded Iraq. We have deposed President Saddam Hussein. He's now dead. We have a democrat, freely elected government in place, and we are trying now to secure that peace. And that is the difficult and grinding slog that we face.
WOODRUFF: Jon Soltz, what do you have to say to that?
SOLTZ: Well, we are the troops. And there was nothing worse than when I was in combat in Iraq and a soldier that I sent on a convoy was killed, and I had to hear my president, a man who never had the courage to serve in Vietnam, entice my enemy with words like, "Bring it on."
MORGAN: Oh, please!
SOLTZ: So this is a very important thing. This week, VoteVets.org is launching a major, massive campaign component, or not campaign, but an education of sorts, where we're running commercials across the country. And we're not just using Iraq war veterans. We're having General [John] Batiste, the [former] commander of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq.
Of course, President Bush says he listens to the commanders on the ground, but General Batiste, going in to four different states, where there's four different senators, and House districts across the entire country, saying, "Mr. President, you don't listen to the commanders in the field. You've put our Army and our Marine Corps in peril."
And it's up to these senators to protect America, and not George Bush. And that's what this is about. This is about victory against Al Qaeda.
MORGAN: No, this is exactly what it's about, Mr. Soltz.
SOLTZ: We are a pro-troop organization. We fought for this country --
MORGAN: We are a pro-troop organization, as well.
SOLTZ: -- and we do not support -- excuse me, ma'am. Excuse me.
MORGAN: What it is about for you is political games.
WOODRUFF: I want to let each one of you speak. So, Mr. Soltz, finish that sentence, and then I want to hear --
SOLTZ: Yes, ma'am. I have fought for this country, and I have earned my right for you to hear my opinion on this show.
[...]
SOLTZ: But she's [Morgan] right. I couldn't agree with her more. Al Qaeda is listening, and that's the entire point. And Al Qaeda supports their policy. They have undermined our troops in field. They've empowered Iran.
Al Qaeda said it two days ago. They want us in Iraq. They've strategically fixed our assets to defeat them in the war on terror inside the middle of a Shia-Sunni conflict in the middle of the Middle East. And it's absolutely ridiculous.
MORGAN: Well, it's nice to know that you really believe in the fearsome firepower of Al Qaeda and in their ability to win a war. And I think what you're saying is shameful and really disrespectful to our troops.
SOLTZ: You're undermining our troops in the field right now by these comments. I am the troops.
This is what happens when right-wing idealogues are put in charge of the Public Broadcasting Corporation. Even "Newshour" is beginning to sound like hannity and colmes (lowercase intentional).
On the other hand...
If I were a conservative, and I watched this embarrassing performance by Ms. Morgan, I would probably think that PBS was back in liberal hands. What intelligent conservative would select this woman as a spokesperson for the "this war is a good thing" side?
i saw the whole thing and i question her military strategist credentials. She didn't even bother to pretty herself up for the camera leading me to believe that she was the only one not in hiding.
What credentials are there that makes morgan's opinion on Iraq newsworthy?
Truly, it's a rhetorical question but a serious one still: Why was this person on PBS's NewsHour?
Why not bill o'reilly instead of morgan? He has the same credentials, he's in the same business as morgan, why not him or hannity or limbaugh... why morgan?
What credentials do these people have, that makes their opinion on Iraq so newsworthy?
[As for o'reilly, I know why it wasn't him on PBS's NewsHour, shilling for the death and expense of the un-ending occupation of Iraq: Because he doesn't shill for that occupation anymore... not since the elections of 11-07-06. The strong political winds of that day, they blew the wind right out of bill o'reilly's sails, when it comes to his formerly cheering on the deaths of the American People's Sons and Daughters in Iraq.]
What credentials are there that makes morgan's opinion on Iraq newsworthy?.
She was the only one who answered the phone.
What makes her opinion valid is her Chairship of a vet organizaton in opposition to VetVotes. It was perfectly correct to include her organization and she is, apparently, the designated rep.
She was totally disrespectful to an actual soldier, Mr. Soltz. That is hardly the type of person I would want chairing any organization to which I was aparty, let alone a supposedly pro-soldier organization.
Ms. Morgan has taken the same interupting, childish screaming tactics before to a certain soilder and author ya'll may know as Paul Rieckhoff.
They were on an MSNBC show one night a few years back or so when Paul first started getting exposure with Ms. Morgan (who had just returned from her "Talk Radio Hosts Trip" to Iraq) to debate the war (obviously).
Ms. Morgan was given the floor first, Paul did not interupt and let her speak.
As soon as Paul began his rebuttal, Ms. Morgan takes us back to 4th grade with outbursts of absurdity and disrespect that Pee Wee Herman would call immature.
And I agree with the poster above me. Why is PBS dumbing down? IS it that important to grab the 18-35 money demo? Its news. Not a commodity.
The seven words you can't say on TV....
Or MMFA for that matter.
While I'm not a nightly NewsHour viewer, I did watch it last night.
Mel was true to form, spewing idiocy after idiocy. I have no idea how Soltz managed to stay civil to her.
I made up for him, though, using just about every variation of the B word, the C word and the F word in response to her moronic drivel.
I felt better, but our two cats were pissed at me.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I watched her last night and knew I would have an opportunity to post today! She came unhinged and sounded as bad as she appeared!
When I watch this stuff and I want a reality check of how the regular viewer whom has a passing knowledge of the issue, and usually makes their opinion based on the appearances of the person giving the argument I ask my wife to watch!
She votes, but never listens to the news, or read the paper. She relies on my obsession with information as she has disciplined herself to pay closer attention because it seems more real to her now with the craziness around her!
I must tell you she made an unsolicited comment that was very out of character of her committed disinterest in politics. She noted that this woman sounded like a 'not so reformed prostitute giving sex-ed class at a public school!" I nearly fell out of my chair!
I am very encourged that if my wife as detached as she seems to the current events can stil recognize a fanatic nut case trying to make serious discourse!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Another great moment in fraudcasting from Moreguns.
I'll trade you M. Morgan for R. Rhodes.
MMFA is turning into a whiny teenage girl. This thread is about Newshour not mentioning a guests history of mistakes? Is there anyone out there that hasn't made mistakes in the past? Is there a perfect Democratic host that could be interviewed? No. Nobody is perfect.
I thought this site was about disproving misonformation, not whining about guest selections.
I'll take Randi Rhodes over any conservative windbag any day. This thread is relevant because PBS, supposedly liberally biased, asked a neo-con nut job with a history of distorting information and out right lying to come on their program. Sadly, most conservatives fit the same description but there had to be somebody with a little more credibility out there they could have found. Seems to me you're the one whining. At least Ms. Rhodes uses facts, backs up her claims and encourages her listeners to look up information for herself. Kudos to the soldier who politely shot Morgan down while she tried to talk over him. It's amazing that one of the troops she claims to support refutes her ridiculous claims and she can't take it.
Free speech Nazis? One hopes that a million people are listening to this woman only for comedy relief. The right must really have PBS cowed if the network is scared to call out this raving lunatic on some of her more outrageous statements.
Just to add regarding the "free speech nazis" thing:
When there are complaints of the lies and the hatred being spread on the radio and television by people like morgan or even imus, they frequently respond with something about "free speech".
Bull.
While of course these people have the right to speak as freely as they like, no one has any right whatsover to broadcast anything at all on the radio or on television.
Again, there is no such thing as a "right to broadcast" or "free broadcast"... everyone who broadcasts on radio or tv must have a license to do so, and as such are subject to whatever limitations and restrictions the licensing authority imposes.
It's not about "free speech", it's about broadcasting on the Public Airwaves, which nobody has any "right" to do...
...or why else is a license required to do it?
Something that always bothers me about these people, I am never sure if they know they are spouting lies or not. I know I couldn't repeat the crap that comes out of their mouth over and over unless I belived it but how can they belive when it has been proven wrong so many times. Its alot like religion, I just dont get it and I guess I never will.
I am never sure if they know they are spouting lies or not.
Welcome to the jungle, Ray.
Ms. Morgan is a loud mouthed blowhard who hasn't got a shred of integrity, the perfect Republican.
I am shocked that pbs had this hack on. On the other hand I'm sure it's getting harder to find anyone willing to defend tis travesty of a war. After all how many times can you have the politicly suicidal Sen McCain on?
Pope John Paul condemned this war 58 times prior to it's start. Never heard a thing about that though.
"Pope John Paul condemned this war 58 times prior to it's start. Never heard a thing about that though."
He condemned abortion many more times than that.
So what are you saying? He was right about one and wrong about the other?
Or was he right about both?
What he is saying is lets change the subject from how trulty embarassing Morgan is.
So what are you saying? He was right about one and wrong about the other?
Or was he right about both?
Or was he right about both?
From the integrity of your response you would like to pick and choose what statements from the Pontiff you use. Must be a prefect Republican.
Unless you're pro-life, I've made the point that it is YOU who is picking and choosing vis-a-vis the Pope's beliefs.
He didn't say whether or not he agreed with the pope.
His point was that the pope said something multiple times. His agreement or disagreement with the pope's point on that subject, or on any other subject, is irrelevant!
As is your deflection to change the subject from Morgan.
Can't the conservatives come up with any honest people to represent their side?
For the record, I oppose abortions in general. But never having been a woman as a Christian I feel more compelled by Jesus' teaching that, "who am you to judge another masters servant..... or tend to the log in your own eye before attending to the mote in your brother's eye (or sister's).
Pro life, sure. But keep your stinking nose out of other peoples business. It is a life and a choice. But it isn't my call to make for anyone else.
So you would also support a woman using drugs and selling her body?
(I know that's a bit different, since an abortion involves at least one body other than the woman's.)
Read what I wrote fool.
It is not my place to make that choice for anyone else.
On the other hand, you fell quite at ease telling us that you think you should be the decider on what women should do with their bodies.
I'm not anti-life, so I guess I AM pro life. Which, according to you, makes me an unqualified authority on the topic.
And I think you're picking and choosing. Most likely "your nose" and "whether it's worthy of eating", respectively.
Cut it out, Neon. Har!
Ok. Then by your definition ( and JP's), to be pro life you must be:
Against abortion.
Against the war.
Against the death penalty.
In other words there are very few pro life people in this country.
That's because he was consistently pro-life...
...unlike virtually every conservative I've ever known.
Wait, weren't you guys just complaining that there aren't enough women represented in the media?!? :)
I gotta laugh at Dangrady's "SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!" Last time I checked, we live in a republic, not a full democracy. And since when are socialistic views and adgendas a form of democracy?
OK, riddle me this batman: if we are living in a republic and not a "full democracy" as you say, why the hell are we trying to "spread democracy" to the Iraqis at gunpoint?
We'll we're actually a representative Democracy, not a direct democracy. Sorry for the mishap in my post. I was just implying the irony in that Democrats no longer represent a party that is anti-federalist and promotes lager government with more control, kinda the exact opposite of direct democracy which gives the power directly to the people's votes.
"Lager government"! Sounds tasty, but probably a bad idea.
It's the Repubs that have grown the gov't, Bean-o. Take a closer look.
"We'll we're actually a representative Democracy, not a direct democracy." --Beanz
No one claimed we were a direct Democracy. Strawman.
I think you guys completely missed the point out of your NEED to automatically disagree with someone who MIGT be a republican. I am a registered independant with conservative/libertarian views.
I understand Repubs have expanded the government as well but I was pointing out the irony of "SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!" -Dangrady Im not saying repubs are any better. and I know that he did not say "save direct democracy" but that form of democracy is what is usually associated with an unspecified "democracy".
Either way guys, the democrat party has been pushing for a large gonvernment that seeks to control all aspects of our lives. Socialism is not the way to save democracy.
Besides your insane delusions about the DemocratIC party being socialists or trying to control all aspects of our lives there is no such thing as a Democrat party, there is a DemocratIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party.
I love these guys who say they aren't a Republican, their independent with libertarian leanings who just happens to hate Democrats. It's Democratic party there independent libertarian. When someone uses they petty terminology of the GOP it's safe to say they lean towards the Republic Party.
I think we are going to see a whole bunch of independents/libertarians in the coming years. The best part about it is that we libs/progs didn't even need to demonize the word Republican in the way they had to agressively associate the word liberal with evil. Republicans did it themselves, talk about pulling themselves up (er, down) by their bootstraps! that is personal responsibility!
Seriously, I think it is of the utmost importance to point out that Bush's failures are the failures of conservatism. After all without the complicity of a Republican controlled government, Bush would not have been able to push his conservative corporate agenda.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
An American Democracy, A nation of laws, that lives with, and respects the rule of law. Three equal branches of government of representative governance by virtue of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights! The more perfect union that millions of Americans sacrificed!
The oath our President & Vice President sworn twice to be sure is the same oath that every service man & woman swears to has at it's core the following: " I swear to protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution of the United States of America!"
I gave that oath as did millions of Americans before me and after me, should I have violated that oath in any way I would be in a Federal Prison!
Our President and Vice President, as well as the Republican Party has worked ardantly to create an abomination called the Unitary Executive as they secretly spy on their own constituents, and pervert our constitutional rights, and civil liberties! If you think this nothing to concern yourself with, then you truly are a Republican!
We have a party that has openly decided that loyalty to party is more important than loyalty to country, and their oath of office!
Restoring American Democracy from the grips of American Fascism requires action discribed in the title of every post of this author!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
And by that worthless definition there is no such thing as a democracy anywhere in the world and yet many countries describe themselves as democracies. You have no point.
Not another inane argument about we live in a Republic, not a Democracy! If you knew anything at all, you would know that "Democracy" is a fairly general word that simply comes from the Greek -- the people rule. There are more specific types of Democracy, which include "Direct Representation" and "Republic".
A Republic is simply a representative form of Democracy. So in essence, we are both a Democracy and a Republic, depending on how specific you want to be about it.
It is kind of like saying, I am not white, I'm Scandanavian!
"adgendas" is a take-my-breath-away typo. It reads as one's ad(vertised) agenda, which is too true of too many people.
One has an alleged agenda and one has a hidden agenda. For example, it is possible that the advertised agenda (adgenda) of a person might be to set freedom on the march in the Middle East. Hidden agendas might be to park atop the oil rather than retool a country and economy for the end of oil or to kill-burn-destroy to sate the hunger for revenge and to murder while wearing a pro-life pin.
Morgan's adgenda is to support the troops. Just never you mind that the tales of spitting hippies, which are the seeds of IsupportthetroopsIsupportthetroops, are apocryphal. Morgan's hidden agenda would seem to be self-aggrandizing and weilding her breasts, which should be fonts of life, like photon torpedoes. The best way to support the troops, given the involuntarily extended tours of duty is to become one. If one is too old, one can release their wealth to the troops. On the contrary, Morgan acquired her wealth through the troops. She is a parasite. She beats the drums of war and cashes the checks of war.
It is past time for rich people to bleed into the sands of Iraq for their beloved war. As it was during the Civil War, this is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
How true. The difference is that during the Civil War rich men were required to pay their $300 to evade service.
Today we're led by Evaders who paid no one to die in their place in SE Asia.
And now they get tax cuts.
That is interesting. How is this a "poor man's fight"?
I cannot speak for Holly, and will not presume to do so, but I will say that the number of those who fight and die in this war are disproportionately from families and neighborhoods that are lower middle class and below in income level.
That's it, BLR. This is the first American war funded by foreign powers. It's the first American war that came with tax cuts: one after another after another after another. The Vietnam War made millionaires of men. This war makes millionaires into billionaires.
Look I agree with your overall premise that throughout our history the poor have disproportionately did the dying and fighting in our wars. I would have to research this again, but I believe that after charlie Rangel made the same assumption several months ago the data proved him to be wrong as it relates to this particular conflict. The difference now is that our military force is all volunteer. I could be wrong, but I thnk the data showed that those that are serving presently in Iraq are not primarily from poor neighborhoods. I don't believe that there have been any studies to indicate what income level the KIA's come from. I could be wrong, but I distinctly remember researching this some time ago. All indications at that time showed that the majority fo those serving were not of poor or lower middle class.
I wrote an article about this a couple years back and my research, which used the military's stats, showed that the closer one was to the fighting, the more likely one was to be of color and also of lower class.
"the number of those who fight and die in this war are disproportionately from families and neighborhoods that are lower middle class and below in income level."--blr
That is a pretty difficult thing to prove. I have seen studies that try to argue both sides. There are some issues that make any study suspect:
1. The military does not gather any socio-economic data about recruits.
2. Even if the military did gather this data, many recruits have not had a previous career only worked part-time at school. If that was a standard, every recruit could be argued to be poor.
3. Most of the studies are forced to rely on census median income data from the zipcodes where the recruits came from. This would seem to be unreliable, because even if all of the recruits in a rich county (by census gathered median income standards) came from the poorest families in the county, they would still be counted as rich kids by the study methodology -- therefore, the data used would indicate the opposite of what really happened.
Here are two studies that use essentially the same approach and data, but come to completely different conclusions.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=182&Itemid=158
I admit I haven't really looked at the studies that deeply yet and I am not quite sure what to think about their conclusions yet.
I think you pretty much nailed it OPEN MIND. I knew I had seen some data concerning this. the study I read was the one from the Heritage Foundation. The other link you provided was very useful as well. I truly believe that presently with an all volunteer service what you see is less and less of recruits that are from poor families. I'm not sure what data Holly used in her paper or which conflict she is referring to when it showed that the closer individuals came to battle they were minorities and poor. I can tell you that data from Vietnam showed that blacks for example were casualties in proportion to their overall population. The idea that poor blacks received the most casualities in Vietnam is a fallacy. This leads me to believe that in modern times it is bunk to say that mostly poor minorities die in our wars.
Check again because you're wrong. Our's is a democratic republic. Not a democracy, not a republic. Not to mention our founding fathers referred to this as a democracy even though it is technically not.
There once was a Melanie Morgan,
Who overworked her primary organ
shouting out crap
from her pie hole trap
to promote her plastic mouthed forum
Snoopy Says Melanie Morgan,
uses her pie hole for talking.
But from the oder of her comments
it's from where the pie egresses,
She talks straight out of her ass.
"I want the troops to stay until the job is done."
And in the same breath she says she's for the troops... amazing!
When will the job be done, Mel? 2010? 2015? 2020? 2025? And how many troops will have died...?
Here is link to the VoteVet.org ad with retired General Batiste
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMPIi03wSfY
Also, while your there listen to what other retired Generals have to say about Rumsfield and how he and "W" have screwed our troops form the get go. What a moron Morgan is... If she cared about or troops as she says she does then the best thing she can do is STFU.
I must admit I want the job done. However, I do not believe that a true end will come with the pussyfooting that is going on there. Get the job done or get the hell out!
Hey Beanz, why don't you head on over and show those "pussyfooters" how a real man gets-r-done?
Can you even tell us what the 'job' is?
Reading what beanzrus71 wrote, I think, "It's 1968 all over again."
Our military is fighting with one arm behind their backs. there is an uprecidented amount of courtmarshals, greater than ANY previous war. Our soldiers are being sent in with outdated equipment (thnx dems for reducing budget for our military, and bush for not correcting it). And we are giving POWs and terrorists more rights and privlages then our own boys who are dying for our cause. That in my opinion is pussyfooting.
The job should be to get the Iraq government to a point in which it can sustain itself by its own means. Our military should be an assistance not the primary force behind its government. Do what we did in Germany, tear down all resistance by all means necessary, rebuild a ally government, get our forces out save for what is necessary to maintain diplomacy.
Yes, 1968 all over again, here we are letting the media and civilians dictate how the war is and should be run, not people with MILITARY training and experience. You guys gonna boo and alienate our soldiers when they come home too?
Back up those charges with links, pal. Our military wasn't hampered in 1968 and they're not hampered now. Then and now, service personnel are required to follow the law. If they don't, they suffer the consequences.
You've seen too many movies about 1968.
I've been waiting for more than 35 years to have a vet tell me that he was spit on, booed, attacked, etc. These incidents were very few and far between if they happened at all.
King, I read an Atlantic Monthly articles years back where the author tried to trace the spitting-hippy stories. He jetted across the country, but they all led nowhere. Yet, the spitting hippy stories have levered us, in part, into this war.
Progressive people don't hate the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen and airwomen. They hate the indifference and incompetence of BushCo. And I seethe at the incompetence of the citizens who voted for Bush. It was obvious back in 1999 that Bush wasn't up to the task, but he pretended to share the values of the fundies and promised to make the rich richer. He was also willing to spit, by proxy, on John Kerry, the veteran.
That promise to make the rich richer is the only one he's kept. Unless you were a millionaire who voted for Bush and now you're a multi-millionaire, Bush swindled you and that wasn't hard to do. It was obvious that W was incompetent. Bush voters, beware of your future voting. Your skills of political discernment aren't to be trusted. You'll seemingly vote for any self-aggrandizing, imperial boob who spits on progressive vets and who's willing to repeat the mistakes of the Vietnam War. We poured billions in South Vietnam and tens of thousands of American lives. The intent was to Americanize the South Vietnamese and train them to self-govern and self-defend. That didn't work. In fact, Vietnam is one of the few remaining communist countries.
One of my pet peeves (ask my wife, I have quite a few) is people who claim that when I hate someone's behavior, I hate the person.
I hate what the Bush Administration has done. I hate the ways that BushCo has misled the country. I hate that our soldiers are being injured and killed for no good reason. I hate that Bush won't admit that continuing to fight in Iraq is counterproductive, and the best solution at this time is to leave as soon as possible to minimize additional losses!
I don't hate George Bush. I don't hate our soldiers.
The lies have now become institutionalized with the right. They all know how the vets were treated on their return, yet the most vocal righties were cowering in their dorm rooms while others did the fighting.
I know of no one who had been spit on. I've heard from no one who says they were spit on. It's always, someone's cousin knew a guy...
In any town in this country during the late sixties and early seventies, anyone who attempted abusing a returning vet would have had their ass beat to within an inch of their lives.
Every person had a family member, neighbor or friend, who served or would be serving in Vietnam. If it had happened, it would have been as if the person spitting was spitting on everyone's brother.
No one would have stood by and let this happen. there would be hospital records of the spitter's trip to the ER after he was dealt with by the witnesses.
Ok I must admit, i voted for bush. But what would have happend if Gore was in power for 9/11? He'd tell the terrorists that their carbon footprint was too big and charge them for it?!
Dispite his blunders and incompitence as a leader, Bush had the balls to do something about what was going on in the middle east. If he is the idiot that you all beleive him to be, how could he manipulate our government and many other governments throught the world to beleive that there was an immediate threat.
"In Vietnam, I truly believed that had the military leaders been allowed to do their job, it would have been a different story," [link to www.azcentral.com]
NOTHING was going on in the Middle East until Bush invaded Iraq. The enemy was in Afghanistan but Bush decided bin Laden was no longer relevant and attacked an INNOCENT nation, aka a war crime.
You Crusaders just want a genocide of the infidel, methinks.
I have to agree with you KING. As a Vietnam veteran I served from June 1966 to June 1967 and again in October 1968 to March 1969. I got to come home due to wounds suffered in battle. I never saw anyone get spit on. Sure there were a few idiots who were disrespectful to returning servicemen but the reality was that it wasn't much different thatn you see now. People came home and that was that.
Let's hope that the nation doesn't turn it's back on this generation of vets.
I was there from '69 to '70. I was one of the lucky ones. I came home with no physical injuries. But I still have friends dying of government neglect. A lot of them have been fighting for every benefit to which we all thought they were entitled. I don't want to see that happen to the Iraq War vets.
It's good to talk to a fellow Vietnam vet. I can't agree with you more. I too have several friends who fight daily to negotiate the VA maze.
Nice talking to you too. There are a lot of vets here who post pretty regularly.
I don't think the problem was that soldiers were abused as much as they were IGNORED after Vietnam. There didn't have all the parades and welcome home ceremonies that the WW2 vets had. The fact is the many of the right-wingers detested the fact that the Vietnam vets were considered the first US military force to LOSE a war.
When I was about 10 years old, my dad came back from Vietnam a changed person. Even at that age I could tell he wasn't the same jovial, loving father I remembered from a year before. He was withdrawn, paranoid, and suffered severe ulcers. Sometime later he took me with him to the local VFW post. He spoke to a few of the older vets there and then we went to sit alone in the corner for a while. After we left I could tell he was upset but he wouldn't talk about it. As far as I know, he never went back. Many years later he told me that the older vets at that post made it clear to him that he had every right to be there, but he was not welcome. They didn't want to be associated with those LOSERS from Vietnam. My father was a soldier. His sacrifice was no less than that of the WW2 or Korean War vets, but they scorned him.
In the nearly 1/3 century since that time, I have heard so often the right-wing canard that the troops coming home from Southeast Asia were spat upon by long-haired liberal hippies that I imangined they were forced to run a gauntlet of saliva in west-coast airports. The only abuse I ever saw was at a small-town VFW post.
Now, you tell me, was it long-haird liberals who hated the troops, or a bunch of aging, conservative, small-town hicks?
You've said it.
And ignoring the vets was the worst form of abuse. I feel really bad after hearing about your dad's treatment at the hands of the older veterans.
My dad and uncles were WWII vets who were just happy that their sons made it home. Most of them were against the War in Vietnam, but they could not have been more supportive of their sons.
Luckily I was able to adjust and did not face the type of treatment your father faced. There are certaintly long term effects that I carry with me each and every day. these mostly deal with the emotional scars that one receives from being in combat. It is a life altering event. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. That is why i am torn on this war. I truly believe that we were duped into fighting it. I struggle with believing that it is unecessary. I do take umbrage to instances in which I feel that politics as usual here at home does in fact effect the morale of our troops. But then again, I am not over there. It may be that the majority of our soldiers applaud every effort to end this war, even the ones that have an appearance of being hurtful to the troops.
Our military is hampered, they are forced to fight against a gurrila army which do not define themselves as combatants nor do they follow ANY of the Geneva Convention's rule yet we are held to the strict standard. Im not saying we need to stoop to their level, but beurocrats and pencil pushers should not be telling a soldier how to fight a war.
"But after all the days and nights of putting their lives on the line, the men of Company D were not prepared for what awaited them at home. They were unaware of the anti-war protests sweeping the country until their homebound planes landed in California and Chicago and were met by demonstrators. And they were unaware of how many Americans were holding Vietnam vets responsible for simply doing their patriotic duty. Oscar Bruno, the company medic, says, "My best friend shunned me." " [link to www.cbsnews.com] one that took all of 30 seconds to find. You still cannot dispute the fact that there have been more court marshalls and arrests within our military than any other war.
beanz,
It's very odd that you didn't mention anything about defeating terrorism, don't you think?
If occupying Iraq has any purpose whatsoever, it should serve to enhance our national security. Otherwwise, we're just nation building.
Anyway, there are private security contractors in Iraq who are bound by no military code of conduct. Can't they get the job done? I mean, why don't they indiscriminantly kill civillians, employ any means neccessary or whatever? Because killing civillians and demolishing Iraq's infrastructure is a juvenile solution and in no way gains the vital trust of the Iraqi people.
This occupation must end and our resources must be redirected so we can dismantle terror networks and fight the causes of terrorism.
You talk about a stripped down military thanks to Clinton and Bush. Well, what conventional army existed, that couldn't be bombed into oblivion, that threatened us so much during the Clinton years that we needed a hulking military?
No such army exists now which is why fighting a conventional WWII style war is ludicrous given the very non-conventional foe that is terrorism.
Get over this GOP talking point about the military being tied-up or tied down, the very nature of our enemy precludes us from engaging them in the manner our soldiers are trained to fight.
No but to go along with the rest of your delusions you will lie about us and say we did anyway.
Where's the misinformation on Morgan's part?
Ansar al-Islam, an al Qaeda affiliate, was indeed operating in Iraq prior to the invasion. This group received funding from Iraqi intelligence.
Also, in October 1992, VP candidate Al Gore chided the incumbent President Bush for his “dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot” and cited a RAND corporation study that reported an estimated 1400 terrorists operating out of Iraq.
MMFA wants the moonbats to think that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. However, Iraq was on the state department's short list of state sponsors of terrorism during the entire Clinton administration. MMFA also wants the moonbats to forget that Clinton's first act against terrorism was against Saddam Hussein in 1993. That was when Clinton fired a few missiles at Iraq's intel HQ in retaliation for the assassination attempt against Bush 41.
Saddam was a bad guy and Iraq was heavily involved in terrorism. Don't let David Brooks, a proven liar, tell you otherwise.
BTW, Rahm Emanuel never served in the U.S. military. He was a ballerina.
Even GW Bush has already admitted that there were no ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. It has already been demonstrated that they he didn't have WMD and that the Bush administration knew it.
As Al Gore pointed out in 1992. Saddam was dangerous. By 2003, he had been neutralized. As it turns out Saddam was intimidated and never actually implemented any WMD programs. He was bluffing.
Bush's invasion of Iraq has allowed Al-Qaeda to multiply in power not only in Iraq but elsewhere. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we provide Al-Qaeda with a recruiting and rallying tool. It is as plain and simple as that. STAYING IN IRAQ IS WHAT EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY AND CREATES NEW ONES! We should leave Iraq and then go and actually fight the War on Terror.
When are you going to realize that the administration's goal is to stay in Iraq as long as possible as long as we allow it? The longer we stay, the more contraciting companies and oil companies get windfall profits at the expense of looting the American people and the US Treasury.
"Even GW Bush has already admitted that there were no ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. It has already been demonstrated that they he didn't have WMD and that the Bush administration knew it."
Not true. Bush said there is no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Bush never said there were no ties between al Qaeda and Saddam. That would be a false statement since the CIA noted in 2002 that Saddam and al Qaeda had had ties that have gone back as far as a decade.
"As Al Gore pointed out in 1992. Saddam was dangerous. By 2003, he had been neutralized. As it turns out Saddam was intimidated and never actually implemented any WMD programs. He was bluffing."
Please explain to us then why Clinton's UN ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, said the following in January 2001: "Saddam Hussein's activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world, not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime. His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times." http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
I believe "at all times" would include 2003, would it not?
"Bush's invasion of Iraq has allowed Al-Qaeda to multiply in power not only in Iraq but elsewhere. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we provide Al-Qaeda with a recruiting and rallying tool. It is as plain and simple as that. STAYING IN IRAQ IS WHAT EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY AND CREATES NEW ONES! We should leave Iraq and then go and actually fight the War on Terror."
There's no evidence to back up your claim. However, there is plenty of evidence that bin Laden and al Qaeda's popularity and recruiting ability grew after our half-hearted attempt to strike back in August 1998. In many respects, bin Laden is a product of Clinton's failure to act effectively almost a decade ago.
"When are you going to realize that the administration's goal is to stay in Iraq as long as possible as long as we allow it?"
Not true. The goal is as long as necessary, not as long as possible.
"The longer we stay, the more contraciting companies and oil companies get windfall profits at the expense of looting the American people and the US Treasury."
Not an economics major, are you?
JameBondKevin, have you ever encountered a GOP talking point you couldn't regurgitate with a straight face?
NERZOG:
This is from my own research (www.retroactiveimpeachment.com), not GOP talking points. I guess your snide remark is merely a reflection of the fact that you cannot debate the points I made.
No, it means that I don't give a ratsass about what Clinton did or didn't do. He's already been impeached...remember? If we spent a fraction of the time digging into the Bush Administration as the troglodytes spent making up stuff about the Clintons, Bush would have been impeached years ago.
"Oswald Garrison Villard, a political journalist of the old school, who spent half a century crusading for standards of probity in public administration, once declared that he had never ceased to marvel at the shortness of the public's memory, at the rapidity with which it forgets episodes of scandal and incompetence. It sometimes appeared to him of little use to attack a party for its unethical conduct, for the voters would have no recollection of it. The glee with which the epithet 'ancient history' is applied to what is out of sight is of course a part of this barbarous attitude. The man of culture finds the whole past relevant; the bourgeois and the barbarian find relevant only what has some pressing connection with their appetite." - Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (1948)
If you don't find the Clinton record vis-a-vis Iraq and al Qaeda relevant, perhaps you're not a man of culture.
And you, who apparently can see no fault in the present administration, are....what? A gentleman and a scholar...or a koolaid drinker?
Nothing but personal attacks from you.
BTW, I think the administration made mistakes by waiting too soon to invade Iraq. I also believe the Bush administration has done a poor job of explaining the history of UNSC resolutions and how they came into play regarding the invasion.
The Kool-Aid drinkers appear to be those who can't find any fault with the Clinton administration's views on terrorism and Iraq. It is a fact that that administration left office in 2001 saying Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the U.S. It is also a fact that the Clinton Justice Department issued an indictment against bin Laden that said al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating on weapons development. However, when confronted with these facts, the moonbat will give the kneejerk response, "But Clinton didn't invade Iraq."
So it was all right for Clinton to either (a.) lie about the Iraq threat, or (b.) shared faulty intelligence with the American people and the world just as long as he didn't invade Iraq? What about the 500,000+ Iraqi children the UN said died as a result of sanctions, sanctions that remained in place because Clinton told the world that Saddam had WMD?
Of course it's a-ok for Clinton to share the best information (the flawed intelligence) available with the American public.
When that information gets trumped by real evidence, on the ground, that comes from Saddam, his countrymen, and the UN Weapons Inspectors, then it's not a-ok to then procced to an invasion.
Clinton did what he thought right with the info he had. Bush did the wrong thing with the updated info he had, Kevin. Bush is the one who invaded. Clinton didn't invade, and cost hundreds of thousands of innocent people their lives and their livelihoods.
"Clinton did what he thought right with the info he had. Bush did the wrong thing with the updated info he had, Kevin. Bush is the one who invaded. Clinton didn't invade, and cost hundreds of thousands of innocent people their lives and their livelihoods."
Actually, the UN reported that sanctions killed 500,000+ Iraqi children. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072100-03.htm
Those sanctions were in place because Clinton said Iraq had WMD.
When Kenneth Pollack made the case for invading Iraq in 2002, he wrote this: "Given that the Gulf War itself probably caused no more than 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqi military casualties and another 1,000 to 5,000 civilian casualties, it raises the question of whether full-scale combat is a more humane policy than draconian sanctions." ("The Threanteing Storm," p. 139)
And now Iraq is in a full blown civil war, and the invasion by the US has killed perhaps as many as the 500,000. So it really wasn't such a wise thing for Pollack to say.
By the way, I was dead set against the sanctions and rallied against them.
We had facts on the ground in early 2003 that disproved the intelligence from the previous decade.
Bush ignored the facts on the ground and chose to invade Iraq! He is responsible for that. We, the USA I mean, find lots of despots unsavory and disreputable, but we don't invade their countries.
We invaded Iraq because Bush ignored the evidence on the ground that he didn't have WMD's! Previous flawed intelligence reports are irrelevant!
"We had facts on the ground in early 2003 that disproved the intelligence from the previous decade."
Not true. If that had been the case, there would have been no invasion. Congress, the coalition members, and the American people would not have allowed it.
"Bush ignored the facts on the ground and chose to invade Iraq!"
Wrong again.
"He is responsible for that. We, the USA I mean, find lots of despots unsavory and disreputable, but we don't invade their countries."
There is a difference, and Richard Clarke pointed this out in 1998:
"There are two lists that I want to talk about. One is the list of state sponsors of terrorism that the Secretary of State issues every year, by law. You know who is on that list. It is a public document.
"There is another list that the Director of Central Intelligence issues on a classified basis every year, and that is the list of states that have chemical or biological weapons. There is almost a one-for-one copy of the terrorist state sponsors list resident within the list of states that have chemical and biological weapons. What does it mean to be a state sponsor of terrorism? It means that you have trained, equipped, financed, provided sanctuary to, provided leadership for, provided intelligence to, and armed terrorist groups.
"Now if these state sponsors of terrorism have done all of that, do we want to bet the security of our people here at home that those state sponsors will not go the additional step of providing terrorist groups with the chemical and biological weapons that are already in the inventory of the state sponsors of terrorism? I don't want to. The president doesn't want to. And I'm glad to see that the majority of the U.S. Congress does not want to because they have been voting consistently since the president made his proposal in May for the funds that the president has asked for." http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/whouse/archive/1998/october/wh191013.htm
Iraq was on both of those lists during the ENTIRE Clinton administration, as it was in 2002.
"We invaded Iraq because Bush ignored the evidence on the ground that he didn't have WMD's! Previous flawed intelligence reports are irrelevant!"
Wrong again. There was nothing conclusive prior to the invasion.
>>Not true. If that had been the case, there would have been no invasion. Congress, the coalition members, and the American people would not have allowed it.
Good grief you are clueless! So the American public would never go along with a war based on a false pretense? (And for that matter, congress wouldn't, either?) Can you possibly be serious?
What we knew in 2003 was that Saddam had no nuclear program. This was the expert opinion of the chief UN weapson's inspector for nuclear weapons, Elbaradi. Instead of going with this info--which was the most current, since Elbaradi was in Iraq at the time--Bush chose to hype Iraq's supposed nuclear program and lie about it. Remember those 16 words? Remember those aluminum tubes?
I forgot about your fallacious arguments that Iran was on the list of countries that sponsored terrorism. So were the occupied territories, by that logic. But we didn't invade the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
It was known that Iraq was no sponsoring terrorism against the US. Are you saying we went to war with Iraq because Iraq paid the families of the suicide bombers?
(By the way, the rest of the links to terrorism are ridiculous. One of the people Iraq was supposedly sponsoring was in *prison* in Iraq. Another member was once an enemy of Israel but had denounced his past and was free to go in Israel any time he wanted.)
Speaking of people serving in the military. Let's see Cheney was was if not a ballerina then how about a opera singer. No that's not right, Cheney didn't serve because he needed to reproduce more Cheney's with Lynn. Bush could not serve because he was either drunk or high on cocaine. He didn't stop drinking until he was 40 long after he didn't need to serve. And please don't tell me he was a "fighter pilot" because I don't know how many fighter pilots who can take a leave of absence to "help" some other Republican get elected in Alabama.
There was a small and I do mean small group of Al Qaeda operatives in the northern section of Iraq which Junior was aware of. He had the opportunity the crush them with a few bombs. But the great "decider" wanted to bomb the entire country because "Saddam tried to kill my daddy".
Saddam while all things evil (supported by the US during the Iraq/Iran war with Rumsfeld approval) was easily contained.. That's why Bush Sr. and Clinton didn't invade Baghdad. When invading a country with it's largest population suffering continued repression and who's supported by Iran (axis of evil list) what do you expect to happen?
The only idiot who decided to invade Iraq was Junior. The idiot who decided to to open Pandora's box with insufficient troops and NO international support was Junior. As "the commander" he was the decider and THIS IS HIS WAR!. Unfortunaley there is no replacement for the thousands of lost lives both soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
As for the terrorists, they are more being recruited each and every day we stay in this country.
"Speaking of people serving in the military. Let's see Cheney was was if not a ballerina then how about a opera singer. No that's not right, Cheney didn't serve because he needed to reproduce more Cheney's with Lynn. Bush could not serve because he was either drunk or high on cocaine. He didn't stop drinking until he was 40 long after he didn't need to serve. And please don't tell me he was a "fighter pilot" because I don't know how many fighter pilots who can take a leave of absence to "help" some other Republican get elected in Alabama."
Your comments really aren't worthy of a response, but Bush was indeed a fighter pilot. He flew a fighter jet and records show that he fulfilled his TANG obligation. This is really a bogus issue for Democrats. After all, Bill Clinton actually received a draft induction notice. Please tell us which branch of the military Clinton served in.
"There was a small and I do mean small group of Al Qaeda operatives in the northern section of Iraq which Junior was aware of. He had the opportunity the crush them with a few bombs. But the great "decider" wanted to bomb the entire country because "Saddam tried to kill my daddy"."
What was Clinton's motivation for bombing Iraq on numerous occasions? Bush 41 was not his daddy.
"Saddam while all things evil (supported by the US during the Iraq/Iran war with Rumsfeld approval) was easily contained."
Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top advisor on Iraq, wrote the following in "The Threatening Storm" (2002): "Perhaps the single most important reason why the United States must act soon to adopt a new policy toward Iraq is that our old policy, the policy of containment, is eroding. Containment served the United States well after 1991, much better than most ever thought it could. But it is failing." (p. xxiv)
And, even if containment was not eroding, did that mean Saddam was not a threat? Here's what Sandy Berger said in December 1998:
"But even a contained Saddam is harmful to stability and to positive change in the region."
"That's why Bush Sr. and Clinton didn't invade Baghdad. When invading a country with it's largest population suffering continued repression and who's supported by Iran (axis of evil list) what do you expect to happen?"
Bush 41 did not go to Baghdad because the UNSC and coalition's mandate did not go beyond forcing Saddam out of Kuwait.
"The only idiot who decided to invade Iraq was Junior."
Actually, a majority in Congress decided to invade Iraq. A majority of the American people supported that decision.
"The idiot who decided to to open Pandora's box with insufficient troops and NO international support was Junior."
You're lying. Bush 43 essentially rebuilt the coalition that he father built against Iraq in 1991. I say "rebuilt" because by December 1998 Clinton had allowed the coalition to fall apart to the point that Britain was the only other member. Bush 43 even got Jordan to end its support for Saddam.
"As "the commander" he was the decider and THIS IS HIS WAR!. Unfortunaley there is no replacement for the thousands of lost lives both soldiers and innocent Iraqis."
Another lie. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and John Edwards and other Democrats are also responsible for this war since they authotized the use of force in October 2002.
As for the terrorists, they are more being recruited each and every day we stay in this country.
They authorized use of force based on lies from a corrupt and ethically, morally bankrupt administration. The majority of the supporting public were equally ignorant to the truth as polls indicated they believe Saddam had aided al-Qaeda and WMD had been found. The bottom line is this invasion and occupation coupled with the barbaric policies of this administration has not proven to be in our national interests. You can cling to quotes from 15 years ago all you want. It was a different world then. And to imply that Jr. had the same coalition as Sr. shows a complete denial of the facts.
"They authorized use of force based on lies from a corrupt and ethically, morally bankrupt administration."
Hillary Clinton said she decided to vote to authorize force against Iraq after speaking to experts in her husband's administration. Was that administration also "corrupt and ethically, morally bankrupt"?
"The majority of the supporting public were equally ignorant to the truth as polls indicated they believe Saddam had aided al-Qaeda and WMD had been found."
Minorities of the American public believed that. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Where are they getting that misinformation?
"The bottom line is this invasion and occupation coupled with the barbaric policies of this administration has not proven to be in our national interests. You can cling to quotes from 15 years ago all you want. It was a different world then."
My quotes are as recent as 2003. See http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/Iraqquotes.html
And how was it a different world then? Al Qaeda declared war on U.S. citizens in 1996 and attacked us several times between then and 2001. It's not like, as Michale Moore falsely claimed, Bush had been in office just 8 months and the terrorists hated us already.
"And to imply that Jr. had the same coalition as Sr. shows a complete denial of the facts."
I made no such implication. In fact, I explicitly said that Bush 43 got Jordan to end its support for Saddam. Jordan sided with Iraq in 1991. Bush 43 had a coalition of three dozen nations when he went into Iraq. That was up dramatically from Clinton's coalition of two (U.S. and Britain) during Operation Desert Fox.
Yet, Clinton probably had more actual troop support from foreign countries. 90% of the "coalition of the willing" is a joke. But, you knew that.
"Yet, Clinton probably had more actual troop support from foreign countries. 90% of the "coalition of the willing" is a joke. But, you knew that."
Not so. Only the British joined us in Operation Desert Fox. Clinton had reduced Bush 41's coalition to just two countries. It was Bush 43 that rebuilt the coalition.
BTW, many members of the coalition have died. If you think that's a joke, shame on you.
Bush 43 rebuilt the coalition? Now who is fabricating. Are you seriously stating that Bush 43's coalition was any where close to Bush's 41 in terms of the amount of soldiers that fought from other countries and the amount of money that was contributed?
So the records show that he satisfied the TANG?
By the same token, don't the records of the US Navy support John Kerry?
Morons like Kevin want us to forget that Ansar was operating in Northern Iraq, the Kurdish autonomous zone outside Iraqi control. Morons like Kevin want us to forget that the CIA said directly that they had no evidence of Iraq supporting any international terrorism for a decade before the invasion citing the attempt on George Sr. in 93 as the last international terrorism they could link to Iraq. Morons like Kevin want us to be as dumb as he is. Morons like Kevin want us to think that what was said in 1992 is relevant to what was going on more than a decade later. Morons like Kevin like to call people moonbats who arent as stupid and as brainwashed as he is.
Well, Kevin is right about one thing. David Brooks is a proven liar.
True, I will second that
That should be "Brock."
Ohhh, well that's completely different.
Brock is an admitted liar. It was the lying that finally drove him to write the book "Blinded by the Right: the Conscience of an Ex-Conservative".
There is much evidence that Brock was a liar before AND after his involvement with conservatives. The difference is that we conservatives understand that he is a liar, while you moonbats are continuing to be snookered by Brock. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063759
Its just that you ignorant morons cant tell the difference between factual reality and todays propaganda parrot talking point sponsered by LimbuaghHannityWeinerdog Screechmonkeys inc.
The article you link to is in the section described as follows:
"chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics."
and is titled: "Daved Brock, Liar" in great big, bold letters.It is an op/ed based on a lot of supposition, inference, and minutiae. I could maybe see it being re-titled as "David Brock, Fibber", because none of the reported misrepresentations were significant. In short, it's nit-picking. It contains no examples of the magnitude required to dismiss the essence of the book, nor enough to question the integrity of it's target any more than any of its readers could be questioned.
If this is your concept of "much" evidence, it differs from the generally accepted definitions of the words. Your opinion of the article may differ from mine, but I think most who lack the motive of smearing Brock would find it trite and ultimately unconvincing.
Brock is an admitted liar. The article I linked to only offers additional confirmation of that fact.
And you're a proven jerk who smugly thinks he has a monopoly on the facts. Free speech is great. It allows an ass to make an ass of himself. Mr. Libertarian leanings get back on topic. Morgan just dissed one of the troops she claims to support because he gave her the facts on the ground. You are acting just like she. You dive back in history and offer a very skewed version of it and change the subject to suit your argument. If you don't care for Mr. Brock go and express your Independence at a more freindly sight like Bill O'Reilly's or Drudge.
"If you don't care for Mr. Brock go and express your Independence at a more freindly (sic) sight (sic) like Bill O'Reilly's or Drudge."
Can't handle the truth, or a debate? I see you have the name-calling down, though?
Christ, there he goes with the crap from the movies again.
Timeout: just a few posts back you called you referred to "us" as "moonbats". Typical right-wing hypocrisy?
He's also used the Texas Air National Guard records to absolve GWB of any sin and afterwards implied the US Navy records concerning John Kerry are not to be believed.
He's just being argumentative.
Its not the 'truth' just because it conforms to your delusional fantasies.
D.C al Fine
Fine
David Brock is a repentent liar.
That's worlds better than being a serial misleader and deceiver who has little to no respect for anyone who doesn't agree with him or her. That description would be most of the Bush Administration and most of the neo-cons.
Solon:
"Morons like Kevin want us to forget that Ansar was operating in Northern Iraq, the Kurdish autonomous zone outside Iraqi control."
Ansar al-Islam received funding from Iraqi intelligence, which was controlled by Saddam. If Northern Iraq was truly "the Kurdish autonomous zone outside Iraqi control," how do you explain Saddam's ability to send troops to that zone?
"In late August 1996, backed by Iraq, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) launched an offensive in northern Iraq that led to the takeover of the regional capital of Irbil and placed most of the region under Massoud Barzani's control. On 31 August 1996 Iraqi troops seized Irbil. The Iraqi troops massed at Irbil consisted of three divisions of 30,000 to 40,000 Republican Guard troops equipped with heavy artillery and surface-to-air missiles." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/irbil.htm
"Morons like Kevin want us to forget that the CIA said directly that they had no evidence of Iraq supporting any international terrorism for a decade before the invasion citing the attempt on George Sr. in 93 as the last international terrorism they could link to Iraq."
Not true. The CIA linked Iraq to al Qaeda in 1998 and the Clinton Justice Department issued an indictment against bin Laden that stated, "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government ofIraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, alQaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
"Morons like Kevin want us to be as dumb as he is. Morons like Kevin want us to think that what was said in 1992 is relevant to what was going on more than a decade later. Morons like Kevin like to call people moonbats who arent as stupid and as brainwashed as he is."
What Clinton and Gore said in 1992 was no different from what the Clinton administration said in 2001. On January 8, 2001, Madeleine Albright said, "The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of the Clinton administration January 20." http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
Richard Holbrooke on January 11, 2001 said, "Saddam Hussein's activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world, not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime. His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times," he said. http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
I'll also remind you that Iraq continued to be on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism when the Clinton administration ended.
Now, you may like to throw around the word "moron," but the record shows this Marine is countering your personal attacks with facts.
What you are talking about here is Iraq supporting the KDP in an interfactional battle IN the northern Autonomous zone which is quite different from having any actual control over the region. A good try but no cigar
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:qeyupofD9cUJ:fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/44128.pdf+Northern+Kurdish+autonomous+zone+outside+Iraqi+control&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us
Furthermore, factional in-fighting jeopardized the security of the Kurdish enclave.
In early 1994, the uneasy power-sharing arrangement between Barzani’s KDP and
Talabani’s PUK collapsed with the outbreak of armed clashes between the two factions,
initially over questions of land ownership. As the quarrel worsened, the PUK charged
that the KDP, which controls areas adjacent to the Turkish border, failed to share
revenues on truck traffic departingnorthern Iraq for Turkey; the KDP, on its part, charged
that the PUK expropriated funds belonging to their joint provisional administration. The
nadir in PUK-KDP relations occurred in mid-1996, when the KDP briefly sought help
from Saddam’s regime in seizing Irbil, the seat of the regional Kurdish government,
which the PUK had captured in 1994. The Kurdish provisional parliament became
inactive and the Kurdish regional authority effectively split into KDP and PUK entities.
However, the United States, supported by Britain and Turkey, spearheaded negotiations
that culminated in a meeting in Washington D.C. between Barzani and Talabani in
September 1998, at which the two leaders agreed on steps toward a reconciliation
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.kurds.talibani/index.html
Northern Iraq had been outside Baghdad's control since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. U.S. and British jets enforced a "no-fly" zone over the area, to keep Iraqi forces out.
Condaleeza Rice even says this which I will link to later in the thread
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ah no, the CIA talked about contacts not collaboration the record is clear on this. In fact this is easy just cough up the international terrorist even sponsored by Iraq since 1993. Not paying the families of suicide bombers AFTER the fact which is regional terrorism and a bad thing, it is also done by Saudi Arabia and while this justifies keeping them on the list it is NOT international terrorism. You keep trying this but only the most committed propagandist are still trying to sell it.
Whatever the Clinton administration claimed we both know that both the 9/11 commission and the later Senate inquiry said that despite contacts there was NO collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Queda.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:fQUlIzWT1YEJ:www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/supporting/2004/102104inquiryreport.pdf+Senate+report+no+collaboration+Iraq+al+Qaeda&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were alleged by some U.S. Government officials to have established a highly secretive relationship between 1992 and 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. president George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission, declassified Defense Department report[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of Saddam Hussein ties to al-Qaeda
"<!-- new -->What you are talking about here is Iraq supporting the KDP in an interfactional battle IN the northern Autonomous zone which is quite different from having any actual control over the region."
No, you're lying. Saddam had TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HIS TROOPS in that region. When you can go into a region with that many troops, you have de facto control of it.
No YOU are an idiot. Going in ALLIED with one of the factions and ALLOWED to go in without being bombed to smithereens by our flights over the no fly zone is NOT the same thing as having control over the area. IF he had tried to exert actual control BOTH sides of the conflict would have fought him AND we would have loosed our air power against him. Only THOSE TWO factors allowed THIS incursion. Even RICE said DIRECTLY that he did NOT have control over this region. An incursion is NOT control.
Name-calling doesn't help your cause any. Saddam sent tens of thousands of troops into a northern area you claimed he had no control over. How does that happen? Clinton took action--by ineffectively bombing targets in the SOUTH. That indicates that Saddam could act in the north with impunity. You were wrong and now you have resorted to name-calling because you lack the integrity to admit you were wrong.
Telling people they are lying does nothing to convince them they may be mistaken. The facts are in, Saddam was a bad guy, but we were sold a bill of goods that proved false and also appears these idiots knew what they were peddling. It's a fact that our occupation of Iraq was not only a colossal mistake as there were much more pressing threats in the world and it has emboldens terrorists around the world. Nuclear proliferation has increased, our resources to combat terrorism compromised. Keep clinging to the past dude, we'll focus on the now and the future.
Did YOU call me a liar for citing information you didnt like? Have you been calling us moonbats everyother post? Keep calling us names then snivelling like a little girl that you get treated the way you treat us. It is amusing and shows how pathetic you are. I have made the point TWICE. He went in there ALLIED with one faction OF the Kurds. The ones we liked. For this reason we did NOT bomb his soldiers into mincemeat. Even RICE said directly he did NOT conrtol this region. HE did NOT disband the Kurdish parliment nor did he exert control over the region. He sent troops which supported one of the Kurdish factions. This isnt that complicated argue with Rice, she said directly he DID NOT CONTROL THE REGION. Cherry pick facts all you want he didnt control the region which part of AUTONOMOUS arent you understanding?
"Did YOU call me a liar for citing information you didnt like?"
No. I called you a liar because you lied.
"Have you been calling us moonbats everyother post? Keep calling us names then snivelling like a little girl that you get treated the way you treat us."
"Moonbat" is a term for political extremists on the left.
"It is amusing and shows how pathetic you are. I have made the point TWICE. He went in there ALLIED with one faction OF the Kurds. The ones we liked."
The fact that he went in there shows that the area was not out of his control. I shared this above, but you obviously ignored it: "On 31 August 1996 Iraqi troops seized Irbil. The Iraqi troops massed at Irbil consisted of three divisions of 30,000 to 40,000 Republican Guard troops equipped with heavy artillery and surface-to-air missiles. This was the first such deployment by Iraq since shortly after the end of the Gulf War in 1991. When they left, their man Barzani was put in administration. This marked the end of Iraqi Kurdistan's semi-independence." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/irbil.htm
If Saddam seized Irbil, put his man in charge, and ended Kurdistan's semi-independence, please explain to us how that area was autonomous. Autonomous, after all, means independent. Bill Clinton himself said, "Saddam Hussein's army today controls Irbil and Iraqi units remain deployed for further attacks." http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/03/iraq.clinton/transcript.html
"For this reason we did NOT bomb his soldiers into mincemeat."
Wrong again. Clinton did bomb Iraq.[link to edition.cnn.com] ignorance is astounding. Please tell me that MMFA is not your sole source for news.
If you act like an idiot, you get called an idiot.
Solon didn't lie, nor did he act like a liar, yet you called him a liar.
Apples and oranges!
Solon said Irbil was not in Saddam's control. I shared a Bill Clinton quote in which he said Irbil was indeed in Saddam's control.
Solon clearly lied.
NO, I didnt lie, you are clearly a moron. I posted Condoleeza Rice saying that Saddam did NOT control the Norther part of Iraq. How does me citing Condoleeza's expert opinion constitute lying other than on the delusional world of Planet Wignut? I have expained and posted a link explaining the Iraqi soldier IN SUPPORT OF A KURDISH GROUP several times. You can keep beating this horse if you like but its not moving and its starting to smell funny.
"'Moonbat' is a term for political extremists on the left."
-----
And "ignorant, lying, self-righteous moron who doesn't know what the f*ck he is talking about and can only argue via cutting and pasting articles he doesn't understand" is a term for conservatives who post lies and call others "moonbats" for pointing them out.
That from a person who uses "wingnut" in his user name.
Instead of tossing out personal attacks, why not try to refute what I have written?
Ah, because that already been DONE three times? Keep on trying to define YOUR insults as just descriptive terms and ours as personal attacks. Its ignorant but fairly amusing.
Saddam's invasion of Irbil did not mean he controlled all of Northern Iraq. Here is an article describing the situation in 1996:
http://www.emergency.com/iraqbox.htm
The invasion by Saddam was before the US decided to increase the no-fly zone. Whether it increased it to eventually encompass Irbi, I don't know. But the US certainly controlled the region where Al Islam operated. I have never seen any reputable source refute this.
And the article above in fact states that the US did not bomb Irbil because of Saddam's troops were there. So yes, you are a moron who likes to pick a few facts to lead to the wrong conclusion, mainly because you ignore the zillions of other facts that refute what you say--for example, Rice herself saying that Northern Iraq was beyond Saddam's control.
No I didnt lie, you are just far to stupid to gain information from written material. So you think moonbat is a term for lefties. Fine I think moron is just a term for brain washed, brain dead wingnuts like you.
How often does it need to be shown? The Iraqis were supporting a KURDISH group during factional fighting between them. There was a Kurdish Autonomous zone
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:qeyupofD9cUJ:fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/44128.pdf+Northern+Kurdish+autonomous+zone+outside+Iraqi+control&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us
U.S. and allied forces in mid-1991 instituted a no-fly
zone over the northern Kurdish areas, which thusenabled the Kurds toestablish a de facto
autonomy from Baghdad. In 1991, Kurdish leaders joined the Iraqi National Congress
(INC), a U.S.-sponsored opposition group, and subsequentlyallowed the INC to establish
The Government’s so-called Law of Self-Rule (No. 33 of 1974) provided for limited governing
institutions in some Kurdish regions
The nadir in PUK-KDP relations occurred in mid-1996, when the KDP briefly sought help
from Saddam’s regime in seizing Irbil, the seat of the regional Kurdish government,
which the PUK had captured in 1994. The Kurdish provisional parliament became
inactive and the Kurdish regional authority effectively split into KDP and PUK entities
In February 2003, opposition groups met in Kurdish-controlled territory in northern Iraq
Exactly what part of Kurdish controlled territory are you congenitally incapable of understanding? So lets see, behind door number one we have Condoleeza RICE, former National Security adviser and current Secretary of State saying DIRECTLY that Saddam did NOT control the Northern part of our country, and behind door number two we have some guy on a website claiming he DID based on an incursion in support of one of the two warring Kurdish factions. HMMMM, let me mull over this tough choice on which has a better grasp on the realities of the situation. I am sorry the judges have ruled that not only are you wrong AGAIN but that you must increase your medication if you want to continue playing.
Wrong again. You are desperate. When you fight in another country, that does not mean you control it. Italy helped in the second Iraq war (though on a limited scale). Does that mean that Italy controls Iraq?
You're as confused as SOLON. Iraqi Kurdistan is called Iraqi Kurdistan because it is in Iraq, not another country.
As Bill Clinton had noted in 1996, Saddam had moved into Irbil with tens of thousands of his troops and took control of that area in northern Iraq.
I don't know why SOLON insists on calling Clinton a liar.
Wow you are a moron. I've already addressed this argument. Did you even bother looking at the link I provided? Yes, Saddam seized Irbil. But as I pointed out, Irbil isn't all of Northern Iraq. As my article pointed out, The US controlled the region north of Irbil. The US couldn't decide if it wanted to extend the no-fly zone even further south. So, no, controlling Irbil does not mean that Saddam controlled all of Northern Iraq.
You are apparently a one trick pony. I am aware of no authority that disputes that Saddam did not control Northern Iraq. You have yet to address why all these authorities are wrong. Instead, you keep asserting the same fact over and over: "But Saddam seized Irbil, but Saddam seized Irbli." That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the argument that Ansar al-Islam was outside of Saddam's control:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html
"If Colin Powell were to visit the shabby military compound at the foot of a large snow-covered mountain, he might be in for an unpleasant surprise. The US Secretary of State last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.'
"Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking."
I dont know why you insist on calling Condoleeza Rice a liar.
PT 2
Yes but 1992 was BEFORE the weapons inspectors destroyed Iraqis WMD capabilities. And what Albright said or THOUGHT in 2001 was BEFORE the inspectors went back into Iraq, going wherever they wanted and the new intelligence THEY brought bringing the old assumptions into doubt as for what in 2001 lets go to the record and see what Colin Powell said and Condoleeza Rice said
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained.
And Rice
Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Now, you may like to throw around the word "moron," but the record shows this Marine is countering your personal attacks with facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t think it does. As for MY personal attacks you seem to like to toss out the term moonbat. As long as you do I think I will counter with the term moron. Whether you like it or not is neither here nor there. If you don’t LIKE mud. I suggest you stop throwing it but then again I am ok either way.
Moonbats!? I think you have illustrated quite well who the moonbat is.
http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/Questionable_claims.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.ackerman.html
Bringing up the debunked talking point concerning Ansar al-Islam in support of Mealnie Morgan's rhetoric only serves to highlight that rhetoric's inconsistencies. Questioning whether this administration's policies are sound in regards to the management of this war does not make one a detractor of our military, regardless of anything this vilely partisan talking head spouts off.
Also, since KEVIN1007 was referencing past U.S. administrations in regards to Saddam/al Qaeda, what was the Reagan administration's stance concerning them?
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0303a/rummy2.jpg
Of course, bringing up Reagan in regards to this discussion makes no more sense than bringing up Clinton does. Reagan and his administration knew Saddam was a dangerous man just as Bush I and Clinton did. The argument for this war was/is not predicated on whether Saddam was dangerous in a general sense, but whether there was a justification in sending American troops to kill and die in order to dispose of him because his regime was a direct threat to the United States. If Saddam supported terrorists in the middle east, what faction of terrorists did he support, and what other countries in the middle east also support terrorists? For that matter, what other countries in the world support terrorists? Are we to occupy all these countries as well?
The problems encountered in this war are a manifestation of the larger problem the U.S. has with the middle east in general - a lack of understanding of its intricacies coupled with an unethical grasp for its resources. Every U.S. administration since (at least) WWII has been more interested in using middle eastern countries as opportunistic pawns than they have been in actual, sound diplomatic relations with these countries. There are possible arguments against all of our administrations in recent history regarding the problems in the middle east, but the most important issue in regards to those problems is what is being done now to remedy them.
If Melanie Morgan really cared about those in the military who are in Iraq then she would elaborate on the reasons why she feels that an indefinite troop presence in the region is in their interests. She would be helping to find a solution to the problems that are forcing them to be in Iraq right now. She would be rationally and logically breaking her points down to back up her beliefs. She would not be insinuating that those who disagree with this administration's strategies are traitors.
Here's one last link from someone involved in the whole Iraq argument who actually articulates their beliefs and provides concrete suggestions in regards to the problems caused by this occupation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dal-lamagna/benchmarks-in-iraq-from-a_b_48006.html
Kevin: "BTW, Rahm Emanuel never served in the U.S. military. He was a ballerina."
You're flagged, which I rarely do. What you wrote is code from your misogynistic, homo-biggoted soul.
And speaking of flags, why aren't you waving your flag of war in Iraq?
Go.
Now.
Hurry.
You're needed.
"You're flagged, which I rarely do. What you wrote is code from your misogynistic, homo-biggoted soul."
Wow, so you think men who perform in the ballet are gay? How narrow-minded of you!
"Rahm Emanuel entered the room with a résumé as outsized as any second-term congressman: top aide to President Clinton, millionaire investment banker, professional ballet dancer...."
That's from those "bigots" at the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0311/p01s01-uspo.html
Why did you call him a ballerina then? It isn't a term used for a male ballet dancer, but you already knew that.
What's the term for a male ballet dancer? Ballerino?
A ballerina is a female ballet dancer. A male ballet dancer is called a danseur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballerina
Not to get nitpicky on this, but here are a couple links on the "ballerina" thing if anyone wants to get into the fine details. Enjoy, lol. :)
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmalebal.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ballerina
Whoops! MHK beat me to it, lol.
no worries - thanks for the back up
No problem. Also, just as a point of interest as the term "ballerina" seemed to have been used in a manner suggesting demasculinization - wasn't Jerry Rice a ballet dancer? He said he used ballet to help him with his game. I've actually heard a couple other wide receivers say they did the same.
BTW, G.W. Bush is a deserter who was too busy getting drunk and coked-up to serve out his country club National Guard obligation stateside during Vietnam.
Not true. But Bill Clinton was a veritable draft dodger who ignored a draft induction noitce and instead went to England, where he spent his time between doing drugs and leading communist-organized protests against his own country.
Against the war is NOT against the country. Bush, between bouts of snorting cocaine and constant drinking, was derilict in his duty for not taking his mandatory physical and got stripped of his flying status. Not to mention he was Awol enough that he had to, by his own admission, make up the time in 1973. Bush was not ONLY a moron, who got the lowest possible qualifying score to become a pilot, he was an obnoxious drunk and cocaine snorting party boy. A disgrace who only went into the guard because he was terrified to go to Vietnam which is why he checked the do not volunteer for overseas duty box, and this was a war HE SUPPORTED. Its just he only supported OTHER people dying not his pampered frat boy butt which he made darn sure never got anywhere near combat.
It's interesting to see how the "support the troops" crowd reacts when confronted with an actual Vet from the Iraq war who disagrees with their view. Complete disrespect. She should be ashamed of herself, but it appears she has no shame.
That's a bit hypocritical from the crowd that attacked 250+ Vietnam veterans, including one Medal of Honor recipient, because they opposed John Kerry.
Nobody was attacked for opposing John Kerry. Unless by "opposed" you really mean "smeared" and "lied."
Not true. John O'Neill and the other 250+ members (including one Medal of Honor recipient) of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were viciously attacked by liberals and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) even after they had demonstrated that Kerry exaggerated his war record, claimed he had a medal that does not ecist (i.e., the Silver Star with a combat "V"), and lied about being in Cambodia on Chrsitmas Day 1968.
Those veterans were in Vietnam, yet millions of liberals who never spent a day in uniform attacked them. Those attacks (along with bin Laden's endorsement) ultimately contributed to Kerry's defeat.
They demostrated no such thing. They made baseless assertions refuted by the Navy, the factual record and most reputable news sources. No need to go again into the point by point refutation like the typo you cited. Its been done to death the Swift Boat Liars for Rent were attacked for lying, and smearing. Every vet who ever won a medal was besmirched by them and they got taken to tasks for it.
That was a typo in the same sense that Kerry's attack on our troops in Iraq was a "joke" that no laughed at.
You moonbats show your true colors when you attack a Medal of Honor recipient in order to defend Kerry's lies.
You show you are a moron AND a liar by attacking a war hero for partisan reasons. The lies have been documented. Its over. Only those comitted to ideological delusions still push this nonsense. The Bronze star had a combat V for valor. It was an obvious mixup. Can you show Kerry ever CLAIMING when speaking that his sliver star had such a designation? You are doing nothing but propganda parrot service. I never attack people for their service which is what you rightwing without a shred of decency morons do. I attack people for LYING which has been shown well enough. The record is clear, the Navy stands behind it. You are willing to denigrate the record and by extension everyone who ever won a medal for your sick partisan whining because Kerry was a war hero and Bush was a wouldnt take his physical deriliction of duty, stripped of his flying status slacker.
"They demostrated no such thing. They made baseless assertions refuted by the Navy, the factual record and most reputable news sources."
Share with us the Naval record that shows Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968. Put up or shut up.
Since we werent supposed to be in Cambodia such records IF they exist would be classified you moron. He was certainly within 40 miles of the border that morning and could easily have been in Cambodia. Prove he wasnt, or shut your ignorant trap. Anyway the border isnt that well delineated he might or might not have been its irrelevant. We now KNOW that soldiers DID go into Cambodia at that time. We know that Nixon was saying they werent later on. IF he was mistaken about a thirty year old recollection in detail it hardly disputes the point he made which was accurate and thats small potatoes. The lies were told about his medals. Ignorant brainwashed propaganda parrots like you keep repeating the already debunked talking points. The NAVY took the extraordinary step of reviewing the procedures whereby he won those medals ON HIS SECOND TOUR, and stands by them. THAT is the record I was talking about. I keep forgetting how stupid you are and how simple I have to make my points.
What a maroon you are.
Kerry didn't type up his military record. Some clerk did.
The clerk made a common mistake, and copied one line of type incorrectly by including some data from one line onto the line below. It was a transcriiption error, and never said anything about the medals Kerry received.
The fact that you would cite that as evidence of anything is clearly only evidence of our ignorance and bias. Given that evidence of your ignorance and bias, I will call you by the best descriptors available for people like you - maroon!
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200704180002
JamesBondKevin, were you equally outraged by the "Purple Heart Bandaids" worn by delegates at the Republican Convention? Sure you were.
No. The 250+ members of the SBVT earned dozens of medals, including a Medal of Honor, served their full tours in Vietnam, and served their country honorably.
Kerry, on the other hand, schemed to leave Vietnam months before he should have, accepted (or, in one case, demanded) Purple Hearts for wounds that others would have laughed off, and then attacked fellow veterans when he came home. He was no hero and deserved the ridicule he received.
The record shows Kerry was a war hero and you are a fool
And your evidence to support these smears is.....
The only troops you actually support are the ones that mirror your ideology. Very un-American and hypocritical.
Maybe you can make a new magnet to put on your car? Selectively Supporting our Troops.
"The only troops you actually support are the ones that mirror your ideology. Very un-American and hypocritical."
So you support the SBVT, even though their ideology does not mirror yours?
I support our troops and appreciate their contribution regardless of their political affiliation or views on political issues. I can honor someone's contribution to our military and still disagree with them on a political topic. They have the right to speak their minds on a political issue just as much I do.
I do take issue with people that attempt to use their military status to distort the record of another person or use it in an attempt to silence another persons view point. If the SBVT didn't like what John Kerry had to say about Vietnam then they should have produced evidence to the contrary. If MM want to support the current policy in Iraq, then she should cite facts and evidence to support her argument. Instead both parties have decided that its easier to attack people on issues that are not related. If you disagree with me then I'm going to question your patriotism or military record to silence you? It's truly disgusting and very anti-American.
MM and the SBVT are doing more to tarnish the military by exploiting patriotism and military status for the purpose of political gain.
"I do take issue with people that attempt to use their military status to distort the record of another person or use it in an attempt to silence another persons view point. If the SBVT didn't like what John Kerry had to say about Vietnam then they should have produced evidence to the contrary."
Perhaps you missed it, but they had an entire book that did exactly that. It was a best-seller.
"MM and the SBVT are doing more to tarnish the military by exploiting patriotism and military status for the purpose of political gain."
I thought the same think when Kerry and his "band of brothers" took that boat across the river during the Democratic National Convention. And what about Kerry's limpy salute? (It was nothing like the sharp salute we Marines and Bush use.)
So in your mind discussing your accomplishments (i.e. your resume) is the same thing as using your military record to attack or silence people you don't agree with? He served in the military Kev, you should be treating him with more respect, but apparently you cannot take off your partisan blinders long enough to do so.
You want to bring up their best selling book that just happen to be published in Aug of 2004? If this is really about Vietnam as these people claim and they wanted to set the record on the atrocities that occurred during Vietnam then why did they wait over 30 years to speak out on this issue ? I read some of the info on the SBVT website and you've got the talking points down pretty well, I'm impressed. Interesting enough the only activity on the SBVT website in the last 3 years on the news page is the following:
November 30, 2004 -- Migrated the site to a single server, consolidating all pages, TV ads, mini-documentaries and forums in one place. Old links starting with "swift*.he.net" no longer work, but all previous content is still available.
December 13, 2006 -- Swift Vets and POWs for Truth has reached an agreement with the Federal Election Commission regarding the FEC's allegation that our organization and others should have registered as political committees in 2004. See our press release for information on the terms of the settlement.
Why did all that outrage that was bubbling under the surface for over 30 years just happened to appear right in 2004 and disappear again right in November after the elections? You have to ask yourself Kev, if this was really about Vietnam and not just the 2004 elections then why did they stop? Why aren't they continuing the discussion about Vietnam? Why did they wait for Kerry to run for president before they spoke out? Wasn't running for the Senate important enough? Why didn't they just offer another point of view instead on the Vietnam war instead of attacking him? Are you really that naive about politics?
You asked me a question and I answered you. Your selective response was to attack John Kerry again. Basically my original comment is dead on, you claim to support our troops, but that isn't true. You only support them if they agree with your politics. The willingness of people like you, MM and the SBVT to smear and silence the voices of our troops when they don't fit your agenda is truly disgusting.
Is that the salute with arm outstretched at a 45% degree angle to parallel to the ground, with plam open and dowmward, fingers together? That salute?
Why don't you just come out and say you want the US to kill moslems? All this mindless repitition of what lying politicians have said about Iraq doesn't mask the underlying motives behind your posts....you want us to support WAR CRIMES in Iraq, illegal invasions, illegal occupations, and the lies that brought them about.
What is it with you Marines? We watched Marines destroy Fallujah, we watched Marines shoot unarmed injured prisoners, we read of them wiping out entire families at close quarters. What makes US Marines talk and act like the Waffen SS? One too many chants about killing people in the chow lines?
I no longer trust Marines. I know what kind of training in sociopathy they receive, how mindwashed they are to believe that the Federal government is always right. I think a few choruses of the Marine Hymn and a few shouts of Semper Fi and they'd open fire on American women and children if ordered to by a fascist DC regime. I'd disband the entire Corps if I had the power. It's proven to be a disgrace to our nation morally.
As I have noted before, if you wait long enough a moonbat will eventually show that liberals hate the military.
Redking like the rest of us speaks for himself not liberals. You dont have to wait long at all for moronocons like you to show what ignorant cretins you are. It just jumps out at you all the time.
I don't hate the military, I hate militarism. As a student of war, who's personal library includes books by Sun Tzu, Rommel, Guderian, Oman, and others, I fully understand the difference between a warrior and a war criminal. Warriors don't kill women and children, war criminals do. And the Marines are proving themselves war criminal. The destruction of Falluja ranks in the same category as the destruction of the Czech villages that were razed and the inhabitants murdered in revenge for the killing of SS general Reinhardt Heydrich.
It is YOU who hate our military. You want them used to commit war crimes for your personal prejudices. You want them to be cold-blooded killers of innocents to satisfy your blood-lust. Just another Crusader out to genocide the moslems.
Were you on that boat Kevin? The VAST majority of the swifties weren't either so shut up. It seems more likely to me the swifties were more interested in smearing Kerry because he spoke out against war atrocities.
A large number of SBVT served with Kerry. See the photo at http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php
ONE Swift boat liar served on a boat with Kerry ONE. All the others who served on a boat with him support him and talk highly of him. Good job derailing the thread, rehashing old already debunked nonsense instead of talking about the topic troll.
Using that criterion, no one can say anything critical about Bush's TANG service because they didn't serve on the plane with him. (Note to moonbats: Bush flew a single-seat flyer.)
So you are wrong. (Or should I get hysterical like you: Liar, liar!).
You said a great number. One is not a great number.
But I guess a moron like you has problems with math.
And as MMFA documented, the swift boaters were notorious liars, contradicting themselves in numerous ways.
Except I didnt make any such claim about any such criterion. I only pointed out you are a liar and a fool. Bush failed to take his MANDATORY physical. That is a FACT. So your strawman is another meaningless attempt to change the subject when you are shown to be WRONG AGAIN. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
I was 2 years old and didn't attack anyone. Nor was I a communist. When one has no argument that revert to the past.
Those vets had the option, nay, the responsibility, to voice their opinions as American citizens.
What they chose to do was unfairly smear a person. They didn't present the actual evidence or fairly interpret that evidence, and they were "attacked" for that behavior. It was that deceitful presentation of lies and distortions that was called out.
Hopefully someone at Media Matters will remove all these comments from you that have nothing to do with Morgan's show of disrespect for our soldiers and for the truth!
"What they chose to do was unfairly smear a person. They didn't present the actual evidence or fairly interpret that evidence, and they were "attacked" for that behavior."
You're lying. They published an entire book complete with documentation. Have you read it? Or are you just going to accept Boehlert's (a little man who never served in uniform) hit pieces on these Vietnam veterans?
They published a book. Well that settles it, despite the fact the book has been refuted and debunked completely. I once read a book about the world being flat guess that means all that science I studied was wrong, I mean a book and all. I hope you are kidding.
>>You're lying. They published an entire book complete with documentation. Have you read it? Or are you just going to accept Boehlert's (a little man who never served in uniform) hit pieces on these Vietnam veterans?
Wow. Please don't go away. We like it crazy here. You are so way over the top stupid. The book did not contain any documentation that backed up their claims. It included soldiers' memories.
Your attack on Boehlert is hysterical. Unable to refute his facts, you attack him personally. He is a small man who never served in uniform? And that is relevant how?
You realize how stupid you're sounding, right?
The entire weight of Morgan's argument rests not on logic, but her association with "the troops". Forced to confront a veteran who doesn't share her views, her argument dissolves into hysterical platitudes.
First of all, what the hell does Morgan know about what the troops are saying? She lost this debate the moment she opened her mouth. Jon Soltz put it very eloquently. He served his country. Morgan is like most every other neocon out there, she wants to hide behind the troops to spread her misinformation and lies.
Shame on you Ms. Morgan. You are a liar and you do not represent the troops and their families. You know nothing of the sacrifices that they have made.
Ew, read the entire transcript. She comes off even worse, if that's possible.
[link to www.pbs.org]
I actually just went through the transcript, she's a delusional one.
I can believe she expects anyone to have any faith in her case, she doen't have a chart with red arrows. Didn't she get the memo from Rove about the new SOP.
Did anyone else catch her reference to the new Government of Iraq as a "Democrat freely elected government"? These troglodytes have the talking points so thoroughly embedded in their brains that they use them even when they don't mean to.
I guess it's hard to find defenders of this war who aren't Partisan Hack Delusional Liars.
Your brilliant observation made milk come out of my nose.
Yes, much like a senator gripping a wad of 100's, they are that tenacious with their platitudes.
One of the commentators on Fox News Sunday (I think it was Chris Wallace) was talking this past week, and said "Democratic Candidates, ah, er, Democrats", when he was talking about Democratic candidates!
He was so scared of saying "Democratic" that when he properly used it, he corrected himself, even though he had already said all he needed to say. That's how intricately it has been woven into their brains.
Morgan has to be one of the most disingenious people on earth. It's as though she was in 5th grade giving a book report in front of the class.
OK, people, before we get our panties in a...too late...ok, before we get even more bunged up over this here is why Ms. Morgan was on the show. In addition to being wrng on virtually everything, an unbelievable RW loon, adn all the otehr things we know so well here, she is also the Chair of Move">[link to www.moveamericaforward.org] America Forward (MAF). In other words the valid and designated representative of a "Vet Group" in opposition to the goals and positions of Jon Soltz, co-founder and chairman of VoteVets.org. ">[link to www.votevets.org] PBS was absolutely in the right to have her on this show if they brought him in to speak. MM is wrong about this being a show of RW bias in the media. In fact it shows taht PBS is doing a better job of presenting both sides, even if one side has to be represented by a complete asshat of a talk show host.
You seem to make a good point Morris. That is something I didnt know and something perhaps MM should have taken into account.
Maybe it is a sign that the War Apologists' position is so indefensible that they can't find credible spokespeople.
"Yes but 1992 was BEFORE the weapons inspectors destroyed Iraqis WMD capabilities. And what Albright said or THOUGHT in 2001 was BEFORE the inspectors went back into Iraq, going wherever they wanted..."
That's a falsehood. The inspectors in 2003 did not get to go wherever they wanted. And, as noted by Clinton's top expert on Iraq, ""As noted above, there is a consensus among American, British, Swedish, Dutch, and even French former inspectors that it would require twelve to eighteen months just to establish a baseline, let alone actually conduct inspections. And after that, we should never forget that once the inspections were completed we would need to transition to long-term montioring to try to prevent Saddam from reconstituting the WMD programs." ("The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack, p. 238)
And your timeline is off. Inspectors left Iraq in November 1998. If they destroyed all Saddam's WMD before then, why did Clinton bomb Saddam's WMD facilities the following month? Why did Madeleine Albright say Saddam still had WMD in January WMD? And why did Al Gore say Saddam still had WMD in 2002?
So Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were liars? The 9-11 commission and Duelfer Report, full of lies then. Every one lies but you Kevin. You ever stop to think you might be wrong, just a little?
What was that about Melanie Morgan changethetopic1007?
Yeah well Pollack is a propagandist. Lets see what the Inspectors THEMSELVES said. Oh my they said they needed MONTHS not years.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. That would not take years, nor weeks, but months. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And they also said they were going where they wanted without real interference (ibid)
Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites, 44 of which were new. All inspections were performed without notice and, in virtually all cases, access was provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival.
My timeline is not off. The inspectors removed by Butler were not certain if there were remaining stockpiles. Clinton went after what he thought might be there, we will now never know for sure if he got the last dregs of WMDs or if they were all destroyed. Kay and Dulefer says they were gone by the mid nineties. None of this changes my timeline. Whether they were destroyed by 95 as Kay and Duelfer said or whether Clinton got the last of them in 98 either way 92 is STILL before either of those dates so I don’t see your problem with my timeline. As for Gore and Albright, they were wrong.
Pollack was Clinton's top expert on Iraq. His book was written with the imprimatur of the Council on Foreign Relations. Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke and other members of the Clinton administration sit on CFR's board of directors. Why would Clinton have a propagandist at the National Security Council and why would Albright, Holbrooke, et. al. give their blessing to a propagandist promoting an invasion of Iraq?
Your UN document was published months after the invasion. Do you think there is a chance inspectors got more cooperation after the invasion than prior to the invasion?
"My timeline is not off. The inspectors removed by Butler were not certain if there were remaining stockpiles."
Oh, they were pretty certain. Butler said Iraq had enough WMD to "blow away Tel Aviv."
"Clinton went after what he thought might be there, we will now never know for sure if he got the last dregs of WMDs or if they were all destroyed."
The Clinton administration continued to say in January 2001 that Saddam had WMD. That was their official policy. Did they lie or did they had faulty intelligence?
"Kay and Dulefer says they were gone by the mid nineties. None of this changes my timeline. Whether they were destroyed by 95 as Kay and Duelfer said or whether Clinton got the last of them in 98 either way 92 is STILL before either of those dates so I don’t see your problem with my timeline. As for Gore and Albright, they were wrong."
So Gore and Albright were wrong, but Bush lied. Let me see if I have this right. The Clinton administration was fooled by Saddam for eight years and continued to believe he had WMD even though they were destroyed in 1995 or 1998. Bush gets into office and immediately discovers that Saddam didn't really have WMD. Instead of sharing this with the American people, he continued with the Clinton line that Saddam had WMD. So Bush was clever enough to figure out that Saddam had fooled Clinton, and he then was clever enough to fool the American people by misleading them into Iraq. It seems a man that clever would have been smart enough to have planted WMD in Iraq shortly before the troops invaded.
Yes, your position makes so much sense.
Your position is the one which doesn't make sense.
Bush knew things that Clinton et al didn't know, because he had the input of the weapons inspectors for 4 months before the invasion.
The intelligence was wrong. Clinton didn't invade based upon the intelligence.
Bush invaded based upon that faulty intelligence rather than using the updated info from the weapons inspectors on the ground. And this is the position you are defending? What a maroon!
"Bush knew things that Clinton et al didn't know, because he had the input of the weapons inspectors for 4 months before the invasion."
Not true. Four months is not nearly enough time to cover a country as large as California. Secretary of Defense William Cohen appeared on ABC's "This Week" in late 1997 and held up a 5-pound bag of sugar. He said if that were anthrax it would be enough to wipe out half of Washington, D.C. Finding that much anthrax would be like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack. Kenneth Pollack was correct about inspections:
"As noted above, there is a consensus among American, British, Swedish, Dutch, and even French former inspectors that it would require twelve to eighteen months just to establish a baseline, let alone actually conduct inspections. And after that, we should never forget that once the inspections were completed we would need to transition to long-term montioring to try to prevent Saddam from reconstituting the WMD programs." (p. 238)
And:
"This is the problem with the inspections: we knew the Iraqis were cheating but did not know where. If we had known, we would have bombed those facilities in 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. The fact that out of ninety-seven targets struck only eleven were WMD production facilities should give a good sense of the problem." (p. 241)
"The intelligence was wrong. Clinton didn't invade based upon the intelligence."
But his sanctions killed 500,000+ Iraqi children.
"Bush invaded based upon that faulty intelligence rather than using the updated info from the weapons inspectors on the ground. And this is the position you are defending? What a maroon!"
If you can present any documents from the inspectors prior to the invasion that indicated Iraq had received a clean bill of health regarding WMD, I invite you to do. If you cannot, please stop repeating the falsehood that Bush knew Iraq had no WMD prior to the invasion.
God you are way, way, off! You are citing a propagandist as if he stated the truth. Pollack was way, way wrong. How can you not understand that? Here's a hint, moron: we invaded iraq and didn't find the WMDs. Pollack looked like a fool for hyping the war. Yet you keep quoting his book as if he was right.
There were no WMDs in Iraq after 1996. This was known because Saddam's son in law, who he later killed, was in a position to know and informed both the UN and the US. To their shame, the UN and the US withheld this info in hopes of squeezing even more info out of Iraq.
>>If you can present any documents from the inspectors prior to the invasion that indicated Iraq had received a clean bill of health regarding WMD, I invite you to do.
Easy enough.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1514
While we did not claim absolute certainty, our conclusion at that time was that we had neutralized Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and that there were no indications that Iraq retained any physical capability to produce weapon usable nuclear material.
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm
The UN stated clearly that Iraq had no nuclear program. Bush didn't listen to the UN. It hyped the supposed nuclear threat by Saddam. It stated that Iraq had imported aluminum tubes for a nuclear program, and that these tubes could only be used for a nuclear program. That is what Colin Powell said before the UN. In fact, the US own state dept reached a different conclusion, that the tubes were not suitable for nuclear centifugal devices. Lie one.
Lie two concerns the 16 words about Saddam's attempt to obtain uranium from Niger. Bush knew that Saddam did not try to obtain this from Niger, but he repeated it anyway.
Elbaradi and the UN were right. The US was wrong.
"God you are way, way, off! You are citing a propagandist as if he stated the truth. Pollack was way, way wrong. How can you not understand that? Here's a hint, moron: we invaded iraq and didn't find the WMDs. Pollack looked like a fool for hyping the war. Yet you keep quoting his book as if he was right."
You're putting the cart before the horse. We were talking about the case made BEFORE the invasion.
"There were no WMDs in Iraq after 1996. This was known because Saddam's son in law, who he later killed, was in a position to know and informed both the UN and the US. To their shame, the UN and the US withheld this info in hopes of squeezing even more info out of Iraq."
Kamel defected in 1995 and also said Saddam intended to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. I guess I missed those invasions.
Seems to me you're calling Bill Clinton a liar.
>>If you can present any documents from the inspectors prior to the invasion that indicated Iraq had received a clean bill of health regarding WMD, I invite you to do.
Easy enough.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1514
There is absolutely nothing in there that says UN weapons inspectors gave Saddam a clean bill of health prior to the invasion. You wasted the time of everyone who bothered to follow your link.
"While we did not claim absolute certainty, our conclusion at that time was that we had neutralized Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and that there were no indications that Iraq retained any physical capability to produce weapon usable nuclear material.
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm"
That was simply dishonest. When he referred to "at that time," he was talking about 1998, not 2003.
"The UN stated clearly that Iraq had no nuclear program."
You're lying. Even in your dishonest quote, the IAEA said they could not claim absolute certainty.
"Bush didn't listen to the UN. It hyped the supposed nuclear threat by Saddam. It stated that Iraq had imported aluminum tubes for a nuclear program, and that these tubes could only be used for a nuclear program. That is what Colin Powell said before the UN. In fact, the US own state dept reached a different conclusion, that the tubes were not suitable for nuclear centifugal devices. Lie one."
Others in the intelligence community said otherwise, so you're lying when you sy it's a lie.
"Lie two concerns the 16 words about Saddam's attempt to obtain uranium from Niger. Bush knew that Saddam did not try to obtain this from Niger, but he repeated it anyway."
You're lying. Factcheck.org determined that Bush was not lying when he included those 16 words in the 2003 SOTU. See http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
"Elbaradi and the UN were right. The US was wrong."
Elbaradi never gave Saddam a clean bill of health prior to the invasion. And you pulled a Boehlert by addressing just one component of WMD. Hans Blix did not give Saddam a clean bill of health regarding chemical and biological weapons prior to the invasion.
>>You're putting the cart before the horse. We were talking about the case made BEFORE the invasion.
No. I'm talking about Pollack saying Saddam had WMDs, so many that we needed to attack. He was dead wrong and you keep quoting him.
>>Seems to me you're calling Bill Clinton a liar.
Yes. I was against his policies.
>>You're lying. Even in your dishonest quote, the IAEA said they could not claim absolute certainty.
Apparently, you don't understand what a lie is. You sound like you are becoming unhinged, calling me a liar three times in one one post. No. Sorry, but Elbaeradi stated that he had no proof that Iraq had any nuclear program. They stated this "clearly," exactly as I said.
>>Others in the intelligence community said otherwise, so you're lying when you sy it's a lie.
Again, here is the lie thrown at me! Wow, you are a moron. No. Let me explain so even you can understand. Colin Powell went before the UN and stated that the United States believed with certainty that the aluminum tubes were being used for centrifugal devices. That was a lie. He knew that his own State Dept believed otherwise. A truthful statement would have included this information. See, that is a lie--to state something you know is not true.
>>You're lying. Factcheck.org determined that Bush was not lying when he included those 16 words in the 2003 SOTU.
factcheck, in my opinion, is wrong. Both studies they cite were flawed. The British one did not release any details. I read parts of the American one, which stated that in December before the 2003 SOTU, the CIA did not believe the British claim.
>>Elbaradi never gave Saddam a clean bill of health prior to the invasion.
Yes, he did. This also relates to the above link, in which you accuse me of selectively quoting. The quote states that there were no nuclear program in 1998. The speech by ElBearadi further states that nothing else he found undermines that conclusion.
Here is exactly what ElBaradi said about Iraq's nuclear program in March of 2003:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.
That is a clean bill of health, exactly as I stated.
Here's what you stated:
>>If you can present any documents from the inspectors prior to the invasion that indicated Iraq had received a clean bill of health regarding WMD, I invite you to do.
You are wrong. ElBaradei was the chief weapons inspector for the nuclear program. And the US used the nuclear threat more than the chemical and biological one to hype the war.
The UN was right. The Bush admin was wrong. The Bush admin ignored the evidence, as you are doing now.
Oh yes, and you are a moron. Anyone who would start a thread off by name calling, using the word moonbats, and then complain about name calling, is well, a moron.
"Sorry, but Elbaeradi stated that he had no proof that Iraq had any nuclear program. They stated this "clearly," exactly as I said."
That's not the same as saying he had proof that Iraq had no nuclear program. Prior to the invasion, there was evidence that Saddam had a nuclear program. (Note to moonbats: Proof and evidence are not synonyms.)
"Again, here is the lie thrown at me! Wow, you are a moron. No. Let me explain so even you can understand. Colin Powell went before the UN and stated that the United States believed with certainty that the aluminum tubes were being used for centrifugal devices. That was a lie. He knew that his own State Dept believed otherwise. A truthful statement would have included this information. See, that is a lie--to state something you know is not true."
You're lying.
"factcheck, in my opinion, is wrong. Both studies they cite were flawed. The British one did not release any details. I read parts of the American one, which stated that in December before the 2003 SOTU, the CIA did not believe the British claim."
Yes, Factcheck did a thorough and exhaustive investigation and found that Bush did not lie. Of course, a guy who calls himself FUNNYMANPANTS would be in a better position to make such a determination. What a joke.
"Yes, he did. This also relates to the above link, in which you accuse me of selectively quoting. The quote states that there were no nuclear program in 1998. The speech by ElBearadi further states that nothing else he found undermines that conclusion."
You're lying again. You quoted a statement from 1998. Share with us a quote from 2002 or early 2003 in which he said that Saddam absolutely had no nuclear program.
Here is exactly what ElBaradi said about Iraq's nuclear program in March of 2003:
"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."
"That is a clean bill of health, exactly as I stated."
You're lying again. He did not say that Saddam absolutely had no nuclear program. That would have been a clean bill of health. Instead, he said he found no evidence of a nuclear program. That's very different. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"You are wrong. ElBaradei was the chief weapons inspector for the nuclear program. And the US used the nuclear threat more than the chemical and biological one to hype the war."
You're lying again. The administration saw biological and chemical weapons as a more immediate threat. They saw the nuclear threat as one that was a few years down the road.
"The UN was right. The Bush admin was wrong. The Bush admin ignored the evidence, as you are doing now."
You're lying again. The Bush administration had evidence that was in agreement with every major intelligence agency in the world. If you say that Bush ignored the evidence, then it follows that Germany, France, Israel, Britain, Russia, etc. ignored the evidence. That's not plausible.
"Oh yes, and you are a moron. Anyone who would start a thread off by name calling, using the word moonbats, and then complain about name calling, is well, a moron."
More name-calling. Well, I giuess you feel the need to do that since the facts are not on your side and you lack the integrity to admit it.
>>That's not the same as saying he had proof that Iraq had no nuclear program. Prior to the invasion, there was evidence that Saddam had a nuclear program. (Note to moonbats: Proof and evidence are not synonyms.)
Yes, of course. Elbaradi says this:
>>After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.
But somehow in your mind that means that no UN inspector gave the UN a clean bill of health. So I suppose that if a grand jury finds no evidence that Joe Schoo killed his wife, that does not mean that they have proof he didn't! Ah, you have me there! Just because Elbaradradi stated clearly that Iraq didn't have a nuclear program (and yes, stating there is no evidence of one is the same thing), that in your mind proves nothing!
You are really grasping for straws.
And I love the way you try to refute my argument about the aluminum tubes. Yes, Powell went before the UN and stated that while the rest of the world believed the aluminum tubes were not meant for centrifugal devices, the US believed they were. That is a lie. The US state dept believed the exact opposite. Powell didn't tell the UN this--and didn't tell the American people.
How do you refute this damning evidence? Just by calling me a liar! What a strong point!
>>Yes, Factcheck did a thorough and exhaustive investigation and found that Bush did not lie. Of course, a guy who calls himself FUNNYMANPANTS would be in a better position to make such a determination. What a joke.
Again, you are a one trick pony. You find a fact that seems to support your argument. When others refute it, you don't take into account their argument, but just repeat the same fact. Then you make a reference to my poster name, like that will prove something.
>>You're lying again. He did not say that Saddam absolutely had no nuclear program. That would have been a clean bill of health. Instead, he said he found no evidence of a nuclear program. That's very different. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Right. Of course lack of evidence means that Saddam was one week away from a nuclear weapon. A clean bill of health means you are not found guilty of something. You do realize that you can't prove a negative, right?
>>You're lying again. The Bush administration had evidence that was in agreement with every major intelligence agency in the world. If you say that Bush ignored the evidence, then it follows that Germany, France, Israel, Britain, Russia, etc. ignored the evidence. That's not plausible.
Wow. Here we go. Elbaradi is a major--or the major--intelligence agnency at the time. His agency was the only one in Iraq. His gleaned the newest information. So Bush did ignore it. In fact, he lied to the Americans, specifically about the aluminum tubes and about the uranium from Niger claim. Again, I don't think lying means what you think it does.
>>More name-calling.
Yes. Because you insist on calling everyone who disagrees with you a moonbat. So let me state again: you are a moron. But like all morons, you don't realize you are one. You are too stupid to think it.
Except the facts ARE on his side and you ARE a moron. You started the name calling and its so cute to see you snivel like a girl scout you are being treated the way you treated us. WWAHAHHAAAAHHHHH only kevin gets to call names WWAAHHHHH libs arent supposed to return insults moronocons have the exclusive franchise on namecalling WWAAHHHHH. The evidence available came from the IAEA which said there was NO SUCH EVIDENCE. The said this in 98 and never wavered from that position NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SAID OTHERWISE. Asking for absoute proof of a negative is ludicrous. I say you molest small furry animals and should register as a sex offender unless you can prove absolutly that you dont. YOU claiming there was evidence doesnt qualify as EVIDENCE. All the evidence claimed like aluminum tubes and Niger uranium was debunked. None of it stood up to the light of day, doesnt matter you keep repeating it like a demented Myna bird it doesnt become more credible because you keep repeating it.
And no matter WHAT Pollack said the inspectors themselves said they needed only months. You are leaving out the FACT that we had conquered the country we had all the scientists and military personell with every motive to cough up any WMDs that were there and NONE to hide them. A cute trick and a Nuclear weapon could destroy New York City entirely. Since Iraq didnt have EITHER the demonstration isnt very relevant.
Why would Clinton have a propagandist at the National Security Council and why would Albright, Holbrooke, et. al. give their blessing to a propagandist promoting an invasion of Iraq?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Clinton wasn’t Bush he didn’t have yes men in his cabinet and as his advisors. They were wrong. We know that now. Remember Kay and Dulefer? I knew that you did.
Your UN document was published months after the invasion. Do you think there is a chance inspectors got more cooperation after the invasion than prior to the invasion?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Did you READ the article, or even what I cited? They cited EVERY INSPECTION THEY HAD MADE. Even if you were right, which would have been a first, its irrelevant to my point I said they were in Iraq and going wherever they wanted YOU said they weren’t well THEY said they were. Since THEY were there and YOU weren’t I think I will go with their take on it.
Oh, they were pretty certain. Butler said Iraq had enough WMD to "blow away Tel Aviv."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And Blix who was also there denied that, at any rate they couldn’t have been THAT certain, they were wrong remember Kay and Duelfer? I knew that you did.
The Clinton administration continued to say in January 2001 that Saddam had WMD. That was their official policy. Did they lie or did they had faulty intelligence?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They were wrong. Or they lied I don’t care its immaterial. Call them liars if you want. What do I care, I am not a democrat and was never a huge Clinton supporter
So Gore and Albright were wrong, but Bush lied. Let me see if I have this right….Yes, your position makes so much sense.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Its not my fault you aren’t very bright. Yes Bush lied. What he did that Clinton DIDN’T do was tell specific LIES not broad statements of belief but outright lies. Like pulling a position by the IAEA directly out of his ass on Sept 7, 2002 that was the polar opposite of their actual position. Claiming they said in 98 Iraq was six months from a nuclear weapon when in fact in 98 they said they had destroyed Iraq’s nuclear capability in 91 and had no evidence it had been reconstituted. OR sending 12 reports to Congress and telling the American people that the aluminum tubes we had confiscated Iraq was buying could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges without mentioning that EVERY SCIENTIFIC EXPERT consulted said it was unlikely they would be used that way at ALL and were most likely rocket bodies just like claimed. Those aren’t mistakes of intelligence, those aren’t broad statements of belief, those are LIES. My position absolutely makes sense YOURS on the other hand, not so much.
SOLON:
Take a Valium. You're losing it badly tonight.
Great argument! Where are your facts? What about that IAEA report? I am also very familiar with that lie.
It must suck to be a right-wing moron, come on the boards and think you will show everyone up for fools, insult them because they deserve it, and then all of sudden realize you didn't have all the facts after all. What's left for you then but to keep repeating the same facts and to attack the messenger (Solon, or Boehert)?
Try some reality what I am doing is shredding your weak arguments and mopping the floor with you. Its amusing me nothing else.
Honestly, General Melanie Morgan, I guess having served in Iraq with distinction, lecturing a real Iraq war veteran about troop moral would be hilarious if the subject were not so serious. These reich wingers have had it their way for so long that they can't see that they are now parodies of themselves.
I have never seen nor did I ever think I would see PBS put this type of typical right wing screaming meme liar on their news program. It was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. Was it pressure from the top Republican Idiot that is in charge of PBS? I can't imagine the usually trusted and thoughtful journalists there actually going for such a disgusting person as Morgan. One Republican talking point after another, just like a good little robot.
It seems a lot of posts have gotten switched around and out of order, so I don't know how I ended up coming in after Kevin1007 using the redoubtably discredited Swift Boat Vets to somehow defend the rantings of Melanie Morgan after I posted that hours ago.
Well, if you think the SBVT were discredited, I can see how you are easily confused.
The SBVT were thoroughly discredited. And I am in no way confused. The Navy said they were wrong. That sounds like a thorough discrediting to me. But then I am able to reason and don't ignore facts.
"The SBVT were thoroughly discredited. And I am in no way confused. The Navy said they were wrong. That sounds like a thorough discrediting to me. But then I am able to reason and don't ignore facts."
Share with us the Navy record that shows Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968. Put up or shut up.
Wrong again. Kerry said he was mistaken about the dates in Cambodia.
However, the Cambodia issue was not the meat of the Swift Boat attacks. The swift boaters were caught in multiple lies:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200704180002
So why don't you put up or shut up about these lies? The Navy Documents prove the swift boaters liars. Got it, moron?
According to Kevin, we're not to believe anything the US Navy has to say. We're not to believe anything in their records.
But Kevin is fine telling us that the Texas Air National Guard records support GW.
Maybe there's a list somewhere that tells if any other branches of the armed services are as trustworthy as the TANG.
Am I really reading a moron like YOU talking about someone ELSE being confused. You DEFINE the term
That Melanie has no self-discipline. She would have done well to follow the example of Mr. Soltz. She did not notice that he allowed her ample time to speak, uninterrupted.
Mr. Soltz is a good soldier, more than that he is a decent human being, he gave respect to an individual who did not return it.
"So Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were liars? The 9-11 commission and Duelfer Report, full of lies then. Every one lies but you Kevin. You ever stop to think you might be wrong, just a little?"
Scott Ritter wasn't even in Iraq during 2003, so obviously he did no inspecting (at the time, Ritter was actually fighting charges that he tried to pick up underaged girls via the Internet). You have to use a little common sense on the inspections. Iraq is the size of California. Do you really believe inspectors could cover an area that size in a matter of a few weeks. Inspectors were in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, yet left Iraq after seven years still saying that Iraq had hidden WMD capabilities. If inspectors could not be certain after seven years on the ground in Iraq, how could they be certain of anything after several weeks in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003?
I'll repeat Kenneth Pollack's quote again: ""As noted above, there is a consensus among American, British, Swedish, Dutch, and even French former inspectors that it would require twelve to eighteen months just to establish a baseline, let alone actually conduct inspections. And after that, we should never forget that once the inspections were completed we would need to transition to long-term montioring to try to prevent Saddam from reconstituting the WMD programs." ("The Threatening Storm," 2002, p. 238)
Pollack's book was vetted by the CIA and the NSC, and had the imnprimatur of the Council on Foreign Relations. Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, and other Clinton administration members sit on CFR's board of directors.
>>Scott Ritter wasn't even in Iraq during 2003, so obviously he did no inspecting
You know who else was not in Iraq at the time? Pollack, who you keep quoting as some type of far-seeing genie instead of the discredited hack he was exposed as. He was wrong. Ritter was right. Ritter used his expertise on what he knew from years of weapons inspections.
If it took 18 months to find out if Iraq had WMDs, then why did Bush claim that we knew we had them? In fact, Bush didn't know. He stated Iraq had WMDs with a certainty he did not possess. The chemical and biological inspectors said they needed more time. Bush wouldn't give that to them. Who was right?
However, Elbaderiei, who headed the nuclear inspections, stated clearly and definitively that Saddam had no nuclear program. The Bush administration continued hyping the nuclear program, lying in at least two major ways, instead of heeding the facts.
"However, Elbaderiei, who headed the nuclear inspections, stated clearly and definitively that Saddam had no nuclear program. The Bush administration continued hyping the nuclear program, lying in at least two major ways, instead of heeding the facts."
You're lying. Elbaderiei said he could not claim with absolute certainty that Saddam did not have a nuclear program.
Pollack was a CIA operative and Clinton's top expert on Iraq. His book was also vetted by the CIA and received the imprimatur of the Council on Foreign Relations. Ritter left Iraq in 1998 and was not in a position to know what Iraq had done in during the next five years. His credibility is also in question since he was arrested for trying to pick up young girls over the Internet.
>>You're lying. Elbaderiei said he could not claim with absolute certainty that Saddam did not have a nuclear program.
Here we go with the lying claim again. God you are unhinged. I never said "with absolute certainty," so don't put words in my mouth. I said definitively. See my quote above, what ElBaradi said in March of 2003. He was right. The Bush amin ignored his evidence.
>>Pollack was a CIA operative and Clinton's top expert on Iraq. His book was also vetted by the CIA and received the imprimatur of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Big, whooping, deal. He was Clinton's top expert on Iraq *who was dead wrong in his book!* He was not in Iraq at the time. You use that against Ritter, so it also goes for Pollack.
Ritter's being arrested has nothing to do with his credibility. He was not found guilty, by the way.
Without reading the 135 posts above, I watched this News Hour segment and found Morgan an Ann Coulter clone! What was more distressing to me is Ms. Woodruff's allowing Morgan to interrupt Soltz, a reasoned and soft-spoken observer. I expect more fairness and balance out of the News Hour and have had great respect for Ms. Woodruff in the past. Morgan was all bombast and hyperbole. But she truly couldn't convince her organization's positions over Soltz, an Iraq soldier and articulate presenter! Forgive me if I have simply restated concerns of other commenters.
Russell, you should check out the whole exchange on PBS. This clip her is kind to her. She looks even more foolish and offensive, if that can be believed.
Unfortunately I watched that vignette. Not only did Morgan attempt to monopolize the time, even when it was clear that Judy Woodruff was trying to ask a question of Soltz, Morgan would attempt to talk over him.
She was full of FAUX news type comments like, "Commander and Chief Pelosi," and I'd like to see you tell the troops they've failed. She can't even see the distinction that troops can operate as well as possible under unqualified and directionless leadership.
I watched the program and thought it was quite appropriate in the sense that the other view point was ably presented. Judy Woodruff asked a good question. WOODRUFF: And I'm going to have Mr. Soltz respond to that, but, just to be clear, you're saying you want the troops to stay how long? Ms. Morgan did not come off well because her argument was not very good and 1) there was an assertive and creditable opponent and 2) the moderator actually interrupted her with a pretty good question. If this is the way shows generally were done I would not have a problem.
I have to say, Kevin kicked you guys asses all over this thread.
If by kicking your ass you mean quoting a propagandists and making himself look like a fool, then I agree with you.
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Kevin only responded to some of the posts. At one point he implied that since the Navy records backed John Kerry that the Navy records were wrong. If you search though the thread you'll see that he argued that since the Texas Air National guard records showed that George W. Bush met their requirements that these records were to be accepted as fact.
I don't like it when someone plays both sides to try to win a debate. Kevin did just that.
And Kevin also did something that is despicable. He minimized the injuries of someone wounded in combat. I don't care who the wounded person is, or whatever the severity of the injury, he deserves our respect.
We all really need to reach common ground. You and I have worked towards reaching it, Kevin hasn't.
Have a great weekend. Hope you stick around.
"Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Kevin only responded to some of the posts. At one point he implied that since the Navy records backed John Kerry that the Navy records were wrong."
That's a lie. I merely asked for the moonbats here to share with us a Navy record that shows Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968.
"If you search though the thread you'll see that he argued that since the Texas Air National guard records showed that George W. Bush met their requirements that these records were to be accepted as fact."
Another lie. I said the records show Bush completed his requirements. I didn't say that that means they have to be accepted as fact. However, unless and until you can present proof that Bush did not meet his requirements, I think we have to go by the TANG records.
"I don't like it when someone plays both sides to try to win a debate. Kevin did just that."
A third lie.
"And Kevin also did something that is despicable. He minimized the injuries of someone wounded in combat. I don't care who the wounded person is, or whatever the severity of the injury, he deserves our respect."
A fourth lie. SBVT says, and the Kerry campaign mentioned that this was a possibility, that one of his Purple Hearts was awarded as a result of a scratch that may have been self-inflicted.
"We all really need to reach common ground. You and I have worked towards reaching it, Kevin hasn't."
Frankly, I don't desire to reach common ground with the moonbats. A recent Rasmussen Poll found that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Who would want to find common ground with such ignorant people?
Have a great weekend. Hope you stick around.
Don't worry, I'll be here. Still trying to reach common ground.
Just understand that a lot of us "moonbats" are ourselves combat vets. I won't stoop to denigrating the service of any other vet, regardless of his or her political beliefs.
>>A fourth lie. SBVT says, and the Kerry campaign mentioned that this was a possibility, that one of his Purple Hearts was awarded as a result of a scratch that may have been self-inflicted.
You apparently don't know what a lie is. It seems you are lying here. The SBVT didn't just "mention" that Kerry's injury was a scratch. They based their whole ad on it. And they were proven liars, as MMFA pointed out in the link I posted above.
Sorry, but simply throwing around the word liar does not make an argument, moron.
>>Frankly, I don't desire to reach common ground with the moonbats. A recent Rasmussen Poll found that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Who would want to find common ground with such ignorant people?
Hey, it's mr Strawman! How are you doing, moron! See, name calling is so easy. An even greater percentage of Republicans don't believe in evolution and believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. So I guess that gives me the right to insult any Republicans who post on this board.
Doles first purple heart came from a minor self inflicted wound. You BETTER figure on finding common ground with ignorant people considering YOUR ignorance is galactic level. Your stupidity is awe inspiring. You are far to stupid to come to terms with logic or facts so finding common ground with those of us in the reality based universe probably is not in the cards for you.
Kevin got his head handed to him. Refusing to accept reality doesnt qualify as winning a debate. He has been refuted all over the thread.
You want to bring up their best selling book that just happen to be published in Aug of 2004? If this is really about Vietnam as these people claim and they wanted to set the record on the atrocities that occurred during Vietnam then why did they wait over 30 years to speak out on this issue ?"
One of my biggest problems with debating the moonbats here is that they are so ignorant of the facts. John O'Neill did not wait 30 years to set the record straight. In fact, he debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett show 35 years ago. O'Neill then went to law school and raised a family. SBVT was formed when Kerry got the nomination because, as they explain in O'Neill's book, serving as leader of the free world is quite different from serving as a junior senator from Massachusetts.
"You asked me a question and I answered you. Your selective response was to attack John Kerry again. Basically my original comment is dead on, you claim to support our troops, but that isn't true. You only support them if they agree with your politics. The willingness of people like you, MM and the SBVT to smear and silence the voices of our troops when they don't fit your agenda is truly disgusting."
I served in uniform, I suspect that you and 95%+ of the moonbats here never did. You're displaying a great deal of hypocrisy here when you attack the SBVT. They have over 60 Purple Hearts between, served their full tours in Vietnam, and one is even a Medal of Honor recipient. I'll stand with a Medal of Honor recipient against the Bactine Kid any day of the week.
Of course, shooting up Vietnamese villages for Michelin and US Steel makes them all geniuses of the first caliber!...or is that mindless corporate thugs and goons in uniform with .50 calibers?
I've always considered myself a liberal. I've spent my entire life fighting for the common good. I've always tried to understand those who I considered the opposition. There are times though when I can't understand the people I'm standing with.
I know what your getting at, but you are wrong to attack those who fought the war in Vietnam. I'm curious what you would have done, if you were young back then and you received a draft notice.
Those men you disparage could have been you if you had been born at the right time. Most of the guys who fought didn't choose to fight.
Say what you will about our leaders and our government. You wouldn't be saying anything that I haven't thought or said myself. But when you're talking about the people who are sent to fight and to die, try to remember that it could have been you or your brother. Please don't blame them for the failings of our government.
Excellent post WK. You were kinder and more respectful to RK than I would have been in your position. Posts like RK's do nothing to further the cause and, frankly, give Republicans who confuse RK's position for the position of all Democrats an easy target.
Anyone who can minimize the combat injuries of another man might be able to call himself a Marine, but can he still call himself a man?
"I have to say, Kevin kicked you guys asses all over this thread."
Of course you have to say that, because no one in their right mind would.
He went on and on about Clinton (who, as Kevin might have noticed, didn't get over 3000 American soldiers killed in Iraq), and Ritter (as if the charges made against him had anything to do with Saddam's WMD), and the Swift Boat Veterans (who were discredited for the smear job they did ojn Kerry), but Kevin lost this one. Badly. And repeatedly.
"He went on and on about Clinton (who, as Kevin might have noticed, didn't get over 3000 American soldiers killed in Iraq),"
But he did contribute to the deaths of 500,000+ Iraqi children who died as a result of his sanctions. And Clinton did get 3,000 killed on 9/11.
"...and Ritter (as if the charges made against him had anything to do with Saddam's WMD),"
Sure, And Mark Foley's e-mails to male pages had no effect on his credibility as a lawmaker.
"...and the Swift Boat Veterans (who were discredited for the smear job they did ojn Kerry), but Kevin lost this one. Badly. And repeatedly."
The SBVT have not been discredited. Anyone who says so has discredited himself, and badly.
>>"...and Ritter (as if the charges made against him had anything to do with Saddam's WMD),"
>>Sure, And Mark Foley's e-mails to male pages had no effect on his credibility as a lawmaker.
Rittter was found innocent. But even if he weren't, if Newton was found guilty of beating his wife, would planets stop moving in the way he said? Would calculus suddenly cease to be true?
>>The SBVT have not been discredited. Anyone who says so has discredited himself, and badly.
Yes they were. I provided you with the link. They lied and contradicted themselves. Your response was to call the author of the article that exposed the SBVT a small man who never served in uniform. In another words, an ad hominem attack.
Here is the e-mail I have sent to Melanie Morgan:
TO: Melanie Morgan
After watching you on "The News Hour", I have decided to send a contribution to votevets.org. You came across as another shrill rightwingnut in the Ann Coulter mould (and we all know how hard it is to understand Coulter what with her Adam's apple bobbing up and down all the time).
As a former Republican who has more military time than you, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter combined, I found your performance appalling.
The Cheney-Bush junta's war for oil in Iraq was lost before it even began. They sent too few troops with too few resources and they had no real strategy. Worse, they have distracted us from the real villains who were (and are) hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
When your son grows up and has to fight in the Middle East, remember -- it was the fault of people like you who failed to get al-Qaeda.
William F. Buckley, Jr. has got it right -- Iraq will be to the Republican Party what Vietnam was to the Democratic Party. I could see the desperation in your eyes and the fear in your voice as you realized that your hero (Bush The Lesser) is going down and he's taking the Republican Party with him. But you can be thankful -- Bush's destruction may save the country from the fascist takeover America's oligarchs hatched in 2000 when five activist justices on the U.S. Supreme Court illegally installed Bush as de facto dictator.
And, yes, Bush IS a coward for avoiding service in Vietnam!!!! (Your stupid "Oh, please!" comment when Mr. Soltz, a real hero, pointed that out was disgusting!!!)
Why are you and the other conservatives still in the U.S.??? Shouldn't you all have volunteered to fight in Iraq???
Are you a coward???
Back to the gambling tables for you!!! (Why are so many conservatives morally bankrupt?)
"And, yes, Bush IS a coward for avoiding service in Vietnam!!!!"
Was Clinton, a veritable draft dodger, a coward for avoiding service in Vietnam?
Clinton avoided a war he didnt believe in and opposed. BUSH avioded fighting in a war he SUPPORTED OTHER PEOPLE DYING IN just not his pamperred butt.
I wouldn't call anyone a coward for avoiding Vietnam, unless they also question the patriotism of those who did serve.
Our leaders are not cowards for seeking deferments and refuge in the TANG, but they are hypocrites for their late onset bravado.
"And, yes, Bush IS a coward for avoiding service in Vietnam!!!!"
How about Howard Dean, who said a bad back kept him from being drafted. That didn't stop him from skiing, though.
Keep it up, Kevin. Really, we like it crazy around here, and you certainly are proving hysterical. So now you are going to bring up Dean? How about Nixon? How about whether Pluto is a planet? Can you possibly avoid the topic any more?