When You Go To Vote Remember This...
Sadly, many American's and our troops in Iraq have been brainwashed by the Bush administration into believing that Saddam was the main terrorist and only one responsible for 9/11. We were told that even though Iraq had been under severe sanctions for over 12 years they were developing WMDs. Common sense would have told most of us that the Iraqi's did not have the means to maintain a modern military machine much less WMDs because of those sanctions.
On September 13, 2001, just 2 days after 9/11 Bush still had the ability to be a great leader. He said the words every American and person of the free world wanted to hear...
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."-- George W. Bush 9-13-2001
Then, almost 1 year later Bush said these unbelievable words letting down his country and the world but then again he was making a case for war with Saddam and Iraq not Osama bin Laden...
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."-- George W. Bush 3-13-2002
The Bush/Rove political machine and their neocon followers are trying to make these midterm elections about Saddam's guilty verdict as though it were some kind of coup for this do nothing Congress.
However, for many it just reminds us that after 5 years the real culprit, Osama bin Laden, of 9/11 is still free, taunting Americans with his very existence and that the Bush administration along with his neocon Congress have failed in their so called "war on terror" causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, 3,000 of America's finest to die for nothing.
If you are as outraged as I am about the no plan "stay the course" failed tactics Bush has used in his "war on terror" then when you go to vote remember Bush's word's that I cite and the words of Cheney from September 10th 2006...
Asked by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes.
"He'd done it before," Cheney said. "He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91."
The U.S. invasion "was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing," he said.
Remember friends, after knowing what they know now and after killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people the Bush Administration would commit this same sad illegal war all over again.
More than anything else this has colored the way I will vote. If the Bush administration cannot in truthfulness protect America and avoid war at all costs then I cannot depend on them to honor their pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
In my eyes, this Administration is no better than the very terrorists who are out to destroy America.
Vote for peace.
Libby
On September 13, 2001, just 2 days after 9/11 Bush still had the ability to be a great leader. He said the words every American and person of the free world wanted to hear...
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."-- George W. Bush 9-13-2001
Then, almost 1 year later Bush said these unbelievable words letting down his country and the world but then again he was making a case for war with Saddam and Iraq not Osama bin Laden...
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."-- George W. Bush 3-13-2002
The Bush/Rove political machine and their neocon followers are trying to make these midterm elections about Saddam's guilty verdict as though it were some kind of coup for this do nothing Congress.
However, for many it just reminds us that after 5 years the real culprit, Osama bin Laden, of 9/11 is still free, taunting Americans with his very existence and that the Bush administration along with his neocon Congress have failed in their so called "war on terror" causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, 3,000 of America's finest to die for nothing.
If you are as outraged as I am about the no plan "stay the course" failed tactics Bush has used in his "war on terror" then when you go to vote remember Bush's word's that I cite and the words of Cheney from September 10th 2006...
Asked by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes.
"He'd done it before," Cheney said. "He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91."
The U.S. invasion "was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing," he said.
Remember friends, after knowing what they know now and after killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people the Bush Administration would commit this same sad illegal war all over again.
More than anything else this has colored the way I will vote. If the Bush administration cannot in truthfulness protect America and avoid war at all costs then I cannot depend on them to honor their pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
In my eyes, this Administration is no better than the very terrorists who are out to destroy America.
Vote for peace.
Libby
posted by Sandy at 8:29 AM
6 Comments:
For all your rant, where is your compassion for the Iraq people? Do you care that the recent US troop efforts have probably saved 100's of thousands of children alone? Do you even have a clue how many of Hussein's own people including children and the curds, that he ordered tortured and killed with chemical WMD during his regime? Estimates are from a low half a million to 2 million or more. How does genocide not concern you in your commentary. Of course he had to be brought down, Cheney was absolutely correct in him comments. I quote from a published article that addresses "How Many People Has Hussein Killed?"
"DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 — surely a gross exaggeration — but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.
Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.
Just as in Stalin's Russia, the machinery of death is mostly invisible, except for the effects it works on those brushed by it — in the loss of relatives and friends, and in the universal terror that others have of falling into the abyss. If anybody wants to know what terror looks like, its face is visible every day on every street of Iraq.
quoted from: 1/27/03 http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's pretty easy to quote a presidential comment from April 2003 out of context, isn't it? Of course it's easy to say "he made these unbelievable words letting down his country"... Are you really that ignorant? From the ORIGINAL PRESS CONFERENCE I will quote a PORTION of the actual context, and provide the link to the official recorded brief.
"Q: Mr. President, on the question of Iraq, how does the increased violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians affect what Vice President Cheney is trying to do, and affect the case you're trying to make with our Arab allies for a regime change, or just unconditional inspections?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout the region, more so now than ever in the past. But we're concerned about the Middle East, John, because it's affecting the lives of the Palestinians and our friends, the Israelis. I mean, it's a terrible period of time, when a lot of people are losing their lives, needlessly losing life. And terrorists are holding a potential peace process hostage.
And so while I understand the linkage, for us the policy stands on its own. The need for us to involved in the Middle East is to help save lives. And we're going to stay involved in the Middle East, and, at the same time, continue to talk about Iraq and Iran and other nations, and continue to wage a war on terror, which is exactly what we're doing.
I want to reiterate what I said the other day. Our policy is to deny sanctuary to terrorists anyplace in the world, and we will be very active in doing that.
Q: But on the question of the Palestinians, Sharon has said that he shares your concern for those not involved in terror. Do you still think that's the case?
THE PRESIDENT: I do. But, unlike our war against al Qaeda, there is a series of agreements in place that will lead to peace. And, therefore, we're going to work hard to see if we can't, as they say, get into Tenet and eventually Mitchell. I do -- I certainly hope that Prime Minister Sharon is concerned about the loss of innocent life. We certainly -- I certainly am. It breaks my heart and I know it breaks the heart of a lot of people around the world to see young children lose their life as a result of violence -- young children on both sides of this issue.
This is an issue that's consuming a lot of the time of my administration. And we have an obligation to continue to work for peace in the region and we will. We will. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
Mike Allen. I'm working my way back, slowly but surely. Michael."
quoted frrom: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am also a woman, and I DO NOT agree that this war has been as effective as we had hoped. However, I do understand that administrative policy changes when situations change, and when a deeper understanding is achieved in any given situation- be it on the war map or in the political arena. It is called leadership, which has to be flexible, and cannot always divulge why because that CAN affect a critical outcome. Any logical mind can figure out why certain information may need to be held from public knowledge, to effect a success in a war, or in national security- it's obvious. Of course, traitorous activity is now seen as "activism", even though it put lives at risk to GET TO THE TRUTH even if it makes our troops or our country more vulnerable to terrorists. Either we trust those we place in high positions, or we don't and instead establish leadership with NO STRENGTH. It is no secret that the Bush administration has been under the gun by liberals over political losses, but that is not an excuse for undermining our government. This has been the CONSISTANT agenda of the democratic party, which I find shameful. You can change things for the better, and it can be done from a positive position. It is sad that the liberal left cannot see past their pride long enough to look at their shameful behaviors in making America and americans look FOOLISH to the world. Which is exactly what you achieve with your falsified political commentary - out of context, and twisted into something to suit your agenda. Shame on you for how you have contributed to the broken heart and strength of our nation.
OJ, I certainly hope you were looking in a mirror while you were typing your rant. Had you, you would have seen the face hypocrisy.
Of course I care about and have compassion for the thousands of Iraqi children just as I do our troops, that is one of the main reasons for my blog.
I find your willing ignorance concerning bush and his war amazing.
Of course I go back to 2003 to show how soon it took for bush to change his priorities in regard to OBL. So let me get this straight you neocons were more concerned with the Radical Iraqis whom Saddam killed because of their trying to over-throw his Government than the nearly 3000 Americans killed at the WTC on 9/11? Let's see that's bogus excuse #20 for the illegal Iraq war.
You say this and it amazes me that you neocons have the nerve to even make this remark...Do you care that the recent US troop efforts have probably saved 100's of thousands of children alone? Do you even have a clue how many of Hussein's own people including children and the curds, that he ordered tortured and killed with chemical WMD during his regime That you can say this with a straight face is breathtaking. Bush now holds the record over Saddam for killing hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqis [http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43224/] and torture. I guess it means nothing to you that bush sanctions and turns his head while grown troops rape little Iraqi boys [http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh_children_raped.html] in front of their mothers to extract information from her. I don't know, maybe you consider that college boy pranks but I call it torture. I won't even go into the fact that bush has shit on the Geneva Conventions putting thousands of Americans and innocents at risk.
OMG, you cite this...So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
Do you even know any troops in Iraq, OJ? Our troops are so poorly supplied that they beg Americans to send money and care packages to them and clearly the bush administration has absolutely no plans for EVER ending the Iraq war. ROFLMAO @ your ignorance. Bush has lost and wasted billions of your tax dollars on this illegal war but do you care? Hell no. Need I remind you that that money obviously was not spent on supplying our troops.
The American people have awakened from the slumbering lies the neocon party and bush have been spewing at them for over 3 years. They have spoken...deal with it.
Oh and btw, shame on you for supporting this illegal war! Bush himself has stated Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. What other proof do you need that this is an unnecessary senseless war?
You certainly are tuned into the media, Liberal Woman.
You would be better off to research your response in person, maybe take a trip to Iraq yourself. Stay long enough to check out the data you site. Don't you know you can't believe media reports? How old are you?
American troops are better equipped and supplied than any nation in the world, and right now that includes Iraq. Maybe you should get online and learn a little more about that. Interestingly, I have students troops in Iraq taking online classes from our university. Gee, what exactly does that say? I know I didn't send any care-packages with notebook PCs equipped for satellite uplink. But then, I have heard that they do want more chocolate, and that the dust is a serious problem for electronics.
Sheesh, Liberal Woman? Maybe with a bag over your head.
Anonymousie,
I really have no idea of exactly what it is you're trying to say???? Except maybe you are just one more bitter neocon who is having a hard time dealing with their loss?
Our troops are better equipped? LOFL Let me fill you in on something, hon, I have a very good friend who's grandson, a Marine, has pulled 3 tours in Iraq and they are trying to send him back for a 4th regardless of the fact they promised him he would not have to go back. When he went on his 1st tour he fully supported bush and the Iraq war, after his second tour he came back very disillusioned because of the lack of everything concerning the Iraqi civilians, the American troops and the hopelessness he experienced and witnessed. After his 3rd tour he came back hating bush, cheney and rumsfeld for a war ill planned and ill conceived. My source is this Marine so I challenge you to dispute his word.
You'll forgive me if I take his word over some idiot's word who teaches students troops [who/whatever in the hell that is] over the computer. I suggest that you might want to take a tour over to Iraq yourself and not in the "green zone."
You're a teacher? Well then, if you are and I have reasons to doubt that you are, you know you should cite the things I've said that you disagree with and refute them with evidence to the contrary. Until you do that, I'm afraid we are both left in the dark.
When you educate yourself on current events then come back and tell me what you've discovered. As it stands, you seem out of touch with reality.
Do you have a brother or a son? If so you might encourage them to go fight bushes illegal Iraq war for him and let them come back and tell you how great it is over there provided of course they do not come back in a body bag.
Sheesh, Anonymousie, maybe you should take the bag off of your head?
Yep, you know of a friend who has a son or daughter, who has a son, who is a marine... oh that is really in touch.
How many referneces do we have to listen to, "I heard this from a firend, who's son, has a son, in the marines, who came back and told them all about, blah, blah, blah.
Bitter you accuse? Possibly, but not in the way you imagine. Remember what happens when you "assume". If I am bitter it is about right wing elitists who do nothing but tear down everything, and never establish, let alone consider, improvements. Your responses are unpolished, self-righteous, and you sound like a somewhat cold individual. It would be my pleasure to assure you that life for Americans is not the grave picture you paint. But then that would make "Liberal Woman" redundant, and understandably, you would never agree to that.
By the way, do you have any sons? Since there is no draft, enlisted personnel serve by choice. Did you know that? Although all men are required to register at age 18, service is NOT OBLIGATORY.
So, whatever your relative, of a relative, of a friend has to say, he chose that path, right or wrong, regardless of any opinion. Why don't you ask him in-person, why?
Well, oddly enough I have spoken with him in person, my friends grandson and you claim I ASSume? It's one thing to choose a path but it's another for someone else to hijack that path and make you hate it and turn it into something contrary to what you were promised it would be. Whenever Brian was up for re-enlistment he was made to feel guilty for not supporting his "band of brothers" and leaving them stranded in Iraq, so as expected he'd re-enlist. You have heard of "the band of brothers," right? Brian is a Marine. Go on and spit on his service to you, it's what we expect from you neocons and you call me cold blooded. We've seen how well you support and take care of our troops.
I'm more than aware that our enlisted personnel serve by choice. It's just that once bush gets them there they cannot leave as or when promised. Yes, btw, I do have sons and I can assure you they will never support or have the opportunity to be killed in bushes illegal war you so support draft or no draft.
Yes, I can see why you would be so bitter and on those reasons we can at least agree.
I may not be polished but then again I never claimed to be. It is one thing to be polished and stupid and quite another to be unpolished and realistic [far from cold].
I do thank you for at least responding in a way that opens up more of a dialogue between us.
Post a Comment
<< Home