Can't Be 'For the Troops' and Against the War

[Bullypulpit]

Quite frankly i dont understand how any family who has lost a soldier in the war can possibly disagree with it. Do they really want to dishonor their relative like that? They knew what they were getting into when they volunteered. To say one disagrees with the entire premise of them volunteering is a slap in the face to any serving soldier. Telling them they are giving their lives up for nothing when its so clear that the world is a better place because of them. No greater love hath a man than he who will give his life for his brethren. Yet rather than support the cause they fought valiently for it sickens me how many family members are using the deaths of relatives for their own political purposes which dishonor what their relative died for. Maybe they are just stricken with grief but its really bad taste.

Indeed, they know what they are getting into when they take the oath. They are expected to follow all lawful orders, even if those orders lead them to their deaths. They are serving a cause they believe in...they are supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. With that in mind, it behooves our leaders to carefully consider the harm's way they place these brave men and women in. Their lives are precious and irreplaceable, and should not be sacrificed needlessly...As so many already have.

It is no dishonour to those who died in battle to speak truth to the powers that be that our sons and daughters died in vain. The dishonour lies solely with those who gave the orders that sent them to their deaths.

 

[Annie]

Indeed, they know what they are getting into when they take the oath. They are expected to follow all lawful orders, even if those orders lead them to their deaths. They are serving a cause they believe in...they are supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. With that in mind, it behooves our leaders to carefully consider the harm's way they place these brave men and women in. Their lives are precious and irreplaceable, and should not be sacrificed needlessly...As so many already have.

Bully, in most contexts I respect you. Not this. They have not been sacrificed needlessly, not capriciously. Shame on you.

 

[Annie]

Some know no honor when it comes to defending what belongs to them, some won't be happy until they no longer have what belong to them!

:usa:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, in most contexts I respect you. Not this. They have not been sacrificed needlessly, not capriciously. Shame on you.

Dear lady, the reason Dubbyuh gave for going to war in Iraq was the "urgent" threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Since then, the reasons given to justify the invasion of Iraq have changed, not once...not twice...not even three times...rather they have changed some 29 times. There was no plan to secure the peace after winning the war. The war was ill-concieved and misguided. The job started in Afghanistan was left undone, and that nascent democracy is coming unraveled even now. The shame in this situation lies, not with me, but with those who ordered this foreign mis-adventure...It lies with President Bush and his administration.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Some know no honor when it comes to defending what belongs to them, some won't be happy until they no longer have what belong to them!

And some are utterly without honor...Look to Washington and the White House for the proof of that pudding.

 

[Annie]

Dear lady, the reason Dubbyuh gave for going to war in Iraq was the "urgent" threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Since then, the reasons given to justify the invasion of Iraq have changed, not once...not twice...not even three times...rather they have changed some 29 times. There was no plan to secure the peace after winning the war. The war was ill-concieved and misguided. The job started in Afghanistan was left undone, and that nascent democracy is coming unraveled even now. The shame in this situation lies, not with me, but with those who ordered this foreign mis-adventure...It lies with President Bush and his administration.

Bully, how many freaking times must I post his SOTU speech?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

...There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror. There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. The war goes on, and we are winning. (Applause.)

To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September the 11th attacks; the chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf, who planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole; an al Qaeda operations chief from Southeast Asia; a former director of al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan; a key al Qaeda operative in Europe; a major al Qaeda leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)

We are working closely with other nations to prevent further attacks. America and coalition countries have uncovered and stopped terrorist conspiracies targeting the American embassy in Yemen, the American embassy in Singapore, a Saudi military base, ships in the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits the Gibraltar. We've broken al Qaeda cells in Hamburg, Milan, Madrid, London, Paris, as well as, Buffalo, New York.

We have the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run. One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice. (Applause.)

As we fight this war, we will remember where it began -- here, in our own country. This government is taking unprecedented measures to protect our people and defend our homeland. We've intensified security at the borders and ports of entry, posted more than 50,000 newly-trained federal screeners in airports, begun inoculating troops and first responders against smallpox, and are deploying the nation's first early warning network of sensors to detect biological attack. And this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles. (Applause.)

I thank the Congress for supporting these measures. I ask you tonight to add to our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bioterrorism, called Project Bioshield. The budget I send you will propose almost $6 billion to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. We must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we must act before the dangers are upon us. (Applause.)

Since September the 11th, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have worked more closely than ever to track and disrupt the terrorists. The FBI is improving its ability to analyze intelligence, and is transforming itself to meet new threats. Tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, the CIA, the Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location. Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect all our citizens. (Applause.)

Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men -- free people will set the course of history. (Applause.)

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. (Applause.)

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. (Applause.) Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. (Applause.)

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)

On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. (Applause.)

America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. (Applause.) The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions. (Applause.)

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END 10:08 P.M. EST

 

[Avatar4321]

Dear lady, the reason Dubbyuh gave for going to war in Iraq was the "urgent" threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Since then, the reasons given to justify the invasion of Iraq have changed, not once...not twice...not even three times...rather they have changed some 29 times. There was no plan to secure the peace after winning the war. The war was ill-concieved and misguided. The job started in Afghanistan was left undone, and that nascent democracy is coming unraveled even now. The shame in this situation lies, not with me, but with those who ordered this foreign mis-adventure...It lies with President Bush and his administration.

Hello?! There have always been multiple reasons for going into Iraq. The main one is this: Saddam supports terror. You act like there was only one reason given for taking out Saddam. Thats a lie and you know it. All you have to do is read the Presidents pre Iraqi war speeches and you would see this clearly. to claim otherwise is ridiculous.

I marvel that anyone can call one of the greatest military operations in the history of the world as ill concieved. We liberated Iraq, a nation the size of California, faster than it took Janet Reno to raid the branch Davidian. We have done this with arguably one of the lowest casualities of military and civilizian losses in the history of the world. Yet despite these facts you still considered this one of an ill concieved war. It boggles the mind. What the heck is a well concieved war? No shots being fired? Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot and you guys hate him about as much as you hate Bush.

Yet despite the amazing accomplishments. the liberation of two oppressive nations within two years means absolutely nothing to you. The fact that these people are now free to speak their minds, to read what they want, to teach what they want, to go to school, to earn a living the way they want, doesnt matter to you people. The fact that these people are no longer living in fear of being tortured, raped and killed by their government doesnt matter to you. I just dont get you people. its like you are living on mars in a cave with your eyes closed and your hands on your ears and are unable to understand what the heck is going on around you.

You just dont get it..Thats why you are going to be dumbfounded when President Bush wins in a landslide.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, how many freaking times must I post his SOTU speech?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Many Republicans admit that Dubbyuh's SOTU speech was a largely incoherent piece of fluff. It's propaganda value, though, cannot be underestimated.

At the time Dubbyuh decided to lauch a war against Iraq, there were more serious problems afoot than Saddam Hussein. First and foremost is that resources were drawn off from Iraq that were needed to finish the job started in dismantling the Taliban and Al Qaeda. As a result, those twin serpents have grown back their fangs and are as potent as ever. North Korea has continued its nuclear program, unabated and unrepentant, posing a far greater threat than an isolated and impotent Saddam ever could.

The Administration argument for pre-emptive action simply does not hold water. It sets a dangerous precedent that can destabilize situations around the world, and flies in the face of over 200 years of American history. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was not...and cannot be justified by any of the arguments put forth by the administration.

 

[Annie]

Many Republicans admit that Dubbyuh's SOTU speech was a largely incoherent piece of fluff. It's propaganda value, though, cannot be underestimated.

Most don't. Actually this was the point when many Dems decided that they were going for Bush.

At the time Dubbyuh decided to lauch a war against Iraq, there were more serious problems afoot than Saddam Hussein. First and foremost is that resources were drawn off from Iraq that were needed to finish the job started in dismantling the Taliban and Al Qaeda. As a result, those twin serpents have grown back their fangs and are as potent as ever. North Korea has continued its nuclear program, unabated and unrepentant, posing a far greater threat than an isolated and impotent Saddam ever could.

So you would have skipped one 'pre-emptive' action for 2?

The Administration argument for pre-emptive action simply does not hold water. It sets a dangerous precedent that can destabilize situations around the world, and flies in the face of over 200 years of American history. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was not...and cannot be justified by any of the arguments put forth by the administration.

Reasonable people can disagree, though it's unreasonable to expect the troops or the enemy to understand what goes on when Kerry's sister is in Australia working against the action the country is involved in, and that her brother supported, before he didn't.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Hello?! There have always been multiple reasons for going into Iraq. The main one is this: Saddam supports terror. You act like there was only one reason given for taking out Saddam. Thats a lie and you know it. All you have to do is read the Presidents pre Iraqi war speeches and you would see this clearly. to claim otherwise is ridiculous.

I marvel that anyone can call one of the greatest military operations in the history of the world as ill concieved. We liberated Iraq, a nation the size of California, faster than it took Janet Reno to raid the branch Davidian. We have done this with arguably one of the lowest casualities of military and civilizian losses in the history of the world. Yet despite these facts you still considered this one of an ill concieved war. It boggles the mind. What the heck is a well concieved war? No shots being fired? Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot and you guys hate him about as much as you hate Bush.

Yet despite the amazing accomplishments. the liberation of two oppressive nations within two years means absolutely nothing to you. The fact that these people are now free to speak their minds, to read what they want, to teach what they want, to go to school, to earn a living the way they want, doesnt matter to you people. The fact that these people are no longer living in fear of being tortured, raped and killed by their government doesnt matter to you. I just dont get you people. its like you are living on mars in a cave with your eyes closed and your hands on your ears and are unable to understand what the heck is going on around you.

You just dont get it..Thats why you are going to be dumbfounded when President Bush wins in a landslide.

The primary and over-riding justification given by the administration was the "urgent" threat of Iraqi WMD's. Any other reasons surfaced after it became apparent no WMD's were forthcoming.

The speed of American troops in securing Bagdhad had as much to do with the fact that Iraqi troops abandoned their posts as with the quality of military planning which, given the limitations placed upon them by the Administration, was an excellent piece of work by the commanders on the ground. Winning the peace was apparently given little, if any, thought by the Administration. They assumed a grateful Iraqi populace would shower our troops with flowers. When it became apparent that the reconstruction of Iraq would be given short-shrift, they began to embrace the guerrillas. Through ignorance of local custom and tradition, many confrotations, including that which sparked the uprising in Fallujah, occurred. As for Reagan and the cold war, the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. It was inevitable, and Reagan only took the credit because he was POTUS at the time.

As for "liberating" two nations, Afghanistan, all protestations to the contrary aside, is on the brink of chaos. Iraq, according to our own NIE is no better. Keep your rose-colored glasses on if you wish, the picture is nowhere near as bright as the Administration would have us believe. As for the cirtizens of these two countries, Afghans continue to be oppressed by local warlords, and Hamid Kharzhai is little more than the Mayor of Kabul. Iraqis are at the mercy of insurgent attacks and collateral damage from US reprisal raids. The infrastructure in both counties remains in tatters, and Iraqis must suffer the additional humiliation of seeing their county's wealth siphoned off by foreign companies.

So, be sure you have you umberella handy for when the shit intersects the fan-blade in Iraq. And If Dubbyuh wins by a landslide, America will get what it deserves.

 

[Annie]

Unreal

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/3746350/detail.html

Barton Cannot Return To Iraq Due To Injuries

POSTED: 5:54 pm EDT September 20, 2004
UPDATED: 10:15 am EDT September 21, 2004
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A local soldier back from the war in Iraq said he was beaten at an area concert because of what was printed on his T-shirt, NBC 4's Nancy Burton reported.

FeedRoom
Solider Attacked?
Soldier Reportedly Attacked
FeedRoom

Foster Barton, 19, of Grove City, received a Purple Heart for his military service in Iraq. He almost lost his leg last month after a Humvee he was riding in ran over a landmine.

Barton said he was injured again Friday night in a crowded parking lot as he was leaving the Toby Keith concert at Germain Amphitheatre. The solider was injured so badly that he can't go back to Iraq as scheduled.

"I don't remember getting hit at all, really," said Barton, a member of the 1st Calvary Division. "He hit me in the back of the head. I fell and hit the ground. I was knocked unconscious and he continued to punch and kick me on the ground."

Barton and his family said he was beat up because he was wearing an Iraqi freedom T-shirt.

"It's not our fault," Barton said. "I'm just doing a job."

According to a Columbus police report, six witnesses who didn't know Barton said the person who beat him up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers, Burton reported.

One witness, a friend of the alleged attacker, said Barton hit first. Police said they do not think that witness is credible since the six other witnesses said Barton was hit from behind.

Barton's mother said she has a message for her son's alleged attacker, who police said ran into the crowd after the incident and was not arrested.

"He needs our prayers, just like the insurgents, because he's a coward," Cindy Barton said.

After a two-week leave, Barton was supposed to return to Iraq Tuesday. But his broken nose will delay his return.

Barton is waiting for doctors to tell him when he can return to active duty. He said wants to go back as soon as possible because his unit was just attacked. Eleven soldiers were wounded and two were killed, he said.

Copyright 2004 by nbc4i.com. All rights reserved.

 

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote><b>Military Moms Respond to Senator Hatch's Remarks on FOX About 'Supporting the Troops'</b>

Washington, DC - In response to remarks made by Senator Orin Hatch on Fox News today, Nita Martin of Pennsylvania, a mother of two soldiers who have served in Iraq, issued this response:

"I am a Registered Republican. I know a thing or two about supporting our troops. I have given two sons to the United States military. One is a Reservist who went in with the first wave into Iraq, the second is a career marine who went to Iraq 16 months after George Bush declared 'mission accomplished'.

“Before one of my sons left, he went online to buy himself a helmet that would better protect him than the one which was issued to him by the US military.

“If anybody doesn't support the troops it’s George W. Bush - he sent my sons to war with no plan. They were ill-prepared and the result is more and more casualties everyday.

“As a mother of the troops I know that supporting our men and women serving overseas is not the same as supporting George Bush."</blockquote>

 

[Bullypulpit]

Unreal

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/3746350/detail.html

Your point...? Hopefully they find the crazy bastard and throw his ass in a deep, dark hole.

 

[Annie]

<blockquote><b>Military Moms Respond to Senator Hatch's Remarks on FOX About 'Supporting the Troops'</b>

Washington, DC - In response to remarks made by Senator Orin Hatch on Fox News today, Nita Martin of Pennsylvania, a mother of two soldiers who have served in Iraq, issued this response:

"I am a Registered Republican. I know a thing or two about supporting our troops. I have given two sons to the United States military. One is a Reservist who went in with the first wave into Iraq, the second is a career marine who went to Iraq 16 months after George Bush declared 'mission accomplished'.

“Before one of my sons left, he went online to buy himself a helmet that would better protect him than the one which was issued to him by the US military.

“If anybody doesn't support the troops it’s George W. Bush - he sent my sons to war with no plan. They were ill-prepared and the result is more and more casualties everyday.

“As a mother of the troops I know that supporting our men and women serving overseas is not the same as supporting George Bush."</blockquote>

Always been the case Bully, war 'always' takes us by surprise and it takes time for the supplies to catch up. I've given money to buy body armor for the troops, have you? I've given and raised goods for programs the troops are sponsoring for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Have you? Support like in my last post, they do not need. I wonder if the mother that you are quoting felt differently about her sons' service prior to 9/11? She has every right to feel and say what she wishes, she has to live with the dangers her sons are facing every day. Difference between her and so many that through out the platitude of 'support' while doing everything to put them in a more dangerous place.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Unfortunately Bully, most would agree that your posts don't hold water! Your constant bashing of the administration is very typical of most far leftists with the same old rhetoric. Iraq certainly was justified if you would bother to look a little deeper, there was much more on the table then just WMD's! Also this was on the table prior to 911, how long do you give Iraq to comply with international law? I'm assuming that you probably support the U.N in it's decisions but too bad they are more corrupt .

<blockquote>"<i>We settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction...</i>
...(Hussein's criminal treatment of Iraqi citizens)<i>... is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.</i></blockquote> - <b>Paul Wolfowitz</b>, <i>Vanity Fair</i>, May 2003

In case you've forgotten, Paul Wolfowitz was the intellectual architect of the war with Iraq and admitted that saving the Iraqi people was not reason enough to invade Iraq.

And, if Dubbyuh were to remain consistent with the "Deposing a brutal dictator" argument, he would take on the rest of the worlds brutal dictators. However, King Fahd has too much oil...Kim Jong Il has nukes and is crazy enough to use them...Pervez Musharaff also has nukes and would not hesitate to use them. Oh, and even though his intelligence agency helped train and finance the Taliban militias in Afghanistan, Pervez is still our good friend and ally in the "war on terror".

I'm not bashing anybody old son...I'm just reporting the facts. If you can't stand the heat, then get outta th' kitchen.

 

[Annie]

<blockquote>"<i>We settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction...</i>
...(Hussein's criminal treatment of Iraqi citizens)<i>... is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.</i></blockquote> - <b>Paul Wolfowitz</b>, <i>Vanity Fair</i>, May 2003

In case you've forgotten, Paul Wolfowitz was the intellectual architect of the war with Iraq and admitted that saving the Iraqi people was not reason enough to invade Iraq.

And, if Dubbyuh were to remain consistent with the "Deposing a brutal dictator" argument, he would take on the rest of the worlds brutal dictators. However, King Fahd has too much oil...Kim Jong Il has nukes and is crazy enough to use them...Pervez Musharaff also has nukes and would not hesitate to use them. Oh, and even though his intelligence agency helped train and finance the Taliban militias in Afghanistan, Pervez is still our good friend and ally in the "war on terror".

I'm not bashing anybody old son...I'm just reporting the facts. If you can't stand the heat, then get outta th' kitchen.

Bully unlike some French guy, we KNOW you know better. Wolfowitz hasn't and doesn't 'speak' for the administration. Rice, yes. Powell, yes. Rummy, yes. Cheney, yes. But most of all, Bush speaks for Bush. He did, SOTU and UN addresses.

 

[dilloduck]

What leads you to believe that Bush is finished deposing brutal dictators, Bully?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully unlike some French guy, we KNOW you know better. Wolfowitz hasn't and doesn't 'speak' for the administration. Rice, yes. Powell, yes. Rummy, yes. Cheney, yes. But most of all, Bush speaks for Bush. He did, SOTU and UN addresses.

Paul Wolfowitz spoke as Deputy Secretary of Defense...He did speak for the administration. And as far as SOTU and the Un address, He got it wrong both times. Time and time again, Dubbyuh and his merry band asserted:

1. We tried diplomacy and it had failed.

2. War was the only option.

3. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, in large quantities and forward deployed to be used on our troops.

4.Saddam Hussein either already had nuclear (<i>NOT "nukyular"</i>) weapons, or was in the process of developing them.

5. Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda and, at least, indirectly involved in 9/11.

6. Saddam Hussein and his WMD were an immediate threat to the US, which is why UN inspectors could be given no more time.

To this very day, no credible evidence to support any of the above reasons has been found.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What leads you to believe that Bush is finished deposing brutal dictators, Bully?

America will be bankrupted by Iraq, so he won't be able to. He hasn't got the guts to go after a hard target anyways. THe DIA and CIA already wargamed pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, the results weren't good.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, are you that dead certain that this war is strictly about the WMD's? Good to see you have a passion for what you believe but it sure seems pretty one way to me. Wolfowitz, what makes him the final say here? For that matter what makes his word anymore believable? Next thing you know we will hear you carrying on that it was all about the oil, right?

So, you don't believe Paul Wolfowitz? Deputy Secretary of Defense for George W. Bush? Are you implying that a member of the Bush administration is engaging in prevarication? Forshame! Your conservative credentials are slipping if you don't unquestioningly believe everything that comes from the Administration!