"Support the Troops"

[maineman]

as I said, not surprised you dismiss the links

you were the one that said that the 9/11 commission reported an alliance between Saddam and Osama.... and you have yet to provide a quote from the commission report that would support that allegation.

I am not surprised that you have been unable to do so.

 

[red states rule]

you were the one that said that the 9/11 commission reported an alliance between Saddam and Osama.... and you have yet to provide a quote from the commission report that would support that allegation.

I am not surprised that you have been unable to do so.

not according to Lee Hamilton, the Vice Chair of the Commission

 

[maineman]

not according to Lee Hamilton, the Vice Chair of the Commission

if you had an actual quote from commission that stated an alliance between Saddam and OBL, one wonders why you have not presented it, given your proven skills at cutting and pasting the words of others.

 

[red states rule]

if you had an actual quote from commission that stated an alliance between Saddam and OBL, one wonders why you have not presented it, given your proven skills at cutting and pasting the words of others.

Just letting you bellow how Saddam was an innocent bystander when it came to terrorist acts, terrorism, and al Qaeda

Once again I see where you ignored the comments of NY Times reporter John Burns on what will happen if the Dems force the troops out of Iraq

Once again, not surprising

 

[maineman]

Just letting you bellow how Saddam was an innocent bystander when it came to terrorist acts, terrorism, and al Qaeda

Once again I see where you ignored the comments of NY Times reporter John Burns on what will happen if the Dems force the troops out of Iraq

Once again, not surprising

you were the one who made a claim concerning the 9/11 Commission.

I am waiting for you to substantiate it.

I have never said that Saddam was innocent of anything other than complicity with Osama - a man whose organizational goals included the destruction of Saddam's very regime.

You say that the 9/11 Commission says otherwise. You are the master of cut and paste.... why have you been unable to cut and paste that section from the 9/11 Commission report that proves your statement?

 

[red states rule]

you were the one who made a claim concerning the 9/11 Commission.

I am waiting for you to substantiate it.

I have never said that Saddam was innocent of anything other than complicity with Osama - a man whose organizational goals included the destruction of Saddam's very regime.

You say that the 9/11 Commission says otherwise. You are the master of cut and paste.... why have you been unable to cut and paste that section from the 9/11 Commission report that proves your statement?

I have posted two so far - and you said you read the report

I still have the statement from Lee Hamiliton -and you will ignore that one as well

Libs have painted Saddam as contained, no threat to anyone, and at leats he maintained order in the streets



and as far the topic of the thread............


INVITING ATTACK
By RALPH PETERS


March 30, 2007 -- SEIZED illegally, 15 British sailors and Royal Marines are hostages in Iran. Thanks, Speaker Pelosi.
It’s amazing that Big Mediahasn’t made the obvious connection between the congressional Democrats long- promised move to hand over the keys to Iraq to al Qaeda and the decision by Iranian hardliners to bolster their position within Iran by grabbing those Brits.

The Iranians didn’t even wait for the final vote count. The rhetoric in the wake of the turnover in Congress was sufficient to convince them that Washington is ready to bail out of Iraq. The extremists in Tehran want to push us out of the Persian Gulf, as well.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his faction have been losing ground internally, but they hope a confrontation with the West will unite the people of Iran behind them. The Revolutionary Guards weren’t ready to take on U.S. forces directly, but they felt confident they could get away with grabbing Brits - and so far, they’ve been proven right.

Iran’s hardliners watch our actions closely. Sometimes they read the smoke signals correctly, sometimes they don’t. They calculated that Prime Minister Tony Blair is now so weak that he wouldn’t dare retaliate. Furthermore, they figured that the Bush administration has been pushed onto the defensive by Congress and wouldn’t move to aid our main ally.

What the coming days will hold depends upon the political algebra in Tehran and London, Washington and Baghdad, Brussels and even Moscow.

But the one thing that cannot be disputed is that, without the congressional moves to impose a withdrawal date for U.S. forces in Iraq, the Iranian regime would never have grown so bold. In Middle Eastern warfare, a classic tactic has been to retreat in the face of strength, but to attack when your enemy withdraws or shows signs of weakness. That is exactly what the Iranians are doing.

They’re doing something else, too: trying to drive an ever-deeper wedge between Shias and the West. Iran’s extremists portray the Great Satan America and our allies as the implacable foes of the Shia. But ever-fewer Iranian Shias buy it: Their lives have been ravaged by their own regime, not by satellite broadcasts of “Desperate Housewives.”

But the Tehran tyrants have had more success on the parallel track: Convincing Westerners that all Shias are our enemies. This, in turn, makes it easier for Washington pols and lobbyists who’ve been bought by Saudi money to make the case that we should re-embrace the Sunni Arab dictators and demagogues who led us down the path to 9/11.

The Dems on Capitol Hill pretend that setting a deadline for a troop withdrawal won’t even have serious consequences in Iraq. Yet the reverberations are already ringing through the entire region. Not only do Iran’s worst fanatics feel emboldened, but the Saudis whom President Bush has been trying to hug anew treat us like beggars.

Speaking to the assembled leaders of the Arab world this week, King Abdullah declared that the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is “illegitimate.” Abdullah also dragged out the Palestinian issue again, damning Israel. Of course, the Saudis have always been willing to fight to the last Palestinian, while keeping the people of the West Bank and Gaza on starvation rations.

Saudi money’s always available to spread hatred, but not to build world-class universities, hospitals or industries for the Palestinians.

For good measure, our pal Abdullah deplored the violence in Darfur - for which he blamed “foreign interests,” suggesting that the aid agencies and international observers, not the Khartoum government, are to blame for the ongoing genocide. (It’s all Angelina Jolie’s fault!) Meanwhile, the Egyptian regime is reinforcing its despotism, while Syria’s looking at Lebanon and salivating again.

Back in Iraq, the Dems’ “Contract With al Qaeda” undercuts the progress our troops have been making since the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus (the Dems tossed him the keys to the car, but won’t give him money for gas). For all too many politicians, our 2008 elections are more important than the fate of our soldiers or the Iraqi people.

They’re doing all they can to guarantee failure. After a year of tragic setbacks, our new tactics in Iraq have brought real signs of progress. Ultimately, of course, that progress may come to nothing. Sunni assassins may succeed in reinvigorating the religious war with the Shia - who’ve behaved with restraint for the past few months.

Success is never guaranteed in any war.

But that’s no reason to guarantee failure. Threatening to cut off funding for our troops is simply despicable.

The Republicans in this administration made unforgivable mistakes in the Middle East.

Now the Democrats appear determined to do even graver damage. And they utterly refuse to consider the consequences of their actions.

The Pelosi-Murtha Democrats won’t even confront the likely results within Iraq if we quit prematurely. As for considering the effect their duplicitous bills and votes have on the calculations of bad actors elsewhere in the Middle East, the Dems just shut their eyes and cover their ears.

We’re in an appalling position where our enemies in Tehran, Riyadh, Khartoum and Damascus, and in al Qaeda’s compounds in Waziristan, are thinking ahead with greater clarity than our elected officials in Washington. This isn’t about politics.

It’s about the fate of hundreds of millions of human beings. It’s about our national security. It’s about the defense of civilization.

It’s about the lives of our men and women in uniform. And it’s about the 15 Brits held somewhere in Iran because the U.S. Congress signaled that there will be no penalties for attacking those who fight in freedom’s cause.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...viting_attack_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

 

[red states rule]

The 'Good War' and the 'Right War'
By Charles Krauthammer

"Our bill calls for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq so that we can focus more fully on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan."
-- Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 8

The Senate and the House have both passed bills for ending the Iraq War, or at least liquidating the American involvement in it. The resolutions, approved by the barest majorities, were underpinned by one unmistakable theme: wrong war, wrong place, distracting us from the real war that is elsewhere.

Where? In Afghanistan. The emphasis on Afghanistan echoed across the Democratic aisle in Congress from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to former admiral and now Rep. Joe Sestak. It is a staple of the three leading Democratic candidates for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. It is the constant refrain of their last presidential candidate, John Kerry, and of their current party leader, Howard Dean, who complains "we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan. That's where the real war on terror is."

Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, its comparative unimportance vis- a-vis Afghanistan is the least serious.

And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined, does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

Al-Qaeda has provided the answer many times. Osama bin Laden, the one whose presence in Afghanistan presumably makes it the central front in the war on terror, has been explicit that "the most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq." Al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has declared that Iraq "is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.''

And it's not just what al-Qaeda says, it's what al-Qaeda does. Where are they funneling the worldwide recruits for jihad? Where do all the deranged suicidists who want to die for Allah gravitate? It's no longer Afghanistan, but Iraq. That's because they recognize the greater prize.

The Democratic insistence on the primacy of Afghanistan makes no strategic sense. Instead, it reflects a sensibility. They would rather support the Afghan War because its origins are cleaner, the casus belli clearer, the moral texture of the enterprise more comfortable. Afghanistan is a war of righteous revenge and restitution, law enforcement on the grandest of scales. As senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden put it, "If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan.''

If our resources are so stretched that we have to choose one front, the Martian would choose Iraq. But that is because, unlike a majority of Democratic senators, he did not vote four years earlier to authorize the war in Iraq, a vote for which many have a guilty conscience to be now soothed retroactively by pulling out and fighting the "totally just war."

But you do not decide where to fight on the basis of history; you decide on the basis of strategic realities of the ground. You can argue about our role in creating this new front and question whether it was worth taking that risk in order to topple Saddam Hussein. But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality. Nostalgia for the "good war'' in Afghanistan is perhaps useful in encouraging anti-war Democrats to increase funding that is really needed there. But it is not an argument for abandoning Iraq.

[email protected]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/afghanistan_is_not_an_argument.html

 

[maineman]

none of your excerpts from the 9/11 commission report prove any alliance between Saddam's government in Iraq and Osama bin Laden. If you had it, you would have cut and pasted it by now....God knows you have cut and pasted a ton of other stuff.

 

[red states rule]

none of your excerpts from the 9/11 commission report prove any alliance between Saddam's government in Iraq and Osama bin Laden. If you had it, you would have cut and pasted it by now....God knows you have cut and pasted a ton of other stuff.

"There were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq, doing back clear to the early 1990's, when Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, then when he was in Afghanistan. I don't think ther's any dispute about that"

Lee Hamiliton - 9/11 Commission Vice Chair

 

[maineman]

"There were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq, doing back clear to the early 1990's, when Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, then when he was in Afghanistan. I don't think ther's any dispute about that"

Lee Hamiliton - 9/11 Commission Vice Chair

contacts?

Here's a news flash: I participated in "contacts" with the soviet union for my entire naval career.... I had dinner and drank lots of vodka with Russian KGB officers assigned to UNTSO.... the US military had "contacts" with every echelon of the soviet military for decades. There was NEVER an alliance.... there was never any assistance.

You were the one who claimed that Saddam was helping Osama bin Laden ....you were the one who claimed that the 9/11 commission report proved that cooperation. It does not. Be a big boy and just admit that.

 

[maineman]

and my guess is, that Lee Hamilton knew how to spell "THERE'S"

so perhaps you didn't actually cut and paste that quote but maybe fiddled with it a bit yourself?

 

[red states rule]

and my guess is, that Lee Hamilton knew how to spell "THERE'S"

so perhaps you didn't actually cut and paste that quote but maybe fiddled with it a bit yourself?

Opposing view: Things are looking up
Setting a deadline for withdrawal would guarantee defeat in Iraq.
By Joe Lieberman

Two months ago, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm one of our most decorated generals, David Petraeus, to take command in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus promised a fundamental overhaul of U.S. strategy — with a new plan that would at last correct the many mistakes we have made in this long and difficult war.

Since taking command, Gen. Petraeus has been true to his word. The result? Sectarian violence is down in Baghdad. The radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has fled. The Mahdi Army, which terrorized Baghdad last year, appears to be splintering. And the Iraqi government — its spine stiffened thanks to our renewed support — is taking the critical steps for political reconciliation.

Amazingly, however, just at the moment things are at last beginning to look up in Iraq, a narrow majority in Congress has decided that it's time to force our military to retreat. Rather than supporting Gen. Petraeus, they are threatening to strip him of the troops he says he needs and sabotage his strategy.

This is outrageous.

The deadline for retreat that Congress wants to impose is both arbitrary and inflexible. American troops would be forced to begin withdrawing regardless of conditions in Iraq, regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, and regardless of what impact a hasty retreat would have on America's security and credibility — in short, regardless of reality.

All of us want to bring our troops home as quickly as possible. But decisions in war should be made by our military commanders based on facts on the battlefield, not by politicians in Washington watching the polls.

There is, of course, no guarantee that Gen. Petraeus and his new strategy will succeed, but a deadline for withdrawal is a guarantee of defeat.

There is a better way. Gen. Petraeus says we should have a clear sense whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer. So let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Rather than imposing a deadline that ensures our failure, Congress should reserve judgment for now and give Gen. Petraeus and his troops a chance to succeed.

Sen. Joe Lieberman is an Independent Democrat from Connecticut

 

[maineman]

what does Lieberman's opinion have to do with your inability to correctly cut and paste the words of Lee Hamilton, or the irrelevance of those words is proving your incorrect statement that the 9/11 commission report PROVED Saddam was helping Osama?

really.... all you seem capable of doing is throwing up cut and paste smoke shields every time you are cornered.

 

[red states rule]

what does Lieberman's opinion have to do with your inability to correctly cut and paste the words of Lee Hamilton, or the irrelevance of those words is proving your incorrect statement that the 9/11 commission report PROVED Saddam was helping Osama?

really.... all you seem capable of doing is throwing up cut and paste smoke shields every time you are cornered.

That was the quoute of Mr Hamilton's quote - and of course you dismiss his statements (as with Mr Lieberman's) becuase they are the few Dems who are putting their country ahead of their party

Perhaps you should try it sometime

 

[maineman]

That was the quoute of Mr Hamilton's quote - and of course you dismiss his statements (as with Mr Lieberman's) becuase they are the few Dems who are putting their country ahead of their party

Perhaps you should try it sometime

Lieberman's article had nothing to do with Hamilton or Al Qaeda's supposed connection to Saddam. I always put my country ahead of everything...I just happen to believe that the republicans in the executive branch are driving my country over a cliff.

Hamilton's quote was misquoted by you...so it was obviously not cut and pasted..which is why I questioned whether you had fiddled with it...and regardless, it did not prove any assistance from Saddam to Al Qaeda....

will you be providing the 9/11 commission report section that does prove that assistance as you previously stated?

 

[red states rule]

Lieberman's article had nothing to do with Hamilton or Al Qaeda's supposed connection to Saddam. I always put my country ahead of everything...I just happen to believe that the republicans in the executive branch are driving my country over a cliff.

Hamilton's quote was misquoted by you...so it was obviously not cut and pasted..which is why I questioned whether you had fiddled with it...and regardless, it did not prove any assistance from Saddam to Al Qaeda....

will you be providing the 9/11 commission report section that does prove that assistance as you previously stated?

Lieberman's article shows how the Dems are losing the war for America

Try harder to put your country ahead of your party

The Ny Times has reported the same thing as Mr Hamilton

 

[maineman]

Lieberman's article shows how the Dems are losing the war for America

Try harder to put your country ahead of your party

The Ny Times has reported the same thing as Mr Hamilton

I understand what Lieberman's editorial suggests. I asked why you posted it in response to my questions about your assertions concerning th e9/11 report and the irrelevance of Lee Hamilton's statement that does not support your assertion.

When will you produce the quote from the 9/11 commission report that proves that Saddam assisted Osama bin Laden or was in any sort of alliance with him?

 

[Louie]

I Wonder What Kind Of Message I'm Sending To The Troops

By Jane Merrick
March 13, 2006 | Issue 42•11

I support the troops from the bottom of my heart. But my question is, do they know that? What if I'm somehow sending them the wrong message?

The other day I lost the magnetic yellow ribbon from my car, and I didn't even notice until my neighbor pointed it out. Just think: It could have fallen off days or even weeks before! And there I was: driving up and down all over town just as happy as you please, all but announcing, "Jane Merrick doesn't support our troops!"

I went to the gas station to buy another magnet right away, but they were sold out. So here I am without one. And the way everybody is around here, they'll talk. What if this gets back to the troops somehow?

Or take the other night when my husband and I were watching Leno. He cracked this wiseacre one-liner about the president, and it just busted Ted and me up. Then suddenly, we both trailed off and stared at each other in ominous silence. I'll admit the joke seemed harmless enough, but just imagine those poor soldiers, covered with the arid dust and sand of a foreign land, huddling for cover, engaging in pitched small-arms firefights with enemy insurgents on a daily basis. What would they think if they saw me sprawled out on the living-room sofa set, eating pretzels, cackling with irreverence at the expense of their commander in chief?

If I unwittingly sent a message to the troops that hurt their feelings, I am truly sorry. I would never knowingly make them feel that nobody back here in the homeland believed in them or thought they weren't incredibly special, which they are. I don't want to accidentally lower our troops' self-esteem, especially in a time of crisis like this. Maybe after the war is over, that may be the time to raise questions about our leaders and laugh at the TV hosts, but certainly not now. Right now, we have to think about the troops. And, even more important, the messages we may or may not be sending them.

What would the troops think about our yard? And I don't mean just about our flag. When I don't bag our leaves, am I basically saying, "To heck with you, troops"?

Are the troops aware of all the remodeling I've been doing in the basement rec room? If so, what message are they getting from that?

I read in the paper that a lot of the troops are complaining about the war, and want to come home. They're putting their lives on the line. It's my duty to support them, but I get confused. What message am I sending the troops if I read articles like that? For that matter, what kind of a message are those troops sending themselves? They are the troops, but it almost sounds like they're not supporting the troops!

I'm sorry. I didn't mean that last statement to sound anti-troops.

If the troops knew what I was thinking, what would they say? "First she has it one way, then she changes it all around"? Maybe they're saying, "Who does this lady think she is? She doesn't know what she wants! Our morale is sapped! We're losing our will to fight!" America would be defeated by Iraq, and terrorists would rule over us.

Oh gosh, no! I just want to clear up any possible misunderstandings over previous mixed messages I might have sent the troops.

I support them, and I implore them to provide me with any feedback they may have on how I might be adversely affecting their daily lives

 

[red states rule]

This is the type of good news that seldom makes it into the liberal media


Marines Save Iraqi Baby to Honor Fallen Medic
Routine Patrol Turned Into Mission to Help Sick Child
(Dec. 8) - The story of a group of Marines' quest to save a sick baby in war-torn Iraq gives some hope to humanity this holiday season.


At the center of the story is Navy medic Chris Walsh and the 1st Battalion 25th Marines. The Marines were patrolling the streets of Fallujah in June when they faced an enemy attack.

"An IED exploded immediately adjacent to Chris' vehicle, so they all piled out to chase the trigger man," said Capt. Sean Donovan.

But the Marines had a surprise encounter in their pursuit.

"And as they did so, a woman came from one of the houses calling to them that the baby was sick. So they stopped, and Chris came up and looked at the baby," Donovan said. "And this was baby Mariam, and it was immediately clear to him that this baby desperately needed care."

Baby Mariam was just 2 months old and suffering from a rare intestinal abnormality. Under the threat of another attack, Walsh had to make a quick decision.

"Right on the spot, the mission changed from the trigger man to the baby girl," Donovan said.

A routine military mission suddenly became a lifesaving mission for Walsh and those around him.

"The shared willingness to engage this mission was the bravery of the family in bringing her forward," Donovan said.

Visiting Under Cover of Darkness

For the next three months, Walsh and the team made house calls under the cloak of darkness into the dangerous city to help the baby.

They were trying to get baby Mariam stabilized, taking photographs, consulting experts, and trying to get her papers to leave the country for medical care.

Staff Sgt. Ed Ewing led the visits.

"We showed up at all different times of the night," Ewing said. "They never knew when we were coming. We did that purposely to protect us and protect their family."

As months went by, the unit continued its routine patrols. On Sept. 4, tragedy struck when one of their Humvees was hit once again by an IED.

This time three men in the unit were killed -- Lance Cpl. Eric Valdepenas; Cpl. Jared Shoemaker; and Walsh, baby Mariam's guardian angel.

For those who survived, saving baby Mariam became a eulogy to their fallen comrades.

"To honor Chris, to honor the other men that died in battalion, we had to go through with the mission and keep fighting," said Father Marc Bishop.

Mission Accomplished

Eventually the Marines won their fight, and baby Mariam was granted permission to leave Iraq.

Dr. Rafael Pieretti from Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital performed the surgery, which took place in October.

"She's doing well," Pieretti said. "She's gained weight. She's socializing more. She has a different life."

On the eve of baby Mariam's arrival, Walsh's mother, Maureen, received a letter from Donovan, telling her the story of a life that was saved because of her son's big heart.

The letter from Donovan read in part: "Although he won't be visible, Chris will be very much on that patrol, the hope for Mariam's very tiny life having arisen from the charity and gallantry of your son."

Recently Maureen Walsh met baby Mariam.

"It made me feel like Chris was there," she said. "He wanted something like this. He wanted to make a difference in somebody's life."

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/marines-save-iraqi-baby-to-honor-fallen/20061208101409990001

 

[Rosotar]

I understand what Lieberman's editorial suggests. I asked why you posted it in response to my questions about your assertions concerning th e9/11 report and the irrelevance of Lee Hamilton's statement that does not support your assertion.

When will you produce the quote from the 9/11 commission report that proves that Saddam assisted Osama bin Laden or was in any sort of alliance with him?

What difference does it make?

Lieberman is a putz anyway!

Who listens to him?