By HOPE YEN - Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON(AP) The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman on Sunday dismissed criticism a resolution opposing a troop buildup in Iraq would embolden the enemy and estimated perhaps only 20 senators believe President Bush "is headed in the right direction."
"It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and White House hopeful in 2008. "It's the failed policy of this president _ going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."
COMMENT:
I read this article today and it makes me ask the question: "Why won't President Bush heed the advice of others?" Those generals in the field who spoke up and told the President they disagreed with him were replaced by those that would agree with him. Under immense pressure after this past election, he replaced Rumsfeld "the warmonger" after stating prior to the election that Rumsfeld was there to stay. It seems President Bush is "lost" himself.
I had a spot for people to post comments and as you can see that has been removed for the time being due to a very abusive posting by someone, who admittedly has a stake in this issue as he has a son who just deployed to Iraq, yet he accused me of being Anti-American when I am only exercising my constitutional right to express my opinion on all topics that would be pertinent to this blog. He accused me of supporting a candidate, Senator Obama who would cut off funds for the troops. I would like to correct the gentleman who commented, because Senator Obama has NEVER suggested denying funding for the troops already on the ground in Iraq, as to do so would put them in peril. The commentor needs to do more homework and read exactly what Senator Obama's position is on Iraq before condemning me of being Anti-American. The commentor also discussed, WITHOUT DOING HIS HOMEWORK, the FALSE story planted by a Hillary Clinton backed magazine about Senator Obama's schooling at the AGE OF 6 YEARS OLD in a supposed "terrorist" elementary school. (To show I DO do my homework, here is only one article CORRECTING what is falsly being reported on some anti-Obama blogs - OBMA SCHOOL
CNN instead did their reporting correctly, and sent reporters directly to the school Senator Obama attended and spoke directly to the headmaster who had been there when Senator Obama attended. Senator Obama attended that school for a total of 2 years, kindergarten and 1st grade, and at the time, the school was secular in nature and never ever taught extremist views and does not to this day.
People need to do their homework instead of believing "hate Obama" blogs on the internet who take the easy way by copying false reports and not investigating any further before posting this type of slander against Senator Obama.
Hate, in any form is a cancer that spreads, as in the hate between the religioius sects in Iraq. Senator Obama offers a NEW kind of politics, one where one can discuss various issues, whether you agree with them or not, in a civilized manner. The commentor who posted here would rather HATE than discuss, would rather BASH and repeat false reports than discuss anything in a civilized manner.
For this reason I will hold off allowing comments as I would rather follow the lead of an insightful candidate, and respond to civilized comments, instead of receiving hate filled statements without fact.
Now, I will in fact, stand corrected where I stated in a previous posting that 7 soldiers of the 82Airborne died on their first day in Iraq. I was writing my post while reading an article about the deaths of 7, which has since been corrected to 8 troops who died when their helicopter was shot down in Iraq on one day, 3 days prior to the death of the first casualty from the 82Airbord Division. I stand corrected sir and apologize for this error, but it is to be expected when so many of our wonderful fine soldiers, both men AND women are dying in a war that should never have begun due to the lies told by the Administration. I stand behind my statement of those lies. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Rumsfeld made the case that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and put out those false reports to instill fear in the citizens of the United States so their effort to invade Iraq would not receive critisizm. Now if you call that Anti-American, you are the one who is crazy. I support our troops and want them home but while they are in Iraq I pray for them every single day. I have volunteered countless hours on many many projects for our troops, including, Operation Phone Home, Operation Care Package, and am currently involved in a New York based group who are gathering supplies for Care packages for our troops. So don't attack me as Anti-American sir.
No, I contend it is your racial bias against Senator Obama which brings out the hate in you and you had to sling it at someone, so why not this blog? I pray your son stays safe and comes home before our President escalates it to another war in Iran.
Now if you wish to see the ACTUAL Casulty List here you go! I suggest people read blogs that actually do research and find out the FACTS insteead of those bloggers who pick up "snippits" of information and write about it without the true facts.
I attempt in each post to us FACTS that I have researched but no one can be perfect all the time. I made one error in my post regarding the 82 Airborne and you attack me for making a mistake. So be it.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
BUSH: "I'M THE DECISION MAKER"
President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday "I'm the decision-maker" about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his buildup.
I gather, President Bush didn't get the memo? The citizens of the United States made a decision in this past election. WE DON'T LIKE WHERE YOU ARE GOING MR. PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO IRAQ! Is this President so deluded that he refuses to listen to the American people, or does he believe we just don't count. That our opinions, our wishes, our votes, have no bearing on his actions? I am tired of this President IGNORING the citizens of the United States and doing as he so pleases.
It will certainly be interesting when some "truth" comes out in the Scooter Libby trial when Vice-President Cheney is forced to testify about the now known, LIES, told by the President and Vice-President in order to obtain a congressional vote to invade Iraq in the first place, making the case that Iraq had WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION, when in fact, they did NOT. Though Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, there are other brutal dictators in this world, are we to attack them all?
No my friends, the word of the day is OIL. I could make the case that the President's true motive was to gain control of the vast oil reserves that Iraq has. Instead of attacking the source of the terrorists who attacked the US on Sept 11 in Aphganistan, where Bin Ladin who has been proven to be behind the attack hides, and shoring up the troop force there and now, due to the complete lack of logistics by our President, the fertile ground in areas of Iraq that are now being used as training grounds for terrorists, he prefers to concentrate the "surge" of troops in Baghdad where he will never ever be able to understand the underlying religious conflict in that city, laying our troops open to further fatalities and injury. On the very first day the first contingent of the 82nd Airborne arrived in Iraq, 7 of the soldiers were killed on the VERY FIRST DAY they were there.
Trying to fix a problem that has existed for thousands of years can not be done and what it DOES do is present a poor reflection on the United States with other countries, emboldens those countries who have posed no threat to us at all to step up their challenge of the US, for instance Iran.
I have always believed, no matter what country, friend or foe, that talking about what we HAVE IN COMMON and building on that interaction to further talks is the better way rather than using troops. President Bush seems to think our American soldiers are his to play around with. Well Mr. President, our soldiers are not a bunch of "beans" you can sit and count and play around with. You have put us in a position of appearing "weak" by withdrawing, and by staying furthering the deaths of our troops.
I appeal to Congress to investigate what was behind the justification of sending in troops to Iraq and if found that the President lied to Congress, he should be held accountable for it.
You took on Impeachment when President Clinton lied about a "sexual dalliance" , yet you allow our current President to lie to the American people and Congress about something much more grave and of greater consequence to our country. It is time to hold him accountable for his actions.
I gather, President Bush didn't get the memo? The citizens of the United States made a decision in this past election. WE DON'T LIKE WHERE YOU ARE GOING MR. PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO IRAQ! Is this President so deluded that he refuses to listen to the American people, or does he believe we just don't count. That our opinions, our wishes, our votes, have no bearing on his actions? I am tired of this President IGNORING the citizens of the United States and doing as he so pleases.
It will certainly be interesting when some "truth" comes out in the Scooter Libby trial when Vice-President Cheney is forced to testify about the now known, LIES, told by the President and Vice-President in order to obtain a congressional vote to invade Iraq in the first place, making the case that Iraq had WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION, when in fact, they did NOT. Though Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, there are other brutal dictators in this world, are we to attack them all?
No my friends, the word of the day is OIL. I could make the case that the President's true motive was to gain control of the vast oil reserves that Iraq has. Instead of attacking the source of the terrorists who attacked the US on Sept 11 in Aphganistan, where Bin Ladin who has been proven to be behind the attack hides, and shoring up the troop force there and now, due to the complete lack of logistics by our President, the fertile ground in areas of Iraq that are now being used as training grounds for terrorists, he prefers to concentrate the "surge" of troops in Baghdad where he will never ever be able to understand the underlying religious conflict in that city, laying our troops open to further fatalities and injury. On the very first day the first contingent of the 82nd Airborne arrived in Iraq, 7 of the soldiers were killed on the VERY FIRST DAY they were there.
Trying to fix a problem that has existed for thousands of years can not be done and what it DOES do is present a poor reflection on the United States with other countries, emboldens those countries who have posed no threat to us at all to step up their challenge of the US, for instance Iran.
I have always believed, no matter what country, friend or foe, that talking about what we HAVE IN COMMON and building on that interaction to further talks is the better way rather than using troops. President Bush seems to think our American soldiers are his to play around with. Well Mr. President, our soldiers are not a bunch of "beans" you can sit and count and play around with. You have put us in a position of appearing "weak" by withdrawing, and by staying furthering the deaths of our troops.
I appeal to Congress to investigate what was behind the justification of sending in troops to Iraq and if found that the President lied to Congress, he should be held accountable for it.
You took on Impeachment when President Clinton lied about a "sexual dalliance" , yet you allow our current President to lie to the American people and Congress about something much more grave and of greater consequence to our country. It is time to hold him accountable for his actions.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
BUSH'S 'FOLLY' - MORE TROOPS KILLED
US Reinforcements Arrive in Baghdad, Bomb Blasts Kill Seven
By VOA News 21 January 2007
The U.S. military says 3,200 American troops from the 82nd Airborne Division have arrived in Baghdad as the first part of a military buildup to help Iraqi security forces fight sectarian violence.
The troops are to be fully operational by February first. They are the first of about 17,000 reinforcements to be sent to Baghdad as part of President Bush's controversial strategy to stabilize the city.
Violence is continuing in the capital. Police say two bomb blasts in Baghdad have killed at least seven people and wounded about 20.
The U.S. military says four more American soldiers and a Marine were killed on Saturday in Anbar province, west of the capital.
Saturday was one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since 2003.
Twelve American troops died when their helicopter crashed northeast of Baghdad.
Five American soldiers were killed in the Shi'ite holy city Karbala as militia fighters attacked a government building.
Iraqi officials said Sunday that the attackers were dressed in U.S. and Iraqi military uniforms and drove up to the building in black sports utility vehicles like those used by the Americans.
A U.S. spokesman (Brigadier General Vincent Brooks) says the attack occurred as American and Iraqi military officials were meeting to discuss security arrangements for pilgrims arriving in Karbala for a Shi'ite festival Ashura.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters
COMMENTS:
President Bush was warned by generals and many in Congress that a step-up in troops would only lead to more deaths of our military personnel. Yesterday a total of 24 American soldiers were killed in one day. The first group of soldiers sent by President Bush to SECURE BAGHDAD has only served to step UP the violence and kill more of our soldiers. The first attachment of the 82nd Airborne just arriving to beef up security suffered 7 dead on their FIRST day on arrival.
They were attacked by militants dressed up in AMERICAN uniforms and driving OFFICIAL cars. My question, where did they gain access to the American military uniform? The corruption and infiltration of militants into the ranks of both Iraqi military and the police force shows us that they can gain access to OUR military equipment and uniforms.
President Bush has absolutely no CLUE as to what is really happening and it will only serve to further increase the casualty rate of our Armed Forces. This is madness.
I also read an article today discussing the US Senate's attempt to gain full support condemning this step up of troops, yet many Republicans are hindering the process. It would be a disaster if this resolution is not approved, further giving the President the nerve to further his agenda.
Can we hold on until the Presidential Election? One hopes so, but my fear that with the "buzz" words that Bush's minions are using, they want to step up action against Iran, further engolfing our soldiers in a wider war and presenting the United States as a "warmonger" amoung our allies.
Bush goes forward at his own peril for the people of the United States will not stand for his "my way or the highway" attitude. This man is NOT FIT for office.
By VOA News 21 January 2007
The U.S. military says 3,200 American troops from the 82nd Airborne Division have arrived in Baghdad as the first part of a military buildup to help Iraqi security forces fight sectarian violence.
The troops are to be fully operational by February first. They are the first of about 17,000 reinforcements to be sent to Baghdad as part of President Bush's controversial strategy to stabilize the city.
Violence is continuing in the capital. Police say two bomb blasts in Baghdad have killed at least seven people and wounded about 20.
The U.S. military says four more American soldiers and a Marine were killed on Saturday in Anbar province, west of the capital.
Saturday was one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since 2003.
Twelve American troops died when their helicopter crashed northeast of Baghdad.
Five American soldiers were killed in the Shi'ite holy city Karbala as militia fighters attacked a government building.
Iraqi officials said Sunday that the attackers were dressed in U.S. and Iraqi military uniforms and drove up to the building in black sports utility vehicles like those used by the Americans.
A U.S. spokesman (Brigadier General Vincent Brooks) says the attack occurred as American and Iraqi military officials were meeting to discuss security arrangements for pilgrims arriving in Karbala for a Shi'ite festival Ashura.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters
COMMENTS:
President Bush was warned by generals and many in Congress that a step-up in troops would only lead to more deaths of our military personnel. Yesterday a total of 24 American soldiers were killed in one day. The first group of soldiers sent by President Bush to SECURE BAGHDAD has only served to step UP the violence and kill more of our soldiers. The first attachment of the 82nd Airborne just arriving to beef up security suffered 7 dead on their FIRST day on arrival.
They were attacked by militants dressed up in AMERICAN uniforms and driving OFFICIAL cars. My question, where did they gain access to the American military uniform? The corruption and infiltration of militants into the ranks of both Iraqi military and the police force shows us that they can gain access to OUR military equipment and uniforms.
President Bush has absolutely no CLUE as to what is really happening and it will only serve to further increase the casualty rate of our Armed Forces. This is madness.
I also read an article today discussing the US Senate's attempt to gain full support condemning this step up of troops, yet many Republicans are hindering the process. It would be a disaster if this resolution is not approved, further giving the President the nerve to further his agenda.
Can we hold on until the Presidential Election? One hopes so, but my fear that with the "buzz" words that Bush's minions are using, they want to step up action against Iran, further engolfing our soldiers in a wider war and presenting the United States as a "warmonger" amoung our allies.
Bush goes forward at his own peril for the people of the United States will not stand for his "my way or the highway" attitude. This man is NOT FIT for office.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
HILLARY CLINTON- STANCE ON IRAQ SWINGS THE WAY VOTERS ARE FEELING
In doing some research on voting records of potential candidates for the Presidency, I came across Senator Clinton's record on the Iraq war compared to her statements today on CBS News. I will post both for you and YOU decide if Senator Clinton is now backtracking on her original vote. Interesting to note also, I found a ton of NO votes on Energy saving votes which I will go into at another time which Senator Obama states is key to our independence on foreign oil in the future.
Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Bill Number: H J Res 114Issue: Military IssuesDate: 10/11/2002
Sponsor:Rep Hastert, Dennis [IL-14]
Roll Call Number: 237Joint Resolution Adopted (Senate)How members voted
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted YES.
Read statements Senator Clinton made in this general time period. (note: could find no comment made at the time of the vote by Senator Clinton)
Official Title of Legislation:H J Res 114: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:Vote to adopt a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Highlights: - Authorizes President to use United States Armed Forces against Iraq- Requires President to report to Congress no later than 48 hours after military action has started with his determination that diplomatic efforts alone could not protect U.S. national security nor enforce United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq- Requires President to submit a progress report to Congress every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution House Passage Vote: 10/10/2002: Passed: 296-133 (Roll No. 455)Senate Passage Vote: 10/11/2002: Passed: 77-23. Record Vote Number: 237Presidential Action: 10/16/2002: Signed by President. Became public law #107-243.
COMPARE THE ABOVE TO SENATOR CLINTON'S STATEMENTS TODAY:
By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, fresh from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, said today that she opposes sending more troops to Iraq and supports instead the phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Baghdad.
Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, appeared on morning television programs in making her first comments since President Bush announced plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
"I am for redeploying our troops out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq so that we can make sure that they're not in the midst of a civil war," she said on CBS' Early Show.
The senator said that Bush, in his call for U.S. troops to support Iraqi troops in stemming sectarian violence, "failed to put any leverage" on the Iraqi government.
"I don't think begging a government that has shown no willingness to make tough decisions is a strategy," she said on NBC's Today. She said Washington should threaten to cut off funds for Iraqi troops and for the protection of Iraqi leaders if they do not do make political compromises to win broad support.
She said the United States should make it clear to the Iraqi government that "we're not going to fund an army that doesn't show up half the time, that is more aligned with their sectarian position than with the national identity."
She said the Iraqi government is "waiting us out."
"They intend to do everything they can to impose a particular brand of dominance over the Sunnis, and there's no reason for the Sunni insurgency, therefore, to stop," Clinton said.
EDITORIAL NOTE: Senator Clinton belatedly makes a 2 day trip to Iraq, which Senator Obama did long ago, and now is "a seasoned World Affairs expert? Note to Senator Clinton, you didn't need to make a trip to Iraq, except for your photo "ops", to know the Iraq situation is a mess. I look at this opportunistic trip as just that. You needed photos of you in Iraq because you were sadly lacking in understanding and knowledge of what is REALLY happening over there.
One hopes you will give more in depth consideration before saying YES to the President.
YOU voted FOR the invasion, remember? An invasion that cost us in lives of our soldiers, and cost the Iraqi people, common citizens, to be engulfed in a civil war that shows no sign of abating no matter how many troops President Bush sends over there to die.
Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Bill Number: H J Res 114Issue: Military IssuesDate: 10/11/2002
Sponsor:Rep Hastert, Dennis [IL-14]
Roll Call Number: 237Joint Resolution Adopted (Senate)How members voted
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted YES.
Read statements Senator Clinton made in this general time period. (note: could find no comment made at the time of the vote by Senator Clinton)
Official Title of Legislation:H J Res 114: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:Vote to adopt a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Highlights: - Authorizes President to use United States Armed Forces against Iraq- Requires President to report to Congress no later than 48 hours after military action has started with his determination that diplomatic efforts alone could not protect U.S. national security nor enforce United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq- Requires President to submit a progress report to Congress every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution House Passage Vote: 10/10/2002: Passed: 296-133 (Roll No. 455)Senate Passage Vote: 10/11/2002: Passed: 77-23. Record Vote Number: 237Presidential Action: 10/16/2002: Signed by President. Became public law #107-243.
COMPARE THE ABOVE TO SENATOR CLINTON'S STATEMENTS TODAY:
By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, fresh from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, said today that she opposes sending more troops to Iraq and supports instead the phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Baghdad.
Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, appeared on morning television programs in making her first comments since President Bush announced plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
"I am for redeploying our troops out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq so that we can make sure that they're not in the midst of a civil war," she said on CBS' Early Show.
The senator said that Bush, in his call for U.S. troops to support Iraqi troops in stemming sectarian violence, "failed to put any leverage" on the Iraqi government.
"I don't think begging a government that has shown no willingness to make tough decisions is a strategy," she said on NBC's Today. She said Washington should threaten to cut off funds for Iraqi troops and for the protection of Iraqi leaders if they do not do make political compromises to win broad support.
She said the United States should make it clear to the Iraqi government that "we're not going to fund an army that doesn't show up half the time, that is more aligned with their sectarian position than with the national identity."
She said the Iraqi government is "waiting us out."
"They intend to do everything they can to impose a particular brand of dominance over the Sunnis, and there's no reason for the Sunni insurgency, therefore, to stop," Clinton said.
EDITORIAL NOTE: Senator Clinton belatedly makes a 2 day trip to Iraq, which Senator Obama did long ago, and now is "a seasoned World Affairs expert? Note to Senator Clinton, you didn't need to make a trip to Iraq, except for your photo "ops", to know the Iraq situation is a mess. I look at this opportunistic trip as just that. You needed photos of you in Iraq because you were sadly lacking in understanding and knowledge of what is REALLY happening over there.
One hopes you will give more in depth consideration before saying YES to the President.
YOU voted FOR the invasion, remember? An invasion that cost us in lives of our soldiers, and cost the Iraqi people, common citizens, to be engulfed in a civil war that shows no sign of abating no matter how many troops President Bush sends over there to die.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
PRESIDENT'S BUSH'S CHALLENGE
By DEB RIECHMANN - Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON(AP) President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.
Editorial comment:
Well Mr. President, prior to your announced new startegy, you had a multitude of people who had advised you and you ignored them. The generals on the ground that disagreed with your plan, you fired and you hired new generals who agreed with you. You failed to even consider the report submitted which you and congress commissioned regarding the Iraq status and NOW you demand those that critize you come up with their own plan? And if they did, would you back down and heed their recommendations and implement their plans? I doubt it sir. You have shown time and time again that you will listen to no one. Your stubborn "folly" that you know what is best to do has only brought ruin on the country of Iraq, killed sons and daughters of US citizens, and left us in the middle of a civil war in Iraq which is between RELIGIOUS SECTS and is centuries old and yet you feel YOU sir are the one to fix the problem? We are sick and tired of you forcing the citizens of the United States to follow you into a no win situation.
What a rediculous statement you made today on the radio. Before we even invaded Iraq you were warned by very experienced generals and those with knowledge of the issues, that this invasion would lock our country into a war that would have no end, yet you orchestrate your "photo op" on the carrier with you in your flight suit, over 3 years ago, stating, We Have Won!.
Sir, we have won nothing but more death and turmoil. Deterioration of a country filled with citizens who have the right to live even a poor decent life, but a right to live, yet can't even go to school without some death squad dressed up as Iraqi police officers shooting them if their papers indicate they are of a different religion then they are. It is madness over there and you dare to state that those that disagree with you should come up with a better plan. Sure, like you would say, okay, let's go with that plan. You have shown over and over and over that you will listen to no one. You call yourself the DECIDER and STAY THE COURSE and continue on sending our troops into Baghdad to be killed so you can stay there in the White House and look like you are working hard to fix the problem. WE DON'T BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY ANYMORE, Mr. President. Get It?
WASHINGTON(AP) President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.
Editorial comment:
Well Mr. President, prior to your announced new startegy, you had a multitude of people who had advised you and you ignored them. The generals on the ground that disagreed with your plan, you fired and you hired new generals who agreed with you. You failed to even consider the report submitted which you and congress commissioned regarding the Iraq status and NOW you demand those that critize you come up with their own plan? And if they did, would you back down and heed their recommendations and implement their plans? I doubt it sir. You have shown time and time again that you will listen to no one. Your stubborn "folly" that you know what is best to do has only brought ruin on the country of Iraq, killed sons and daughters of US citizens, and left us in the middle of a civil war in Iraq which is between RELIGIOUS SECTS and is centuries old and yet you feel YOU sir are the one to fix the problem? We are sick and tired of you forcing the citizens of the United States to follow you into a no win situation.
What a rediculous statement you made today on the radio. Before we even invaded Iraq you were warned by very experienced generals and those with knowledge of the issues, that this invasion would lock our country into a war that would have no end, yet you orchestrate your "photo op" on the carrier with you in your flight suit, over 3 years ago, stating, We Have Won!.
Sir, we have won nothing but more death and turmoil. Deterioration of a country filled with citizens who have the right to live even a poor decent life, but a right to live, yet can't even go to school without some death squad dressed up as Iraqi police officers shooting them if their papers indicate they are of a different religion then they are. It is madness over there and you dare to state that those that disagree with you should come up with a better plan. Sure, like you would say, okay, let's go with that plan. You have shown over and over and over that you will listen to no one. You call yourself the DECIDER and STAY THE COURSE and continue on sending our troops into Baghdad to be killed so you can stay there in the White House and look like you are working hard to fix the problem. WE DON'T BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY ANYMORE, Mr. President. Get It?
HILLARY CLINTON IN IRAQ
While people on the Network news shows wondered why Hillary Clinton was not in the all important committee session in the Senate on the situation in Iraq, it was discovered that Hillary Clinton was on a plane on her way to Iraq.
I don't quarrel with Senators and Representatives going to Iraq to discover for themselves what the situation is or to ask questions while there, and certainly Mrs. Clinton, with her most obvious weakness of lack of knowledge of World affairs, should at least make one visit, I find it to be too "contrived". It allows her to then come back after spending only 2 days there and proclaim her knowledge of what is really going on there. There is absolutely no way she can truly examine the multitude of issues facing Iraq in 2 days. She will listen to those who are running the government, and as you will discover in our other blog, Letters from Iraq (see sidebar)
there is absolutely no way she can speak as even a quasi-expert on the issue. It is convenient that she would finally make a trip to Iraq after her 6 years in the Senate and voted FOR the war, and never having gone there before to see IF HER VOTE was valid. She did not bother to make the trip until the latest action by President Bush. This will give her some "talking points" in her election bid for President and her staff and she can claim she NOW has International experience. 2 days in Iraq does not an expert make, Mrs. Clinton.
The situation in Iraq was created by the invasion of American troops directed by President Bush without consideration for the thousands of years of history regarding the different religious sects and what affect the downfall of Saddam Hussein would have on the different religious sects. The disarray in Iraq at this time, well, let's call it what it is, a civil war is built on mistrust, and thousands of years of struggle by the different religious sects who now each look to gain control. An army can not control that. An army can't control the "fake" police patrols who stop people in the streets, ask for their papers, and if they are the wrong religious sect, they are shot on the spot.
The corruption that is raging in Iraq with the dollars being shoveled into the country by the US will not be brought under control by an additional 20,000 troops.
Mrs Clinton needs to come back home and do her job. We New Yorkers want her in congress working to fight this step up in troops. She missed an extremely important investigative session, therefore, we New Yorkers were not represented in a key debate.
I don't quarrel with Senators and Representatives going to Iraq to discover for themselves what the situation is or to ask questions while there, and certainly Mrs. Clinton, with her most obvious weakness of lack of knowledge of World affairs, should at least make one visit, I find it to be too "contrived". It allows her to then come back after spending only 2 days there and proclaim her knowledge of what is really going on there. There is absolutely no way she can truly examine the multitude of issues facing Iraq in 2 days. She will listen to those who are running the government, and as you will discover in our other blog, Letters from Iraq (see sidebar)
there is absolutely no way she can speak as even a quasi-expert on the issue. It is convenient that she would finally make a trip to Iraq after her 6 years in the Senate and voted FOR the war, and never having gone there before to see IF HER VOTE was valid. She did not bother to make the trip until the latest action by President Bush. This will give her some "talking points" in her election bid for President and her staff and she can claim she NOW has International experience. 2 days in Iraq does not an expert make, Mrs. Clinton.
The situation in Iraq was created by the invasion of American troops directed by President Bush without consideration for the thousands of years of history regarding the different religious sects and what affect the downfall of Saddam Hussein would have on the different religious sects. The disarray in Iraq at this time, well, let's call it what it is, a civil war is built on mistrust, and thousands of years of struggle by the different religious sects who now each look to gain control. An army can not control that. An army can't control the "fake" police patrols who stop people in the streets, ask for their papers, and if they are the wrong religious sect, they are shot on the spot.
The corruption that is raging in Iraq with the dollars being shoveled into the country by the US will not be brought under control by an additional 20,000 troops.
Mrs Clinton needs to come back home and do her job. We New Yorkers want her in congress working to fight this step up in troops. She missed an extremely important investigative session, therefore, we New Yorkers were not represented in a key debate.
Friday, January 12, 2007
CORRUPTION IN IRAQ
I have spent many hours surfing the internet to educate myself on issues I am not fully able to discuss without further documented knowledge, and in this search I have been astounded to find information that to me is the true reason for the severe problems that exist in Iraq, and it begins here in the United States. Like much of what President Bush has failed at, the expenditure of billions of dollars for failed reconstruction aid to Iraq has spawned a country in disarray, lacking much of what anyone needs to have even a bare existance, yet President Bush continues to proclaim we are making progress in that country. Yet instead of attacking the issues that the Iraqi's themselves feel are in desparate need of attention, President Bush's response is to send in more troops.
I have also been lucky enough to find blogs written by Iraqi's living currently in Iraq and read their posts in shock, realizing how little I really know about the totally ineffective, and misplaced focus of the US in that country. I will shortly be bringing to you a segment on "tales from within Iraq" as an additional blog attached to this one. Being informed is I believe the most important factor for we citizens who wait hopelessly and without the power to stop President Bush in focusing on increasing troops to Iraq, rather than fixing the problems that breed unrest in the country.
What shocked me even more was the state of financial corruption which exists in US companies given millions of dollars in contracts and their failure to complete the project for which they were paid. Here is but an example of such waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Cancer Hospital Remains Unfinished
But like every so many U.S.-initiated projects, the money to build this fancy facility would disappear when things went wrong. A year after the August 2005 groundbreaking, the project became a target for attacks, according to the company. The price tag rose from $50 million to an estimated $169.5 million. Cliff Mumm, president of the Bechtel infrastructure division, predicted that the project would fail. "It is not a good use of the government's money" to try to finish the project,” Mumm told the New York Times. "And we do not think it can be finished."
In July 2006, Bechtel was asked to withdrew from the project, which is now on hold. USAID spokesman David Snider’s cheerful spin on the stall was that the contract did not actually require the company to complete the hospital. "They are under a 'term contract,' which means their job is over when their money ends ... (so) they did complete the contract."
Iraqi officials were angry. "The pretexts given by Bechtel to the Iraqi government to justify its failure in finishing the project are untrue and unacceptable, especially the ones regarding the rise in security expenses," Sheik Abu Salam al-Saedi, a member of the Basra provincial council told the New York Times.
Asked about this comment, Bechtel spokesman Jonathan Marshall told CorpWatch that it was “irresponsible.”
“Given the many tragic deaths suffered by our subcontractors on the project and the evacuation of the area by many international aid workers “ his claim stand unchallenged,” Marshall wrote in an email response.
Deputy Minister Amar Al-Saffar charges that part of the failure traces back to Bechtel’s decision to hire a Jordanian company to oversee work by local Iraqi construction companies, instead of working directly with the Iraqis. "Our counterparts should have full faith in the Iraqi companies," Saffar told the New York Times, in July, less than four months before his kidnapping.
I have also been lucky enough to find blogs written by Iraqi's living currently in Iraq and read their posts in shock, realizing how little I really know about the totally ineffective, and misplaced focus of the US in that country. I will shortly be bringing to you a segment on "tales from within Iraq" as an additional blog attached to this one. Being informed is I believe the most important factor for we citizens who wait hopelessly and without the power to stop President Bush in focusing on increasing troops to Iraq, rather than fixing the problems that breed unrest in the country.
What shocked me even more was the state of financial corruption which exists in US companies given millions of dollars in contracts and their failure to complete the project for which they were paid. Here is but an example of such waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Cancer Hospital Remains Unfinished
First prominent among the long list of failures is the Basra Children's Hospital, which was intended as crown jewel of U.S. aid to Iraq. Instead, it has become a showcase for everything that went wrong. In August 2004, USAID awarded the $50 million contract to build the Hospital to Bechtel, a San Francisco-based engineering company, one of the largest engineering companies in the world, which has become synonymous with the building of nuclear power plants, gold mines and large projects like the new Hong Kong airport.
The idea was to create a state-of-the-art facility to treat childhood cancer, a pressing need in a city where cancer rates have skyrocketed following the first Gulf War. (Contested data link the rise in cancer to extensive U.S. use of depleted uranium weaponry in the region.)
The facility, championed by the First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, looked suspiciously like a political propaganda effort. And as with much U.S. aid, it was designed with little local consultation: the city lacked clean water and already has a leukemia ward where lack of funding means that each bed is shared by two or three children.
The hospital was planned by Project Hope, a charity headed by John P. Howe III, president of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and a Bush family friend
Project Hope had built similar hospitals in Poland and in China. Howe pushed the project after Rice and Bush invited him to visit Iraq to assess the country's healthcare system.
But like every so many U.S.-initiated projects, the money to build this fancy facility would disappear when things went wrong. A year after the August 2005 groundbreaking, the project became a target for attacks, according to the company. The price tag rose from $50 million to an estimated $169.5 million. Cliff Mumm, president of the Bechtel infrastructure division, predicted that the project would fail. "It is not a good use of the government's money" to try to finish the project,” Mumm told the New York Times. "And we do not think it can be finished."
In July 2006, Bechtel was asked to withdrew from the project, which is now on hold. USAID spokesman David Snider’s cheerful spin on the stall was that the contract did not actually require the company to complete the hospital. "They are under a 'term contract,' which means their job is over when their money ends ... (so) they did complete the contract."
Iraqi officials were angry. "The pretexts given by Bechtel to the Iraqi government to justify its failure in finishing the project are untrue and unacceptable, especially the ones regarding the rise in security expenses," Sheik Abu Salam al-Saedi, a member of the Basra provincial council told the New York Times.
Asked about this comment, Bechtel spokesman Jonathan Marshall told CorpWatch that it was “irresponsible.”
“Given the many tragic deaths suffered by our subcontractors on the project and the evacuation of the area by many international aid workers “ his claim stand unchallenged,” Marshall wrote in an email response.
Deputy Minister Amar Al-Saffar charges that part of the failure traces back to Bechtel’s decision to hire a Jordanian company to oversee work by local Iraqi construction companies, instead of working directly with the Iraqis. "Our counterparts should have full faith in the Iraqi companies," Saffar told the New York Times, in July, less than four months before his kidnapping.
Marshall agreed that a Jordanian team (Mid Contracting, Universal Hospital Services, and Hospital Design and Planning) had been awarded the sub-contract, but pointed out that the workers were mostly Iraqi.
“We could not find Iraqi firms of equal caliber for this job, although Iraqi subcontractors were, of course, employed extensively,” Marshall told CorpWatch. “Bechtel’s record of hiring Iraqi firms was exemplary. We held major conferences in Baghdad and Basra to inform and recruit Iraq partners. Over the life of the project, we hired Iraqi subcontractors to perform about 75 percent of the work. At peak, our projects employed 40,000 Iraqi workers. Bechtel also trained and employed more than 600 Iraqi nationals on its professional staff.”
Thursday, January 11, 2007
WE ARE NOT GOING TO BABYSIT A CIVIL WAR STATES BARACK OBAMA
"We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.
Senator Obama also appeared on Larry King after the President's speech last night and with deliberate and measured words disagreed with the President's proposal.
Interesting to note: Hillary Clinton has yet to be seen or heard on the subject. Perhaps her "handlers" don't wish for her to go on the record with any statements so she can't be questioned about them during her campaign for President, but as a sitting US Senator, she is wise to take a stand and make a statement. Failure to respond to a major issue such as Iraq, and failure to commit any words or comments regarding it is telling. Being from New York, I am truly disappointed in her inability to take a stand one way or the other on this major issue. Time will tell if she will take a stand, but her failure to take a stand makes it look like she is waiting to see which way "the wind blows" before making any statements of note.
If this is indicative of the way she would run a campaign or a Presidency, her hesitant or NON response is telling. She voted FOR the war in Iraq, which is surprising given her nature to "investigate" things before taking any action, it appears she did not investigate the President's motives for the war in Iraq before voting for it and gave in to pressure from a severely hurt and depressed state of citizens who were most affected by 9/11. She now is back peddling on her initial vote, but it is interesting to note not much has been heard from her of late.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
OBAMA SPEAKS
In my never ending search for interesting articles regarding Barack Obama, I came across this article written about Senator Obama which I found interesting that I would like to share with you.
The angry words and nasty implications that greet a novice entering politics could easily turn away even the most well-intentioned from public service. In an arena where empathy is hard to come by, a leader who embraces this desirable trait is likely to become a public favorite to the point of being treated like a celebrity.
A rising star in the Democratic Party favored by many to become the first black president of the United States, Illinois junior senator Barack Obama is the breath of fresh air needed to change the course of politics. By combining his diplomatic approach to controversial issues with a sense of unassuming panache, Obama has quickly become a popular favorite.Stepping onto the stage at the JFK Library in Boston to conduct a discussion with Bob Herbert of The New York Times on topics of national interest in addition to his political future, the first words out of Obama’s mouth were an apology for his lateness due to the terrible weather. Since apologies from politicians are few and far between, Obama’s sincerity struck a chord with many of the audience of media members and concerned citizens.
Herbert launched into a discussion of the Iraq war, eager to hear Obama’s presumably negative thoughts on the subject. Instead, Obama spoke against the war in Iraq but for the war in Afghanistan, saying, “The war was not based on fact, but rather ideology.” He pointed out that “the burden of this war has been borne by a small group, which is why we went there ... had there been a draft, we would not have launched this war.” Contemplating the truth of his words, the room fell eerily silent.It became apparent that Obama is dissatisfied with the idea of fame, admitting, “It’s a bit much ... stuff that feeds the ego is less satisfying as time goes on.” Instead, he said, he gets satisfaction from doing his job, whether his endeavors are successful or not. “People want substantive responses to the challenges we face. It’s not enough for Democrats to say, ‘We’re not Bush,’” he pointed out.
Obama spoke briefly about the need to address the issue of 46 million Americans without health insurance, the need for a better energy policy, and the importance of improving the education system in order to motivate students. He strongly believes that there is a middle ground on these topics on which people from both parties can agree, and he is interested in finding it.With the hype that follows Obama, rumors of a run for the presidency in 2008 have surfaced. When Herbert introduced the topic, Obama responded by speaking of how demanding and time-consuming the job is. As he diplomatically pointed out that a successful president must make enormous sacrifices to serve the people, it became apparent that this is a topic he refuses to take lightly; after all, “If you want to go into public service, you want to have influence.” So, Herbert asked, could he see himself making the sacrifices necessary to be president? Obama responded “Sure,” an answer that garnered thunderous applause.
Unlike the cynical attitude that greets most politicians who yearn for a presidential run, Obama has proven to have the fresh ideas necessary for bringing change to the White House. During his brief time in the Senate, Barack Obama has helped pass measures in favor of ethics reform, helped Illinois veterans collect disability pay, and worked against America’s dependency on oil. He has proven through words and actions that he is willing to do whatever is necessary for him to best serve. A politician who tries to see both sides of an argument, listens to the opinions of the public, and takes responsibility for his power - who knew? "
I gather I am not alone in my instincts when it comes to Barack Obama. Senator Obama is a thoughtful, interesting man, one who thinks about a problem, and will LISTEN to others, something our current President doesn't feel he needs to do. Despite the wishes of 80% of the country, and the disapproval of both sides in congress, President Bush continues to insist on stepping up troops in Iraq. It is frustrating to me and I would hazard a guess frustating to millions of other citizens that the President of the United States wields his power without hesitation, failing to hear the people, or doesn't care to hear them.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
MR. PRESIDENT - NO MORE TROOPS!
Here is a reminder Mr. President of the cost of your "folly"
I'll Do What I Want, When I want, Let the next guy fix it"By LOLITA C. BALDOR - Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON(AP) A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under President Bush's new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. Congressional Democrats kept up their criticism of plans to add soldiers in the unpopular conflict.
Up to 20,000 troops will be put on alert and be prepared to deploy under the president's plan, but the increase in forces on the ground will be gradual, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced.
Details were emerging a day before Bush was to address the nation on his broad initiative to shore up the fragile country after nearly four years of bloodshed. Bush is expected to link the troop increase to moves by the Iraqi government to ease the country's murderous sectarian tensions, and to increased U.S. economic aid.
Moving first into Iraq would be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is in Kuwait and poised to move quickly into the country, the defense official said.
Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expects Bush to announce that up to 20,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq but not to say how long the extra forces will be there.
Levin, who spoke to reporters a day after meeting with White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, said he believes Bush will signal that the overall U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.
Bush is expected to link the troop increase to promised moves by the Iraqi government such as curbing Shiite militias that have terrorized the Sunni minority, enacting a plan to distribute oil revenue to the country's sects and easing government restrictions on members of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's Baath Party."
WASHINGTON(AP) A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under President Bush's new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. Congressional Democrats kept up their criticism of plans to add soldiers in the unpopular conflict.
Up to 20,000 troops will be put on alert and be prepared to deploy under the president's plan, but the increase in forces on the ground will be gradual, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced.
Details were emerging a day before Bush was to address the nation on his broad initiative to shore up the fragile country after nearly four years of bloodshed. Bush is expected to link the troop increase to moves by the Iraqi government to ease the country's murderous sectarian tensions, and to increased U.S. economic aid.
Moving first into Iraq would be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is in Kuwait and poised to move quickly into the country, the defense official said.
Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expects Bush to announce that up to 20,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq but not to say how long the extra forces will be there.
Levin, who spoke to reporters a day after meeting with White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, said he believes Bush will signal that the overall U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.
Bush is expected to link the troop increase to promised moves by the Iraqi government such as curbing Shiite militias that have terrorized the Sunni minority, enacting a plan to distribute oil revenue to the country's sects and easing government restrictions on members of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's Baath Party."
It appears President Bush just does not get it! It is hoped that Congress puts a stop to this "folly" of the President's. Mr. President, a reminder, only 12% of the country are behind you and no speech is going to change our minds. Ignoring the citizens of this country shows your true arrogance in your astounding ability to ignore the wishes of the people. A reminder: YOU WORK FOR US!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
