Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/1/2006 6:57:31 AM EDT
How Democrats are aiding the enemy.

A young Egyptian or Saudi man is thinking of joining the Jihad.
Hears these statements on Aljezera.
American forces are the enemy and should be removed.
We need to statically with draw.
American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi woman and children.
The idea that America can win in Iraqi is wrong.


An Iraqi shopkeeper learns that a carb is being built next door. He is thinking about telling the Americans. He turns on CNN and hears Democrats say
American forces are the enemy and should be removed.
We need to statically with draw.
American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi woman and children.
The idea that America can win in Iraqi is wrong.
He then thinks of his wife and young children.


A Jordanian insurgent fighter sees Iraqis voting. He knows more and more Iraqi men are joining the new army. Slowly a new Iraqi is emerging. But on American’s CBS, ABC and NBC he hear national leaders saying.
American forces are the enemy and should be removed.
We need to statically with draw.
American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi woman and children.
The idea that America can win in Iraqi is wrong.

An important part of winning a war is to break the enemies will to fight.
Who’s will to fight are the Democrats trying to break?
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:20:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bkj:
How Democrats are aiding the enemy.

A young Egyptian or Saudi man is thinking of joining the Jihad.
Hears these statements on Aljezera.
American forces are the enemy and should be removed.
We need to statically with draw.
American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi woman and children.
The idea that America can win in Iraqi is wrong.


An Iraqi shopkeeper learns that a carb is being built next door. He is thinking about telling the Americans. He turns on CNN and hears Democrats say
American forces are the enemy and should be removed.
We need to statically with draw.
American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi woman and children.
The idea that America can win in Iraqi is wrong.
He then thinks of his wife and young children.


A Jordanian insurgent fighter sees Iraqis voting. He knows more and more Iraqi men are joining the new army. Slowly a new Iraqi is emerging. But on American’s CBS, ABC and NBC he hear national leaders saying.
American forces are the enemy and should be removed.
We need to statically with draw.
American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi woman and children.
The idea that America can win in Iraqi is wrong.

An important part of winning a war is to break the enemies will to fight.
Who’s will to fight are the Democrats trying to break?




+1

Dems suck
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 6:05:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 10:41:15 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]
+ 1000, any and all dissent must be silenced, by any means necessary.

Disclaimer: The above was written facetiously, I completely disagree with the assertion that anyones rights should ever be trampled on.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:01:42 PM EDT
I do not want to silence all opposition. But politicians and party leaders have a responsibility to not harm the nation. The British use the term loyal opposition. The Democrats seam to want use to loose.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:05:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 9:07:58 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
What about the Republicans?

Take it none of you caught this article in the Washington Post (conviently displayed on the front page of their final 2005 issue):

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001480_pf.html

The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail
Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A01



The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.

During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners would not identify the money's origins.

Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).

The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.

A spokesman for DeLay, who is fighting in a Texas state court unrelated charges of illegal fundraising, denied that the contributions influenced the former House majority leader's political activities. The Russian energy executives who worked with Abramoff denied yesterday knowing anything about the million-dollar London transaction described in tax documents.

Whatever the real motive for the contribution of $1 million -- a sum not prohibited by law but extraordinary for a small, nonprofit group -- the steady stream of corporate payments detailed on the donor list makes it clear that Abramoff's long-standing alliance with DeLay was sealed by a much more extensive web of financial ties than previously known.

Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group's avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative "moral fitness" agenda that was the group's professed aim.

In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, half a million dollars was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners -- with Abramoff's help -- solicited and received DeLay's public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997.

A quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff's largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue.

The records, other documents and interviews call into question the very purpose of the U.S. Family Network, which functioned mostly by collecting funds from domestic and foreign businesses whose interests coincided with DeLay's activities while he was serving as House majority whip from 1995 to 2002, and as majority leader from 2002 until the end of September.

After the group was formed in 1996, its director told the Internal Revenue Service that its goal was to advocate policies favorable for "economic growth and prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness, and the general well-being of the United States." DeLay, in a 1999 fundraising letter, called the group "a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control" by mobilizing grass-roots citizen support.

But the records show that the tiny U.S. Family Network, which never had more than one full-time staff member, spent comparatively little money on public advocacy or education projects. Although established as a nonprofit organization, it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to Buckham and his lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group.

There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, has said that the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers' favorite charities, and that it was appropriate under House rules and election law.

My comment: (excuse me?, how can $3200/month for 3 years not be considered a direct financial benefit, oh I see that's because it went to his wife, yea sure, how stupid does this reporter think folks really are? Would an extra check for $3200/month for 3 years, to your wife not benefit any of the married folks around here? I wouldn't mind it, of course I suspect most of us would have a problem with "where" the money came from and the quid-pro-quo of the windfall.)

Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House."

DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the townhouse's second-floor master suite every few weeks, according to two former associates. Other rooms in the townhouse were used by Alexander Strategy Group, Buckham's newly formed lobbying firm, and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay's leadership committee.

They paid modest rent to the U.S. Family Network, which occupied a single small room in the back.

'Red Flags' on Tax Returns

Nine months before the June 25, 1998, payment of $1 million by the London law firm James & Sarch Co., as recorded in the tax forms, Buckham and DeLay were the dinner guests in Moscow of Marina Nevskaya and Alexander Koulakovsky of the oil firm Naftasib, which in promotional literature counted as its principal clients the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior.

Buckham, a graduate of the University of Tennessee, had worked for DeLay since 1995, after serving in other congressional offices and then as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscally conservative House members.

Their other dining companions were Abramoff and Washington lawyer Julius "Jay" Kaplan, whose lobbying firms collected $440,000 in 1997 and 1998 from an obscure Bahamian firm that helped organize and indirectly pay for the DeLay trip, in conjunction with the Russians. In disclosure forms, the stated purpose of the lobbying was to promote the policies of the Russian government.

Kaplan and British lawyer David Sarch had worked together previously. (Sarch died a month before the $1 million was paid.) Buckham's trip with DeLay was his second to Moscow that year for meetings with Nevskaya and Koulakovsky; on the earlier one, the DeLay aide attracted media attention by returning through Paris aboard the Concorde, a $5,500 flight.

Former Abramoff associates and documents in the hands of federal prosecutors state that Nevskaya and Koulakovsky sought Abramoff's help at the time in securing various favors from the U.S. government, including congressional earmarks or federal grants for their modular-home construction firm near Moscow and the construction of a fossil-fuel plant in Israel. None appears to have been obtained by their firm.

Former DeLay employees say Koulakovsky and Nevskaya met with him on multiple occasions. The Russians also frequently used Abramoff's skyboxes at local sports stadiums -- as did Kaplan, according to sources and a 2001 e-mail Abramoff wrote to another client.

Three sources familiar with Abramoff's activities on their behalf say that the two Russians -- who knew the head of the Russian energy giant Gazprom and had invested heavily in that firm -- partly wanted just to be seen with a prominent American politician as a way of bolstering their credibility with the Russian government and their safety on Moscow's streets. The Russian oil and gas business at the time had a Wild West character, and its executives worried about extortion and kidnapping threats. The anxieties of Nevskaya and Koulakovsky were not hidden; like many other business people, they traveled in Moscow with guards armed with machine guns.

During the DeLays' visit on Aug. 5 to 11, 1997, the congressman met with Nevskaya and was escorted around Moscow by Koulakovsky, Naftasib's general manager. DeLay told the House clerk that the trip's sponsor was the National Center for Public Policy Research, but multiple sources told The Post that his expenses were indirectly reimbursed by the Russian-connected Bahamian company.

DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said the principal reason for his Moscow trip was "to meet with religious leaders there." Nevskaya, in a letter this spring, said Naftasib's involvement in such trips was meant "to foster better understanding between our country and the United States" and denied that the firm was seeking protection through its U.S. contacts.

Nevskaya added in an e-mail yesterday that Naftasib and its officials were not representing the ministries of defense and interior or any other government agencies "in connection with meetings or other lobbying activities in Washington D.C. or Moscow."

A former Abramoff associate said the two executives "wanted to contribute to DeLay" and clearly had the resources to do it. At one point, Koulakovsky asked during a dinner in Moscow "what would happen if the DeLays woke up one morning" and found a luxury car in their front driveway, the former associate said. They were told the DeLays "would go to jail and you would go to jail."

The tax form states that the $1 million came by check on June 25, 1998, from "Nations Corp, James & Sarch co." The Washington Post checked with the listed executives of Texas and Florida firms that have names similar to Nations Corp, and they said they had no connection to any such payment.

James & Sarch Co. was dissolved in May 2000, but two former partners said they recalled hearing the names of the Russians at their office. Asked if the firm represented them, former partner Philip McGuirk at first said "it may ring a bell," but later he faxed a statement that he could say no more because confidentiality practices prevent him "from disclosing any information regarding the affairs of a client (or former client)."

Nevskaya said in the e-mail yesterday, however, that "neither Naftasib nor the principals you mentioned have ever been represented by a London law firm that you name as James & Sarch Co." She also said that Naftasib and its principals did not pay $1 million to the firm, and denied knowing about the transaction.

Two former Buckham associates said that he told them years ago not only that the $1 million donation was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives, but also that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington area airport.

One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network's director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay's vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there.

"Ed told me, 'This is the way things work in Washington,' " Geeslin said. "He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash." Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group's fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details. Buckham and his attorney, Laura Miller, did not reply to repeated requests for comment on this article.

The IMF funding legislation was a contentious issue in 1998. The Russian stock market fell steeply in April and May, and the government in Moscow announced on June 18 -- just a week before the $1 million check was sent by the London law firm -- that it needed $10 billion to $15 billion in new international loans.

House Republican leaders had expressed opposition through that spring to giving the IMF the money it could use for new bailouts, decrying what they described as previous destabilizing loans to other countries. The IMF and its Western funders, meanwhile, were pressing Moscow, as a condition of any loan, to increase taxes on major domestic oil companies such as Gazprom, which had earlier defaulted on billions of dollars in tax payments.

On Aug. 18, 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on its treasury bills. But DeLay, appearing on "Fox News Sunday" on Aug. 30 of that year, criticized the IMF financing bill, calling the replenishment of its funds "unfortunate" because the IMF was wrongly insisting on a Russian tax increase. "They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF. That's just outrageous," DeLay said.

In the end, the Russian legislature refused to raise taxes, the IMF agreed to lend the money anyway, and DeLay voted on Sept. 17, 1998, for a foreign aid bill containing new funds to replenish the IMF account. DeLay's spokesman said the lawmaker "makes decisions and sets legislative priorities based on good policy and what is best for his constituents and the country." He added: "Mr. DeLay has very firm beliefs, and he fights very hard for them."

Kaplan did not respond to repeated messages, and through a spokesman for lawyer Abbe Lowell, Abramoff declined to comment.

No legal bar exists to a $1 million donation by a foreign entity to a group such as the U.S. Family Network, according to Marcus Owens, a Washington lawyer who directed the IRS's office of tax-exempt organizations from 1990 to 2000 and who reviewed, at The Post's request, the tax returns filed by the U.S. Family Network.

But "a million dollars is a staggering amount of money to come from a foreign source" because such a donor would not be entitled to claim the tax deduction allowed for U.S. citizens, Owens said. "Giving large donations to an organization whose purposes are as ambiguous as these . . . is extraordinary. I haven't seen that before. It suggests something else is going on.

"There are any number of red flags on these returns."

Hailing Indian Tribe's Hiring of Lobbyists

Buckham and Tony Rudy were the first DeLay staff members to visit the Choctaw Reservation near Meridian, Miss., where the tribe built a 500-room hotel and a 90,000-square-foot gambling casino. Their trip from March 25 to 27, 1997, cost the Choctaws $3,000, according to statements filed with the House clerk.

DeLay, his wife and Susan Hirschman -- Buckham's successor in 1998 as chief of staff -- were the next to go. Their trip from July 31 to Aug. 2, 1998, was described on House disclosure forms as a "site review and reservation tour for charitable event," and the forms said it cost the Choctaws $6,935.

Buckham, who was then a lobbyist, arranged DeLay's trip, which included a visit to the tribe's golf course to assess it as a possible location for the lawmaker's annual charity tournament, according to a tribal source. Abramoff told the tribe he could not accompany DeLay because of a prior commitment, the source said.

One day after the DeLays departed for Washington, the U.S. Family Network registered an initial $150,000 payment made by the Choctaws, according to its tax return. The tribe made additional payments to the group totaling $100,000 on "various" dates the following year, the returns state. The Choctaws separately paid Abramoff $4.5 million for his lobbying work on their behalf in 1998 and 1999. Abramoff and his wife contributed $22,000 to DeLay's political campaigns from 1997 to 2000, according to public records.

A former Abramoff associate who is aware of the payments, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his clients, said the tribe made contributions to entities associated with DeLay because DeLay was crucial to the tribe's continuing fight against legislation to allow the taxation of Indians' gambling revenue.

An attorney for the tribe, Bryant Rogers, said the funds were meant not only to "get the message out" about the adverse tax law proposals but also to finance a campaign by Buckham's group within "the conservative base" against legislation to strip tribes of their control over Indian adoptions. "This was a group connected to the right-wing Christian movement," Rogers said. "This is Ed Buckham's connection."

In March 1999, after the tribe had paid a substantial sum directly to the U.S. Family Network, Buckham expressed his general gratitude to Abramoff in an e-mail. "I really appreciate you going to bat for us. Remember it is the first bit of money that is always the hardest, but means the most," Buckham said, according to a copy. He added: "Pray for God's wisdom. I really believe this is supposed to be what we are doing to save our team."

During this period, a fundraising letter on the U.S. Family Network stationery was sent to residents of Alabama, announcing a petition drive to promote a cause of interest to Abramoff's Indian gambling clients in Mississippi and Louisiana, including the Choctaw casino that drew many customers from Alabama: the blocking of a rival casino proposed by the Poarch Creek Indians on their land in Alabama.

"The American family is under attack from all sides: crime, drugs, pornography, and one of the least talked about but equally as destructive -- gambling," said the group's letter, which was signed by then-Rep. Bob Riley (R), now the Alabama governor. "We need your help today . . . to prevent the Poarch Creek Indians from building casinos in Alabama."

Asked about the letter, Rogers said "none of us have seen" it and "the tribe's contributions have nothing to do with it." A spokesman for Riley said that he could not recall the circumstances behind the letter, but that he has long opposed any expansion of gambling in Alabama.

DeLay, meanwhile, saluted Choctaw chief Philip Martin in the Congressional Record on Jan. 3, 2001, citing "all he has done to further the cause of freedom." DeLay also attached to his remarks an editorial that hailed the tribe's gambling income and its "hiring [of] quality lobbyists."

Throughout this period, the U.S. Family Network was paying a monthly fee of at least $10,000 to Buckham and Alexander Strategy Group for general "consulting," according to a former Buckham associate and a copy of the contract. While DeLay's wife drew a monthly salary from the lobbying firm, she did not work at its offices in the townhouse on Capitol Hill, according to former Buckham associates.

Neither the House nor the Federal Election Commission bars the payment of corporate funds to spouses through consulting firms or political action committees, but the spouses must perform real work for reasonable wages.

"Anytime you [as a congressman] hire your child or spouse, it raises questions as to whether this is a throwback to the time when people used campaigns and government jobs to enrich their families," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group, and a former general counsel of the FEC.

Research editor Lucy Shackelford; researchers Alice Crites, Madonna Lebling, Karl Evanzz and Meg Smith; and research database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

And if that ain't bad enough, check out this explaination of some of the details of the above article here:

www.tompaine.com/articles/20060104/to_russia_love_tom_delay.php

To Russia, Love Tom DeLay
Russ Baker
January 04, 2006

Investigative reporter and essayist Russ Baker is a longtime contributor to TomPaine.com. He is the founder of the Real News Project, a new organization dedicated to producing groundbreaking investigative journalism. He can be reached at russ@russbaker.com.

Once in a very long time, a scandal comes along that seems to capture the essence of our times. I’d say that scandal appeared on Saturday, when most of us were too busy getting out the honkers and the booze to notice.

Here’s the crux: Was the Republican leader Tom DeLay working on behalf of Russians against the American public interest—and being compensated for it?

That’s a pretty strong accusation, but unless I read my Washington Post wrong, that is exactly what was alleged in a front page story that appeared on Saturday, the last day of 2005, and therefore may escape proper notice. The article is even easier to miss because of the mundane “more of the same” headline above it: " The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail : Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist."

First, some background. Tuesday, as the world knows by now, Jack Abramoff, the powerful Republican lobbyist and major DeLay associate, pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion charges, agreeing to cooperate in a federal corruption probe in Washington. He faces up to 11 years in federal prison and must pay $26.7 million in restitution.

For many months, we’ve been hearing stories about Abramoff’s shakedowns and indiscreet e-mails mocking Indian tribal leaders and other outrages, many of them with DeLay at the periphery or more directly involved.

The problem with these stories—which range from machinations over gambling licenses and Pacific island sweatshops to golfing junkets in Scotland—is that they are complicated, seemingly obscure and center on figures like Abramoff, who, while important, is merely an enabler of a larger and more troubling reality: How Republicans inside and outside of the Congress are subverting democracy itself, with public funds going to advance the personal interests of a small set of powerful Americans.

The figures that really matter in this story are bigger fish—among them DeLay, the architect and de facto leader of the corporate takeover of Congress under cover of a social revolution.

That’s why the Post story should be one of the biggest stories of the new year, even if it got lost on the last day of the old one. It needed to be published on another day, and it needed to be told differently. So, here’s a stab at capturing what I see as most important about it.

Cumulatively, a careful reader comes away with the following conclusion: DeLay was essentially being bribed by Russians. Specifically, a phony nonprofit set up by DeLay’s former top aide was used to transfer monies from powerful Russians to DeLay, in return for his influencing legislation that could direct U.S. taxpayer money into their pockets. The Russians, working through super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, put up most of the $2.5 million “contributions” that funneled through the outfit.

DeLay got free international trips and fancy free office space in a secret townhouse, and his wife got paid a sizable monthly salary for doing nothing. Meantime, the nonprofit presented itself to the public as devoted to promoting family values, and ran ads attacking Democrats.

Monies were passed from Russian oil and gas executives working with Abramoff through a now-defunct London law firm and an obscure Bahamian company into an outfit, set up by former DeLay Chief of Staff Ed Buckham, masquerading as a grassroots advocacy group on family values. The group, the U.S. Family Network, existed for five years, but apparently did little or nothing on family issues, though it actually had the temerity to send out fundraising letters to the public, warning that “the American family is under attack from all sides: crime, drugs, pornography, and… gambling.” It also paid for ads attacking vulnerable Democratic candidates.

But what it was really doing, according to the article, was influencing DeLay to support legislation favorable to wealthy Russians—with the bill paid for by American taxpayers. DeLay traveled to Moscow in 1997 and spent time with the Russians, though he claimed to the House clerk that another nonprofit paid for it and that he was in that country to “meet with religious leaders there.”

Probably the most incendiary material in the Post story was buried, beginning in paragraph 32. The former president of the U.S. Family Network, a pastor no less, actually says that Buckham explained to him in 1999 that a $1 million payment passed through to the organization was intended specifically to influence DeLay's 1998 vote on a bill that enabled the International Monetary Fund to use U.S. taxpayer monies, in part, to bail out the Russian economy and specific wealthy Russian investors involved with the scheme.

"Ed told me, 'This is the way things work in Washington,' " [Pastor Christopher] Geeslin said. "He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash." Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group's fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details.

Tom DeLay and his cronies appear to have been accepting what amounted to bribes from Russians with connections to the Yeltsin-Putin regimes who wanted U.S. taxpayer monies to keep flowing to benefit them. They laundered the money, and, worse, did it through a nonprofit organization, which, in turn, claimed to be established to fight the decline in moral standards in America. Even more appalling, while this phony charity was doing this mercenary work, it was hitting up naïve members of DeLay’s political base for contributions.

The fine print is equally tawdry. Mrs. DeLay’s salary of “at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed” (that’s a total of at least $115,200) was supposedly in compensation for supplying Buckham with a list of "lawmakers’ favorite charities."
The Post mentions this only briefly, and with a straight face. But the transparent ridiculousness of this on so many levels offers a bounty for journalists who pursue it.

How better to capture the brazen hypocrisy of all this than through tabloid-style headlines:

- Revenue from the phony ‘family’ charity was used to finance radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers. So, let’s see:"Putin Buddies Paid For Attacks On Dems"

- Other funds went to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse near DeLay’s congressional office. DeLay’s guys called it “the Safe House.” So, maybe this headline: “Russian Cash Bought DeLay Safe House”

- The point man for this, DeLay’s former aide Buckham, had been executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of ‘fiscally conservative’ House members. Headline: “Fiscal Conservatives Give U.S. Money To Rich Russians”

The Russian angle is especially important, as recent developments show a growing clampdown by Putin on democracy in Russia—from arrests of political opponents to curtailment of the press—along with blatant attempts to intimidate former Soviet republics like Ukraine. This puts the so-called freedom-loving GOP leadership in bed with the least savory of the holdover Communists.

There will be many developments in the weeks ahead, now that Abramoff has cut a deal with the feds. When he begins his promised cooperation with the prosecution, he may have things to say about many other matters, including the U.S. Family Network.

But it’s important in these overwhelming times to stay focused. Ultimately, these cases are not about Jack Abramoff, a fellow most of us never even heard of until fairly recently. They are about what has happened to this country. Put simply, the American people were taken to the cleaners by a group of charlatans in the guise of faith healers who didn’t even believe in their own product.

I doubt The Washington Post would give front page play to such a story—or have assigned a reporter with experience covering national security—if this was not the big one.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce you to RussiaGate?

Personally this kind of BS makes me despise anyone in office or anyone stupid enough to take a side (Republican or Democrat) on any political issue. With few exceptions (Dr. Ron Paul comes to mind) most of 'em should be taken out back and done away with in a manner in which Stalin suggested and did.

Wake up bkj, there ain't a dimes worth of difference between a R or a D politician as their both screwing us, in order to line their own pockets.


Mike
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:26:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 9:32:32 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]
WOW, that is alot of text, but I have to agree with you, both parties are more than willing to screw their constituents in order to further their own agendas, neither one can claim absolute morality because they have both been involved in more underhanded things than I can count. ( And that's just the stuff that they have been caught doing, think of all the things they get away with )

In fact, i've pretty much been of the opinion from the beginning that the Iraq war itself is just another example of politicians plundering the tax payers pockets in order to get themselves and their rich buddies even more wealthy. You can bet that there are alot of people in high places making tons of money while billions are wasted and the working classes kids are killed off by the score in Iraq.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:33:14 AM EDT
Anybody who is not eductated on warfare needs to STFU. I dont want Al Franken telling me the best way to invade a country.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:43:44 AM EDT
Whaaaaa? I don't know where that came from. But I agree with you in general, but I pose to you this question, how much do you think someone who went missing from the Air National Guard really knows about fighting a war? Not ripping on anybody here, but I would venture a guess that the majority of the people making the decisions about what is and isn't going down in Iraq have no real miltary experience whatsoever. At least when Al Franken makes a decision, the lives of American boys don't hang in the balance.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 10:21:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 10:23:19 AM EDT by Signal_SAW_gunner]
Okay, here's my .02


While President Bush is the Commander in Chief of our (U.S.) Military, he does not make the day to day decisions on the ground. Those decisions (while shaped by official policy and established Military Doctrine) are being made by the fine Non-Commissioned Officer corps. and their immediate Commissioned Officer counterparts.

It is a fact of war that men will bleed and die. Such is human frailty. To assume that wars may be prosecuted in a completely bloodless and consequence free manner, is to deny reality and speaks volumes for the individual's mental state, and suggests an underlying cancer in the moral fiber of society at large.

again, just my .02

EDIT: Speaking from personal experience as a Veteran of the current war in Iraq, a 13 month tour near the DMZ in the ROK, and over 7 years as an enlisted man in the United States Army.
HOOAH!
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 10:35:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 10:37:27 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]
SSG, i'd be interestd to know what your perspective is on the validity of the invasion, having been there and seen the beast so to say. Do you feel that the men and money expended have been and will be worth it? In your mind, what was the reason that you were there, and was it a good one? What about the rest of the guys, what is the general consensus from them?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:24:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 3:30:25 PM EDT by IceHandLuke]

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
SSG, i'd be interestd to know what your perspective is on the validity of the invasion, having been there and seen the beast so to say. Do you feel that the men and money expended have been and will be worth it? In your mind, what was the reason that you were there, and was it a good one? What about the rest of the guys, what is the general consensus from them?



What will the price tag be when we roll into Iran or Syria? Should money be an issue when we make a call to go to war? I don’t think the war has gone well but what war has gone well? The stuff we are talking about now was the exact same thing that was said during the US Civil War. The north wanted to pull out many many times and people in the north did not want war. But the president stood firm and history has shown he was right. Lincoln was hated pretty much by the north and south for years and years after the war. Lincoln sent troops to drag a member of congress from Ohio in chains back to DC for what he was saying and the US exciled him to Canada. If the actions of Lincoln did not take place could it be said that people would be as free as they are today?

I we do not make a move on Iran soon things will only get worse before they get better.

people can say what they want. Its the best way to find out who is on what side. I sir, think you and people like you want us to fail in Iraq and use a mans death in war as some prop for your twisted logic.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:51:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 3:58:13 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
I think that if Bush was dead set on invading someone, then we would have been far better off going into Iran or North Korea than going into Iraq, at this point i'm pretty sure that the whole WMD's in Iraq argument was either entirely fabricated or blown WAY out of proportion, just so Bush could settle what basically amounted to a personal vendetta against Saddam.

And yes money is always a concern, you seem pretty worldly so i'm sure you are familiar with the saying "follow the money, it never lies". If you want to get to the bottom of why something is or isn't being done, figure out who stands to benefit from it and you usually have your answer. In most cases wars aren't fought for ideals, they are fought for money.

The one thing I don't get about your political philosophy is that it seems to be an all or nothing philosophy, where if anyone doesn't fall in line with what you think should be done, then they should either be exiled, imprisoned, or executed. You can't really believe that is the right way to do things, because that is about as un-american as a philosophy can possibly get.

(for anyone who is confused with my last paragraph, I am referencing an earlier discussion that took place in the "civil war in America" thread, if you are curious you can go give it a quick read and you'll probably see what i'm talking about.)
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:08:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 4:21:59 PM EDT by IceHandLuke]

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:

The one thing I don't get about your political philosophy is that it seems to be an all or nothing philosophy, where if anyone doesn't fall in line with what you think should be done, then they should either be exiled, imprisoned, or executed. You can't really believe that is the right way to do things, because that is about as un-american as a philosophy can possibly get.





No, that’s not my political philosophy. We are at war with much more than Iraq. We are at war with a religious political movement in the Middle East and the South Eastern part of the world. Iraq is just one front in a much larger war that has yet to begin. Would it be better to head into Iran if we did not own both sides of their country and have at least one less country to deal with in an event we did roll into Iran? What the left in this nation is doing is feeding off the hate for a man 'Bush' and its not letting them see the big picture. When a nation is at war things change because we are in for a fight for our life as a nation. That has always been the case up until the Korean War. Before the Korean War when we went to war, the nation was behind its men, now people like you hope we lose and our men die in large enough numbers so you can say, “I told you so” and make a man, 'Bush', look like a loser.

It’s been debated over and over. Bush did not make up anything about WMD. Clinton for years talked about WMD in Iraq. Bush moved based on years of Clinton administration intelligence and the intelligence of more than 10 other nations. More than a dozen resolutions in the UN were passed for action to be taken with Iraq and nothing happened. You can’t let that type of issue go unchecked in the world and expect to look like you will not tolerate threats from a mad man. The left has no balls and they just want to keep their heads in the sand and when something happens they blame the other side and when something does not go well they blame the other side. They never have a solution and only bitch. History proves this.



Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:29:51 PM EDT
I don't hope we lose, I hope we only fight wars worth fighting. What this all boils down to is whether or not one believes the party lines about Iraq being a threat to U.S. national security. If you believe they had W.M.D.'s (even though not a scrap of credible evidence has yet to be found) then maybe it was worth it. If you believe Saddam had ties to Islamic radicals (even though no one can come up with credible evidence of such a connection) then maybe the invasion was justified. If you really believe that it is worth all of the blood spilled and money spent to give Iraq a fleeting taste of democracy (that will almost certainly collapse into chaos as soon as we leave) then maybe all of the American casualties and billions of dollars have not been wasted. But if you don't believe the party line, then it is clear that you to should be outraged over what has happened in Iraq.

Oh and guess what, it is possible to be displeased with the gross negligence of a few snakes at the top of the ladder, and still support the troops at the bottom.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:30:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Whaaaaa? I don't know where that came from. But I agree with you in general, but I pose to you this question, how much do you think someone who went missing from the Air National Guard really knows about fighting a war? Not ripping on anybody here, but I would venture a guess that the majority of the people making the decisions about what is and isn't going down in Iraq have no real miltary experience whatsoever. At least when Al Franken makes a decision, the lives of American boys don't hang in the balance.



STFU! You are ripping on Bush with that statement and you know it.
As for your other statement about the WMDs being blown out of proportion for political reasons, remember what your lib buddies were saying before the war (here's a HINT in case you forgot).
You libs suck and YES libs do want us to lose this war on terrorism and NO you libs don't have a fucking clue about how to conduct a war! You fuckers say you are for the troops, but try to expose them every time they don't toe the line to a tee!
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:38:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:

Oh and guess what, it is possible to be displeased with the gross negligence of a few snakes at the top of the ladder, and still support the troops at the bottom.



Oh is it?

Gen. Pace Criticizes Sen. Murtha Remark
Jan 05 5:24 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer


WASHINGTON


A Democratic congressman's remarks about the military are damaging to troop morale and to the Army's efforts to rebound from a recruiting slump, the nation's top general said Thursday.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a Pentagon news conference to comment on remarks by Rep. John Murtha, D- Pa., a Marine Corps veteran who has become a leading voice in Congress advocating an early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Pace was asked specifically about an ABC News interview this week in which Murtha, 73, said if he were eligible to join the military today he would not, nor would he expect others to join.



"That's damaging to recruiting," Pace said. "It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country."

Pace called the news conference to discuss his weeklong trip to Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region. He said he found good troop morale and a "quiet confidence" that U.S. efforts in Iraq were on the right track. He added that Murtha's comments were among the first things he heard about upon returning Tuesday.

Military officers usually are reluctant to get drawn into political debates, but Pace said Murtha's remarks about recruiting are relevant to his responsibilities as Joint Chiefs chairman.

Pace praised the congressman's record but criticized his remarks.

"When a respected leader like Mr. Murtha, who has spent 37 extremely honorable years as a Marine, fought in two wars, has served the country extremely well in the Congress of the United States _ when a respected individual like that says what he said, and 18- and 19-year- olds look to their leadership to determine how they are expected to act, they can get the wrong message," Pace said.

Aides at Murtha's Johnstown, Pa., office did not immediately return a call for comment.

Pace also predicted that the Saddam Hussein loyalists and other Iraqis who comprise the great bulk of the insurgency will increasingly give up, now that Iraq has approved its own constitution and held elections.

Pace said he believes the violence, which flared anew Thursday on one of the bloodiest days in Iraq in months, will abate as more Iraqis become convinced that the December elections will produce a representative government that will improve their lives.

"As they see their own government providing a way ahead that all of their citizens can understand as progress for their country, ... those who are fighting against the government right now who are Iraqis will more and more lay down their arms and decide to become part of the future of Iraq and not the past," Pace said.

In describing the continuing violence, Pace pointedly referred to terrorists and the al-Qaida network, rather than the anti-government Iraqis who are believed to comprise more than 90 percent of the insurgency.

"I do believe that over the course of the coming year that violence will subside," he said.

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:44:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 4:56:29 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
You're right, I was referencing Bush with that Air national guard thing, but only to make a point, just because someone is on the right of the political spectrum dosen't make them militarily capable, and just beacause someone is on the left dosen't make them militarily incapable. All I meant to do with that post is point out the fallacy with those kinds of sweeping generalizations.

And I am offended that you keep calling me a liberal, I haven't got any more respect for the far left radical loonies than I do for the ultra right reactionary loonies. I am about as moderate as a person can possibly be and still have a political belief structure. Maybe when my beliefs are held up next to some others I look like a liberal, but hey, Dahmer looks like a teddy bear when you compare him to Hitler. It's all relative.

Edit in response to your above post: WOW, it takes alot of balls to say that someone saying that they would not join the military is more damaging to recruiting than a pointless invasion that is killing thousands of troops, maybe people aren't joining up because they don't want to go get blown up and shot at in a country they don't even fucking care about, is that so hard to imagine. Once again you make sweeping statements, implying that because you think Murtha is hurting morale, then everyone who voices dissent is hurting morale. If anything you guys have just shot yourselves in the foot, if a decorated veteran like Murtha has negative things to say about the state of things in Iraq, maybe you ought to listen to him instead of turning on him like a bunch of rabid dogs. This just proves that your criteria for what makes a good leader is based less on his qualifications, and more on his political agenda. Good show, good show.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:45:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 5:12:48 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
You guys seem to be boiling over with righteous outrage, are you sure it's all directed at the right people, not that some lefties don't deserve it (we all know some of them do), but what about some of the righties? Where's your outrage over the thousands of working class kids sacrificed in this invasion already, and the thousands more sure to die before it's over. What about all the money being funneled to companies like Halliburton? These guys and many more like them are getting fat off of the taxpayers dollars while the American economy absorbs the trauma. You can bet money that there aren't very many millionaires sons dying in Iraq, and not alot of senators sons either. The world isn't colored in black and white, it is an ever shifting shade of gray. Just take a step back from your idealogical foxholes and think about it, that's all I ask.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:12:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
You're right, I was referencing Bush with that Air national guard thing, but only to make a point, just because someone is on the right of the political spectrum dosen't make them militarily capable, and just beacause someone is on the left dosen't make them militarily incapable. All I meant to do with that post is point out the fallacy with those kinds of sweeping generalizations.

And I am offended that you keep calling me a liberal, I haven't got any more respect for the far left radical loonies than I do for the ultra right reactionary loonies. I am about as moderate as a person can possibly be and still have a political belief structure. Maybe when my beliefs are held up next to some others I look like a liberal, but hey, Dahmer looks like a teddy bear when you compare him to Hitler. It's all relative.

Edit in response to your above post: WOW, it takes alot of balls to say that someone saying that they would not join the military is more damaging to recruiting than a pointless invasion that is killing thousands of troops, maybe people aren't joining up because they don't want to go get blown up and shot at in a country they don't even fucking care about, is that so hard to imagine. Once again you make sweeping statements, implying that because you think Murtha is hurting morale, then everyone who voices dissent is hurting morale. If anything you guys have just shot yourselves in the foot, if a decorated veteran like Murtha has negative things to say about the state of things in Iraq, maybe you ought to listen to him instead of turning on him like a bunch of rabid dogs. This just proves that your criteria for what makes a good leader is based less on his qualifications, and more on his political agenda. Good show, good show.



You are aware that many (probably most) decorated vets think Murtha is wrong and full of it? So who's right Murtha and other outspoken few like him (ex. self-decorated Kerry) or others that think Murtha's view is wrong? How many people sided with Murtha in the vote to withdraw?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:15:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 5:16:08 PM EDT by FMJ3]
DP
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:19:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
You guys seem to be boiling over with righteous outrage, are you sure it's all directed at the right people, not that some lefties don't deserve it (we all know some of them do), but what about some of the righties? Where's your outrage over the thousands of working class kids sacrificed in this invasion already, and the thousands more sure to die before it's over. What about all the money being funneled to companies like Halliburton? These guys and many more like them are getting fat off of the taxpayers dollars while the American economy absorbs the trauma. You can bet money that there aren't very many millionaires sons dying in Iraq, and not alot of senators sons either. The world isn't colored in black and white, it is an ever shifting shade of gray. Just take a step back from your idealogical foxholes and think about it, that's all I ask.



Do your research before running your piehole - you'll find the percentage of politicians with family in Iraq right now is substantially higher than the middle or lower class.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:40:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 5:42:02 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
I am going to CALMLY (a word I wouldn't use to describe your above post) ask for the numbers you are referencing and then base my response on those. But even if you are right (which I doubt, but am still willing to entertain the idea) I would venture a guess that most, not all, but most of the connected people are as far away from the action as they can possibly be and still be considered in theater.

I also notice that you specifically said "percentage", in this case you need to clearly define the two groups on which you are basing this calculation. It's not hard to get a higher percentage of politicians with family in theater when you are comparing them to a couple hundred million members of the working class, so again, I await your numbers so that I can form a cogent rebuttal.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:48:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
I am going to CALMLY (a word I wouldn't use to describe your above post) ask for the numbers you are referencing and then base my response on those. But even if you are right (which I doubt, but am still willing to entertain the idea) I would venture a guess that most, not all, but most of the connected people are as far away from the action as they can possibly be and still be considered in theater.

I also notice that you specifically said "percentage", in this case you need to clearly define the two groups on which you are basing this calculation. It's not hard to get a higher percentage of politicians with family in theater when you are comparing them to a couple hundred million members of the working class, so again, I await your numbers so that I can form a cogent rebuttal.



Look it up the facts are there - yes I did say percentage how else can you possibly fairly contrast roughly 600 families to 25,000,000 families.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:57:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 6:02:18 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
First I want to know your source so that I can try to reply on your terms, after I have your numbers, I can run comparisons with other sources to see if your numbers are reliable, if they are, then I will surrender the point to you. If they aren't, then I will attempt to refute them. So please, refer me to your sources.

But already I can tell you that you have confirmed one of my points. The huge disparity between the two numbers makes accurate comparisons difficult, I will elaborate after you have supplied the requested data.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 6:09:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 6:09:54 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
Double Tap
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:38:17 AM EDT
Democrats aid the enemy by existing.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 6:37:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
You're right, I was referencing Bush with that Air national guard thing, but only to make a point, just because someone is on the right of the political spectrum dosen't make them militarily capable, and just beacause someone is on the left dosen't make them militarily incapable. All I meant to do with that post is point out the fallacy with those kinds of sweeping generalizations.

Here in Texas we have been treated to far more of this Guard stories then the rest of the nation. They started when Bush ran for governor. So after almost TEN years of investigating you have 2 forged documents.

And I am offended that you keep calling me a liberal, I haven't got any more respect for the far left radical loonies than I do for the ultra right reactionary loonies. I am about as moderate as a person can possibly be and still have a political belief structure. Maybe when my beliefs are held up next to some others I look like a liberal, but hey, Dahmer looks like a teddy bear when you compare him to Hitler. It's all relative.

For someone that is not a liberal you certainly recite them word for word. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck……………. Remember that the wold did not begin on the first Tuesday in November in 2000.


Edit in response to your above post: WOW, it takes alot of balls to say that someone saying that they would not join the military is more damaging to recruiting than a pointless invasion that is killing thousands of troops, maybe people aren't joining up because they don't want to go get blown up and shot at in a country they don't even fucking care about, is that so hard to imagine. Once again you make sweeping statements, implying that because you think Murtha is hurting morale, then everyone who voices dissent is hurting morale. If anything you guys have just shot yourselves in the foot, if a decorated veteran like Murtha has negative things to say about the state of things in Iraq, maybe you ought to listen to him instead of turning on him like a bunch of rabid dogs. This just proves that your criteria for what makes a good leader is based less on his qualifications, and more on his political agenda. Good show, good show.



So I should vote for someone because of their résumé even if I disagree with every thing they say? That’s just dumb
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 4:11:17 AM EDT


Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:Once again you make sweeping statements, implying that because you think Murtha is hurting morale, then everyone who voices dissent is hurting morale.



I guess you dont want to respond to what the Joint Chief of Staff Marine had to say about Murtha? I posted it in this thread but for some reason you dont want to respond to that. Its not a "sweeping statement" its true you dumb ass. You are blind with your own hate for whats going on that you dont see what is going on.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 4:13:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
+ 1000, any and all dissent must be silenced, by any means necessary.



That's quite American......................................NOT.

Link Posted: 1/8/2006 3:52:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 4:37:50 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
Uh, Luke, I responded to that way back on the first page, check the post right below where you first presented it, in fact, its in the same damn paragraph as the quote that you just used.

I was obviously being facetious with the above statement about crushing all dissent, I was trying to use it to convey my feelings about the absurdity of this thread. Look, I am not anti-Bush, but i'm not anti-Democrat either, if I had to pick any label, I would say i'm anti-politician. You flat out can't trust those guys, they will ALL, with few exceptions, lie right to your face to get what they want out of you. It just sickens me when I see people swallow someones bullshit hook line and sinker without even stopping to think if it makes any real sense. Dissent does not hurt troop morale, if they believe in what they are fighting for, then their morale will be high. On the flip side, if they don't believe in what they are fighting for, their morale will be low, whether the homefront supports them or not. (a relevant historical sidenote, morale tends to suffer when one is being shot at and blown up on a near daily basis, this is something the generals, and their armchair counterparts, seem to forget very easily)

The majority of the people that I have had contact with after their return from Iraq feel that they had no business being there, not that everyone feels that way, just the majority of the people with whom i've spoken. They don't know what they were fighting for, they don't believe Iraq was really a threat to our national security, and they don't give a damn about Iraqi democracy. When you don't believe that you're risking your life for a good reason, your morale suffers, period.

I guess it all comes down to one question. Is it worth it? If one believes (all evidence to the contrary) that Iraq was a real threat, then to them, the war was justified. But if you don't believe that Iraq was a threat then the dissent is justified, even morally obligatory for any thinking individual. But this has been beat to death for so long that I doubt we can reach any final concensus here. So if you believe the politicians who sold this invasion, then I envy your blissful naivete, but pity your inability to think for yourself.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:13:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 4:32:35 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
And I neglected to mention in my above post that unless someone replies with a point that is worth responding to, this will be my last post in this asanine thread, no point trying to teach a troglodyte calculus. (that's metaphorical, it means that it's a waste of time to try to teach something complicated to a dullard)
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 9:27:39 AM EDT
PanzerMK7>>

Sorry about the delay, but life has its way of intervening on any plan.

Okay, where to begin...

I spent twelve months in the southern deserts of Iraq and Northern Kuwait (at the border crossing), supporting the Coalition warfighters assisting in Stability and Support Operations. While in Iraq, I supported an internment Facility (a military prison) that currently houses the most inmates of any such US run facility in the world. Driving on convoy, I saw a great deal many things on the road in the various villages and small towns in the area.

I saw water purification sites being built, irrigation systems being repaired, schools opening, roads patched, and commerce returning.

The camp I was stationed on was mortared several times, and despite having a HUGE radio tower centrally located, the majority of the incomming rounds impacted near the prison or off the installation completely, with no injuries in any event. We were subjected to an alert and elevation of MOPP level after sulphur fumes threatened the camp due to an 'accidental' fire just off camp.

Rockets and UXO (UneXploded Ordinance) were routinely recovered from caches in the surrounding area and dealt with safely.

As for why we are there? We removed a brutal dictator from power, a man who ordered the deaths of thousands of his own citizens and showed the will to use Chemical and Biological weapons (Against Iran in the 80's, and his own Kurdish population). Last I checked, Biological and Chemical weapons qualify completely for WMD status.

During the Clinton Administration (which I also served under, and in fact enlisted under), President Hussein defied UN resolutions by routinely blocking weapon inspectors, and firing at Coalition aircraft in both the Northern and Southern No-fly zones.

How many chances do you give a man who has shown no regard for human life and the rights of his own citizens?

As for the 'thousands' of deaths the United States has suffered, this has been over a three year period, and has only this past year risen above 2000. A number that ALSO includes all deaths by accidental means, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only reason that the average citizen believes we are losing the war in Iraq, is because of the pattern of bias and misinformation provided by defeatists and sympathizers in our own nations Media outlets.

For those of you old enough to recall, or simply students of history, you know this is the same reason that the Vietnam war ended the way that it did: the media sold a lie long enough and loud enough that people who didnt know better believed it.

Tet '68, lauded by the american media as a horrible defeat for US forces in the Republic of Vietnam, was viewed by the NVA as being a military disaster. Of their objectives for the offensive, only one was taken(the US Embassy in Saigon), briefly before being regained by Marine security forces.

Over 10,000 NVA losses were reported (By a former NVA General after the war), and the Viet-Cong partisan forces in the south were virtually eliminated in the resulting American counter-attacks.

That war, like this war, was fought most effectively by the enemy not on the battlefield...

But by the Enemy within.

Should we be there in Iraq? Arguments can be made one way or the other, but we are there now, and we should prosecute this conflict in a manner that will ensure victory. Swiftly.

War is not civilized. War is not pretty nor is it fun.
War is a horror that should remain horrible, lest we grow too fond of it.

I would rather fight an enemy who is at the end of my street than in my living room.


Over 2000 dead in three and a half years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Over 2,700 dead in less than thirty minutes in New York.

You do the math.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 10:49:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 10:59:03 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]
I respect your feelings on these issues and appreciate that you didn't fly off the handle like most of the people in this thread, you make good points about Saddam being a ruthless, bloodthirsty, dictator, no one disputes that because it has been proven time and time again to be true. And his use of WMD's on his own people and the neighboring Iranians is also morally reprehensible. But the only question I ask is this, is that a good enough reason for the U.S. to fight for? Even if he still had significant stockpiles of WMD's, he had no realistic means to deliver them here effectively, maybe a small attack could have been effected by extremists. But that assumes that Saddam had a working relationship with extremist groups, and no one has yet turned up credible evidence of such a relationship. So that leaves only one argument for us to go to war, Saddam is a bad guy, yes he defineitely is, but so are scores of other dictators around the world, why Iraq, why not North Korea, or Iran, or any of dozens of other countries that could use our help in ridding them of cruel tyrants? These are the questions that run through my head time and time again when I think about this invasion. I want to know why Iraq was chosen over so many other nations, it just stinks of personal vendetta to me.

I don't believe we are losing the war in Iraq, (or that we lost in Vietnam for that matter). One of my most avid hobbies is military history, and I agree with you completely that we weren't defeated militarily in Vietnam. But that was another situation that was of questionable importance to American national security. Did we really have to be there? looking back on it, I would have to say no. I don't mean to cast aspersions on the sacrifices made by our soldiers in Vietnam, but it's not America's job to pay the price in lives and money so that others may live comfortably.

I do take issue with one thing in your post though, you allude to the alleged Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks with your closing statement, I think it's important to remember that no evidence has ever been found to substantiate such claims. So one cannot say with any veracity that we are currently in Iraq as retaliation for 9/11. This is another example of the things the administration is more than willing to say to mislead the American people as to the true nature of our involvement in Iraq.

In closing I leave you with this final question, If in the beginning they had just come out and said, in total honesty, "we are going into Iraq now to secure a better life for the people of that country" do you think America would have been behind it? I personally do not. Yet after all is said and done, that is the only argument that stands up to any scrutiny. As far as i'm concerned, that means we were lead into Iraq under false pretenses, and someone has to answer for that.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 2:19:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 2:21:22 PM EDT by Signal_SAW_gunner]
Honestly, if we had finished the job in 1991 (remove Saddam Hussein from power), the world would be a substantially different place than it is today.

But that is more of a semantic issue than anything else.

Iraq wasnt the first place that the United States put boots on the ground in this 'War on Terrorism', but it is certainly the most popular sore spot for the political Left and Right.

The numbers I quoted were more for the effect of scale. We, America, lost over 2700 men and women in New York in a matter of minutes. it has taken nearly four years of conflict for the Military to have even a lesser number than that inflicted on it.

This is the least bloody war that the United States (or any nation of comperable size and power) has ever fought.

I hate to repeat the same tired old saw, but it needs repeating, Based on the intelligence available at the time (from various allied sources, as well as agencies not known to be supportive of the United States), Iraq had Weapons of Mass Distruction (mostly Chemical agents such as VX and various blister liquids), the ability to produce more and was agressively seeking to rebuild its military capabilities. All in Defiance of U.N. resolutions.

While I would likely ignore such 'resolutions' as well, Saddam needed to be held accountable ,and based on the aforementioned resolutions, armed enforcement was authorized.

Was the intelligence wrong? Well, there arent any giant ACME A-Bombs sitting in the middle of a dusty wearhouse in Basrah or Tikrit, but several caches of chemical agents, protective gear, test equipment and decontamination equipment as well.

So, yes and no.

Although, I will say this: During President Bush's term in office, we (The United States) have suffered only the one Terrorist Attack (9/11) on American soil, and none since then.

During the Previous Administration, we suffered REPEATED terrorist attacks, both on our soil and abroad.

Examined through that lens, I think that despite delays and setbacks in Iraq, things are going well.

As for Iran, attempts at reason appear to be failing, and soon the Islamic Republic will have nuclear capability.

We will find out who shall call the thunder, and who shall reap the whirlwind.


EDIT: BTW - This is also only the second time where non-combat related deaths(during a war) have greatly exceeded combat casualties in US Military History. (Desert Storm was the 1st)
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 3:03:58 PM EDT
Now this is how I would like every discussion to go, no loonies screaming at each other, and slinging insults like 4th graders. I appreciate having someone here with enough self control to carry out these discussions calmly, thank you.

You are absoluely right about the pre-war intelligence being misleading, the majority of intelligence services, for whatever reason, believed Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons. We now know that wasn't the case, and hindsight being 20/20, we can all look back and point fingers at who screwed up. But what really burns me is that no one ever came out and admitted they screwed up, Tenet got the medal of freedom for his blunder, and the administration continues pounding the same old talking points. If theres one thing I can't stand it's being lied to right to my face when the truth is commonly known.

I also agree that this conflict has been relatively bloodless as compared to past wars, but it is also relatively low intensity. So i'm not sure we can draw any valid conclusions from that statistic or not. And is a war better just because it produces fewer casualties, maybe, I really don't know.

Ultimately, I fear that this could be "the calm before the storm". By many accounts the Iraqi conflict has become a rallying cry for radicals the world over. We may pay for this period of relative inactivity in world terrorist attacks with a bloody resurgence in a few years. If that comes to pass, people could have a very different attitude as to the wisdom of invading Iraq. Also, I would hypothesize that the majority of insurgent effort has been devoted to the Iraqi conflict for the past few years, further skewing the results of the "total world terrorist attacks" tally, Does this qualify as the "fight them there, instead of here" mentality? I guess it probably does, but are we just further fueling the fires, the Iraqi people are surely bitter about having their schools and mosques turned into battlefields because of the American invasion, and that frustration will likely incite more attacks on Americans in the future.

It is a very complicated situation to say the least.


Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:12:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
+ 1000, any and all dissent must be silenced, by any means necessary.



I think that this is the most un-American thing I have ever heard.

Our founding fathers were dissenters... and guilty of treason as soon as they signed the Declaration of Independence.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 10:36:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 10:37:56 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
+ 1000, any and all dissent must be silenced, by any means necessary.



I think that this is the most un-American thing I have ever heard.

Our founding fathers were dissenters... and guilty of treason as soon as they signed the Declaration of Independence.



I was being sarcastic! Maybe I should go add a disclaimer to that post, since no one seems to recognize the sarcasm.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:00:55 AM EDT
You have the right to free speech, not the right to be agreed with.

If your 'speach' is STUPID, and I say or prove that speach to be STUPID, then don't go crying me a river about "he's stifling my speach rights".

Murtha is a complete idiot. But me - and the entire RIGHT WING MEDIA saying that doesn't do one thing to his political right to be an ass and idiot. He's still able to get on any talk show that will accept him, and he's still got his day job.

No .gov JBT has hauled him off in the middle of the night and the .gov doesn't electronically supress his speach when he uses the airwaves....

But to hear the libtards talk, you'd think OUR COUNTER ARGUMENTS OR MERE DISAGREEMENT is the moral equivalent of CENSORSHIP.

As for it being illegitimate for the US to bomb or invade a country because they're not "in imminent threat"....

Tell me, genius, what was the rationale for Clinton bombing Serbia again? They had no WMDs, they had zero military or terror ties with which to harm the USA.... yet we bombed the hell out of that sovereign (though loathsome) state and NO ONE FROM THE PACIFIST ELITE RAISED A PEEP.

Under Clinton we invaded and occupied HAITI...again, no WMDs, zero THREAT to us... and the Left praised this action.

We still have troops in Kosovo...which never had WMDs and posed no imminent threat to us.

Oh, and for the record, BUSH never ever claimed that Iraq (or Afghanistan) posed an IMMINENT threat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He specifically said we're invading so they DON'T become an imminent threat, as 'imminent' is too late in today's modern world.

Nazi Germany posed no IMMINENT THREAT to the security of the USA on December 8, 1941. Yet we sent the bulk of our armed forces to invade and take them out anyway.

Oh yeah, I forget...when a DEMOCRAT runs the war - no matter the facts on the ground it's a Just war....when a Republican runs the war - no matter the facts on the ground, it's ipso facto 'unjust'.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:31:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 10:49:26 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
You have the right to free speech, not the right to be agreed with.

If your 'speach' is STUPID, and I say or prove that speach to be STUPID, then don't go crying me a river about "he's stifling my speach rights".

Murtha is a complete idiot. But me - and the entire RIGHT WING MEDIA saying that doesn't do one thing to his political right to be an ass and idiot. He's still able to get on any talk show that will accept him, and he's still got his day job.

No .gov JBT has hauled him off in the middle of the night and the .gov doesn't electronically supress his speach when he uses the airwaves....

But to hear the libtards talk, you'd think OUR COUNTER ARGUMENTS OR MERE DISAGREEMENT is the moral equivalent of CENSORSHIP.

As for it being illegitimate for the US to bomb or invade a country because they're not "in imminent threat"....

Tell me, genius, what was the rationale for Clinton bombing Serbia again? They had no WMDs, they had zero military or terror ties with which to harm the USA.... yet we bombed the hell out of that sovereign (though loathsome) state and NO ONE FROM THE PACIFIST ELITE RAISED A PEEP.

Under Clinton we invaded and occupied HAITI...again, no WMDs, zero THREAT to us... and the Left praised this action.

We still have troops in Kosovo...which never had WMDs and posed no imminent threat to us.

Oh, and for the record, BUSH never ever claimed that Iraq (or Afghanistan) posed an IMMINENT threat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He specifically said we're invading so they DON'T become an imminent threat, as 'imminent' is too late in today's modern world.

Nazi Germany posed no IMMINENT THREAT to the security of the USA on December 8, 1941. Yet we sent the bulk of our armed forces to invade and take them out anyway.

Oh yeah, I forget...when a DEMOCRAT runs the war - no matter the facts on the ground it's a Just war....when a Republican runs the war - no matter the facts on the ground, it's ipso facto 'unjust'.




Where in the hell did this come from? Was this whole tirade directed at me? Just because I disagree with the Bushbots, that makes me a liberal? Did you even bother reading the thread? Most of what you attacked me on has nothing to do with anything i've said at all. Show me where I accused anyone of censorship, show me where I claimed anyone's freedom of speech was being trampled on. Show me where I said I supported military action in Kosovo or Haiti, I didn't. Because just like Iraq, those aren't our fights, let the damn Serbs, Haitians, and Iraqi's die. 1,000 of their lives isn't worth a single American drop of blood. There are more than two positions on the political spectrum, despite what your political savior seems to think, this is not a "you're either with us or against us" situation.

What i'm about to say may shock you, so read it carefully, I want our troops out of Iraq because I ACTUALLY care about them, unlike so many who only claim to. I don't expect them to die for some elitist agenda, Iraq wasn't a threat, and was no where near becoming one. So why do Americans need to die there? The short answer is, they don't, unless their ordered to do so. Get over your asanine "Democrat vs Republican" bullshit, and start thinking about what is good for the country, not just your political party.

ETA: If Bush really had the balls to protect America from imminent threats, then why is he doing nothing of any significance to stop the Iranians, the Chinese, and the North Koreans. Where's his hardline policy with these countries. No where to be found, so much for you heroic "Protector of Democracy"

ETA: And I think many (most) historians would disagree with your assertion that Nazi Germany wasn't an imminent threat, Their intentions were well known, they meant to take America after Britain and Russia were out of the picture. Add that to their alliance with the Japanese, and i'd say they sure as hell constituted an "imminent threat"
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:16:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 9:35:14 PM EDT by W_smith]

Originally Posted By FMJ3:

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
You guys seem to be boiling over with righteous outrage, are you sure it's all directed at the right people, not that some lefties don't deserve it (we all know some of them do), but what about some of the righties? Where's your outrage over the thousands of working class kids sacrificed in this invasion already, and the thousands more sure to die before it's over. What about all the money being funneled to companies like Halliburton? These guys and many more like them are getting fat off of the taxpayers dollars while the American economy absorbs the trauma. You can bet money that there aren't very many millionaires sons dying in Iraq, and not alot of senators sons either. The world isn't colored in black and white, it is an ever shifting shade of gray. Just take a step back from your idealogical foxholes and think about it, that's all I ask.



Do your research before running your piehole - you'll find the percentage of politicians with family in Iraq right now is substantially higher than the middle or lower class.



Last time I checked(early '05) ONE member of Congress had a child serving in Iraq

that's ONE out of 535
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:34:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:

Personally this kind of BS makes me despise anyone in office or anyone stupid enough to take a side (Republican or Democrat) on any political issue. With few exceptions (Dr. Ron Paul comes to mind) most of 'em should be taken out back and done away with in a manner in which Stalin suggested and did.
Wake up bkj, there ain't a dimes worth of difference between a R or a D politician as their both screwing us, in order to line their own pockets.


Mike



+1
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 10:32:49 AM EDT
Easy does it.

I wasn't replying to anyone in particular, just ranting about the topic in general.

There is a difference between imminent threat and potential threat.

Nazi Germany in 1941 was not an imminent danger to the mainland USA. Their subs were all they had to harrass our shipping. There was no aerial or land invasion threat.

But because we don't wait until the threat is imminent before defending ourselves, we went ahead and landed in England, Iceland, and everywhere else we could in 1942 to begin preparing for an invasion of Europe.

In the current war, our strategy is almost the same: beef up presence in the strategic linchpin of the ME so as to open strategic options: based in Iraq we can go either to Syria (caught between Turkey and Iraq and the 6th fleet...or Iran, caught between Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, and other bases...

A purely defensive posture for CONUS would be extremely difficult, given the need to react to outside forces. Better to be forward deployed so that potential adversaries have to first get past our first line forces before they can take a shot at our core.

Now 9/11 was NOT a military invasion, but a sneak attack. There was no "3rd wave" sitting on the launch pad or carrier deck somewhere. So if the worry is an imminent invasion - our current posture makes that impossible. What it doesn't do is erect an impenetrable wall of steel for small groups using unconventional means (or ICBMs) to do surprise attacks. But then, neither would a "fortress America" isolationist approach.

Where the Dems come in to the picture currently is their ideological support for the enemy's ideology; rather than present a unified "American street" that would stand FOR democracy - which itself is based on a constitutional republic ideal... they snipe and bicker and whine and pooh pooh EVERYTHING our nation is trying to do.

We could have the best military position in the world with the best intelligence....but the NYT will only report the bad news (which is good news for the enemy and their recruiters), as well as "leak" sensitive information that hurts our war efforts and helps the enemy with theirs.

Finally.... don't take an anonymous poster like me too seriously as I'm an armchair general just like you

Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:39:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 11:39:39 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]
Sorry, I perceived your post as a personal attack, and I kind of lost it a little. I don't entirely disagree with your statements regarding preemption. But we can never let ourselves get to a point where we stop looking at what is going on and questioning it. Our "friends" in Washington have shown time and time again that they are more than willing to piss away taxpayers money and lives if it serves their momentary agenda. I just don't want anyone to forget that.

ETA: Both parties.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:44:10 AM EDT
I have thought of this since the beginning of the war, the dems havnt shut there damn mouths since. and I have thought since the beginning that they are just aiding the enemys will and ego to fight, along with the media.

the 2 combined i am sure have killed american soldiers...........


but of course since democrats have a habbit of not taking responsible for there actions (clinton) they must blame the right side.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:50:10 PM EDT
And so the world turns...

Nations rise, and nations fall...

We have famine, floods, fires and other disasters

brutality is a common commodity for over 3/4's the world's population...

but there is something that we all have in common:

in the end, we're all going feet first.

(and now returning to your regularly scheduled rantings)
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 8:15:09 AM EDT
Tell me, genius, what was the rationale for Clinton bombing Serbia again? They had no WMDs, they had zero military or terror ties with which to harm the USA.... yet we bombed the hell out of that sovereign (though loathsome) state and NO ONE FROM THE PACIFIST ELITE RAISED A PEEP.

Under Clinton we invaded and occupied HAITI...again, no WMDs, zero THREAT to us... and the Left praised this action.

Two wrongs dont make a right. Clinton messed up and so did Bush.
Here is a simple test.
Of all the things that Bush has done, and you condone. If Hillary Clinton did them would you still agree.
Here is a list
Iraq
Wiretapping
medicare drug bill
social security privatization
and numerous fabrication, omissions and Outright Lies.

Honestly answer them questions, then tell me Bush has been exemplary in his actions
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:40:36 AM EDT
Exactly, the problem we are facing is that everyone thinks their shit don't stink, everything is the "other sides" fault. People need to stop running their reactions through a partisan filter and be outraged not because the action was performed by someone they dislike, but because the action itself is wrong. On the same note, you can't give people from your own party carte blanche to walk all over America just because they purport to have it's best interests at heart.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 5:45:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Exactly, the problem we are facing is that everyone thinks their shit don't stink, everything is the "other sides" fault. People need to stop running their reactions through a partisan filter and be outraged not because the action was performed by someone they dislike, but because the action itself is wrong. On the same note, you can't give people from your own party carte blanche to walk all over America just because they purport to have it's best interests at heart.



+1

I wish I could fit that (or at least a summarized part) into my tag line.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 10:20:09 PM EDT
+1000
very simply put
And right on.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 1:50:00 PM EDT
If President Gore had invaded Iraq for the same reasons W offered REPEATEDLY which wasn't only or merely to get the WMDs, I would have supported him.

But let's not kid ourselves, A Gore invasion would have been heavily PC and the post occupation very different. For example, he'd have turned the entire thing over to the UN (read, to the Russians, Chinese, French and everyone else who was trying to hide their illegal siphoning of oil from the Oil for Food scam (a Clinton era debacle).

As for "wire taping" a couple things ought to be clear.

a) CLINTON DID WIRE TAP THE HELL OUT OF US DOMESTICALLY AND THE NYT DIDN'T HAVE A COW, NEITHER DID THE MSM. Ever hear of "Echelon"? I did. I expected they were doing that since they misused everything ELSE in the government for purely domestic CYA operations.

How else did Lewinski get that job over at the Pentagon? How else did the CIA and State get filled with hot babes who don't have extraordinary skills in say, military or intel gathering but sure look fantastic in tight turtlenecks or heel?

b) All we know about the current SUPPOSED program comes from the NYT, not from an official source... and besides if it IS occuring it's totally top secret in all details and extension. The "leaker" is a felon - ipso facto since there IS a law passed by Democrats years ago to allow "whistleblowers" to spill the beans for the sake of the people....but this allowed NSA employees specifically to go to CONGRESS in closed session, not to the Media.

Odd isn't it? The same NEW YORK TIMES that routinely gets specifics wrong in mundane stuff and everything to do with ideological or political opponents, is the source you are basing your ire on. How can we trust them and this leaker to be right in these specifics?

c) Domestic wiretapes = from one US citizen to another US citizen in a purely point a to point B call both ends of which are in the USA. Yet the same story from the NYT admits that at least one of the 'ends' of the supposed calls was foreign... if the person in question was IN America but not a citizen the law doesn't apply. The Pres has ALWAYS had authority to wire tap FOREIGNERS in America.

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:59:47 PM EDT
Your posts are very long but I often miss the point of what you are trying to say, what I get from this one (I think) is that because the democrats did it then it is O.K. for the republicans to do it, right? Or were you trying to say something else. If that is what you are trying to say then I have no response that will stand up to that kind of infallible logic. If that is not what you are trying to say then I apologize for the sarcasm.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top