For those of you who are thinking of voting for Kerry...........

[ivauir]

a patriotic "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" T'Shirt and I nearly vomited.

Think about what you just posted. Think.

Don't vomit. Be proud. I know you don't agree with the mission, but we're there. If we run, we'll send a message to every would be terrotist in the middle east that we'll always run. Kerry has said that his policy won't be much different than Bush's (from this point on - there are clear differences as to weather we'd have gone). Right or wrong we must win. Kerry has said as much, so has Clinton. We are there and we must win - vote for whoever, but wear that shirt with pride, and hope (or pray if inclined) that we win and that democracy and freedom reign in Iraq.

BTW sometimes I feel like the only person in the world who doesn't think that Bush is an idiot or that Kerry is a traitor. Maybe I am crazy but I think that both men would do a great job.

 

[LEROY]

I have to agree with IVUAIR, be proud. Many of us have loved ones in the fight; many of us may have been, or will be in the fight.

But get this, to think that the lives of those lost in Vietnam were in vain, to be trampled upon by a potential future leader of our nation is what should cause you to vomit. Imagine if somebody came back from Iraq and told you your loved one (who might still be held captive) was a murderer and commited war crimes. Imagine coming back after serving your country and getting spit on and called "baby killer" by fellow Americans because of what the media portrayed as, "the wrong war, the wrong time."

Take it for what it's worth, but those who lay their lives on the line in service of their country, regardless of the apparent capabilities of their elected leaders, should always be held in the highest esteem. They do it for YOU!

P.S. The war against communist expansion was WON by the U.S. - but it took two failed presidencies in the seventees to do it. It may take that many or more to win the war on terror if we elect a guy willing to sh!t on his fellow brother-in-arms in a time of bitter war...

 

[JPB]

Well I guess there is no wrong war then.

We should create one every 4 years to secure the presidency.

The rest of the pathetic record is not any better.

 

[embraerjetpilot]

But see..the problem isnt the war... it doesnt have anything to do with the troops...they are there serving proudly with the exception of the few at Ab Guru or whatever it is. They are doing an excellent job, but their commander in chief sent them into war unprepared without enough troops. The commanders said they needed more troops and Rumsfield, Cheney, and Bush said no. Im sorry, but that is a criminal, IMPEACHAble offense! That puts all the blood on their hands.

If we had gone in there with enough troops we would probably not even be there now.

As for Vietnam, dont put Kerry down until you realize the reality that GW used his fathers influence so that he wouldnt have to go.

 

[vc10]

That's what the Pentagon tried to represent, but NBC now denies that there was any such search. Sorry, this won't wash.

It's was up to the administration to have enough troops to secure all Iraqi military facilities after the war. There weren't enough to do that and there weren't enough to secure the borders. The result is plain for all to see---constant attacks on our troops by well-armed insurgents. This is the fault of the administration and the buck, as Truman said, stops with the president.

There's no getting around that. It's just the way it is.

vc10, I don't want to get involved in the Bush v Kerry debate, but you may want to relook at the facts concerning the missing 380 tons of explosives. A reporter from Rueters and NBC News was there with the 101st Airborne when they rolled into the facility during the fall of Iraq. The stuff was already gone, according to them. Without their eyewitness account and the account of the 101st Airborne troops, look at it logically. Is an insurgency which is not organized yet, going to be able to get 380 tons of explosives out (38 trucks assuming they have trucks, and trucks that can hold 10 tons) through and endless convoy streaming to Bagdad, while J-Stars is watching? Don't think so.

Further, if you understand the role of a Commander-in-Chief, you know it is not the responsibility of the President to guard this facility with the explosives. Kerry's acusations, if it was even close to being true, is really an attack on the leadership of the 101st Airborne. His camp knows this, but is hoping the average voter will be stupid enough to blame a President for a tactical mistake on a battlefield.

This is pure politics, and the New York times is trying to influence the election. Watch this story blow up in the next few days. Talk radio and the bloggers have forced FOX News and even CNN ato tell both sides now, the other news agencies will be forced to report the whole story.

 

[skykid]

vc10, my bad, I guess you're right, we should always believe NBC over our military. Neither NBC or the New York Times have an preferred outcome in this election, right? Now, explain how a then unorganized insurgency steals 380 tons of stuff. Did they rent UHauls?

The Iraqis had more time than any other conflict in history I can remember to prepare for the war. It sounds a bit more logical to me that they moved it prior to the invasion.

 

[vc10]

Let me break it down for you. The Pentagon spokesdroid cited NBC as saying something that suggested the explosives were moved by Saddam.

NBC said "but that's not what we said"!

So yeah, call me crazy, but in this case, I believe NBC.

In this one, you, the Bush administration and the Pentagon are just plain wrong.

Sorry.

vc10, my bad, I guess you're right, we should always believe NBC over our military. Neither NBC or the New York Times have an preferred outcome in this election, right? Now, explain how a then unorganized insurgency steals 380 tons of stuff. Did they rent UHauls?

The Iraqis had more time than any other conflict in history I can remember to prepare for the war. It sounds a bit more logical to me that they moved it prior to the invasion.

 

[skykid]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]About Those Lost Weapons...[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By James K. Glassman[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Published [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 10/27/2004 [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] E-Mail[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Bookmark[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Print[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Save[/font][font=Arial,] TCS [/font]


So the Democrats, with help from the New York Times, have produced their October Surprise. What a dud!



In fact, the story the Times reported Monday gives enormous support to President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq in the first place.



The Times breathlessly reported that nearly 400 tons of explosives, part of Saddam Hussein's old weapons program, had disappeared from an installation south of Baghdad. The implication was that the Bush Administration was at fault for not securing the cache. Because the president skimped on troops, goes this reasoning, there were not enough U.S. soldiers to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles. Those weapons could now be used against Americans here at home.



The Kerry campaign has been flogging the story like crazy, and an ad is being prepared, which has Kerry accusing Bush of failing "to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives, the kind used for…terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments…make our country less secure."



John Edwards noted on the trail that one pound of the explosives is enough to bring down an airliner.



Apparently, the Times scooped CBS TV's "60 Minutes," which had planned to run the story on the Sunday before the election. The source had peddled the tale to both outlets, and the New York Times rushed it into print.



As it turns out, it's not much of a story. First of all, the administration didn't screw up. It seems the weapons may have been gone when we got to Baghdad.



Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported Monday night that his network was right there, on the spot, when the 101st Airborne got to the installation south of Iraq's capital on April 10, 2003. "But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives called HMX and RDX" said Miklaszewski.



Then on Tuesday Miklaszewski provided more details. He reported that the 101st airborne troops "were not actively involved in the search for any weapons" and that, given the size of the Al Qaqaa facility, it's unclear if the 101st was "near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX." But he went on to say that "in March, shortly before the war began, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] conducted another inspection and … inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound." It seems some of the missing materials were moved even before Americans set foot in Iraq - right under the UN's nose! Pentagon officials have speculated that Saddam could have ordered the materials moved before the invasion by coalition forces.



But far more important, Kerry's complaints about Bush only enforce Bush's reason for invading Iraq. Think about it.



Kerry and Edwards say that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the disappearance of the explosives, which could be used against Americans here at home. But the very existence of such explosives -- whether defined as weapons of mass destruction or not -- was the reason Bush led the nation into Iraq in the first place.



Why did we invade Iraq? Specifically, so dangerous weapons would not be used
against us here at home -- either by Saddam Hussein's forces or by his terrorist friends. Did we miss some of these weapons? Of course. But we got a lot more than we would have gotten if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place.



If we had followed Kerry's strategy, Iraq today would have far more than 380 tons of explosives to use against us.






vc10, when are you going to explain how you "loot" 38 tons of explosives? I bet we couldn't put our heads together for a year and figure out how to get that much stuff out without getting caught.

 

[Booster]

Moderator .... Please move this subject tread somewhere else. It does not belong under the Majors heading.
Thanks

 

[vc10]

G. Bush one-finger victory salute

http://www.videovotevigil.org/