Troops Want to Stay In Iraq

[red states rule]

I am not suggesting "both ways". I am saying that Iraq may very well form a very strong alliance with Iran in the wake of a shiite victory in the ongoing civl war.

And of course AQ had SOME influence with the taliban.... they were priveleged house guests...they certainly did not control the taliban in any substantive way..... and I do not think that AQ will be able to gain control of the Iraqi population in any way. They are sunnis and are already fighting with iraqi sunnis... let alone how much they are hated by the shiites who make up the bulk of the population.

This kind of support from the liberal media we can do without..............


NYTimes Waited Full Week to Correct Military Rape Story - One Tale a Total Fabrication
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on March 27, 2007 - 04:11.

On March 18th, the New York Times published a piece titled "The Women's War". It was a feature of great length (18 pages on the Internet) centered around the plight of several female Veterans of the war in Iraq. It detailed the mistreatment they suffered by the US Military, sexual harassment they received at the hands of army officers, and their PTSDs (post traumatic distress disorders). A shocking expose is what the Times was going for, it is sure. These women certainly deserved better treatment and the story should be well publicized, of course. It might have had more impact but for the fact that the Times knew that one of the subjects featured in the article wasn't even in Iraq and that her story was a complete lie.

Worse yet, the Times published the story knowing full well that one of their subjects had lied to them. Finally, a whole week after their initial story was published on the 18th, on March 25th, the Times published a mae culpa, correcting the story.

The cover article in The Times Magazine on March 18 reported on women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse that some of them endured and the struggle for all of them to reclaim their prewar lives. One of the servicewomen, Amorita Randall, a former naval construction worker, told The Times that she was in combat in Iraq in 2004 and that in one incident an explosive device blew up a Humvee she was riding in, killing the driver and leaving her with a brain injury. She also said she was raped twice while she was in the Navy.

...Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq

According to Fox New's Rick Leventhal the Times knew far in advance that one of their highlighted subjects was a fraud.

The newspaper knew about the mistakes on March 12, six days before the magazine was distributed, and 13 days before it published the correction.The magazine was printed on March 9 — three days before the lies were discovered — but there was still plenty of time to reprint it. The cost might've been huge, but wouldn't it be worth it for a paper whose masthead proclaims "All the News That's Fit to Print?"

For the Times' part, they claimed there wasn't enough time to correct the story in advance of the publication date.

On March 6, three days before the article went to press, a Times researcher contacted the Navy to confirm Ms. Randall’s account. There was preliminary back and forth but no detailed reply until hours before the deadline.

Leventhal claims the Times knew about it 6 days before press and the Times admits to three. Regardless if it was six or three, there was more than enough time for the Times to print a correction between March 18th and March 25th.

Why did the Times wait an entire week to print this correction when even by their own admission they knew the truth before they printed the original story?

We know what the Times knew and when they knew it (to steal the oft repeated Democrat Party phrase used against GOP administrations), but what we don't know is why it took them so long to admit to it all?

Was there no time at all that they could have published this correction over the course of a whole week? Did they want to wait far enough into the future until they thought no one would notice?

What ever the reason, it is interesting how long they waited in light of how they treat others who "know" things but wait too long in the Time's estimation to admit it all, isn't it?

Imagine if this were Bush waiting to get all the facts straight before coming to the fore with all he knew? Wait, we don't have to imagine it. All we have to do is look to see how the Times is treating the faux scandal of the Gonzales Attorneys General firings.

As John Gibson said of the story:

Does it cost a lot to reprint an entire four-color glossy paper Sunday magazine? Yes. Does it cost a lot in reputation for the newspaper of record to knowingly publish false information and figure it can be fixed with a schedule correction a week later? Yes and yes.

The Times has a political point of view these days it has no problem pushing in its news and editorial pages. OK, it gives up some points in objectivity when it does that, but the publisher has a right to do so. But when The Times knowingly publishes phony information because it costs too much to reprint and thinks a correction a week later will fix things, that suggests something different than just editorial point of view. It suggests a willingness to lie for money. If you'll lie for money, doesn't it follow you would find it much easier to lie for the much higher calling of ideology?

The Times has some explaining to do.

I couldn't agree more.

I actually read that story a few Sundays ago myself. The very first thought I had was a curiosity if the Times fact checked any of the aggrieved women they highlighted. I guess I got my answer!

There is one more thing that should be considered in this mess the Times has made. There were some real stories of women vets that will now be overshadowed by the Times' sloppy work. All the focus will be on the fraudulent claims and the real problems faced by the other women could easily fade into the background.

And now I have to say one more thing. Liberals had for years been trying to break down the roadblocks to women being able to serve in the military and in field positions. Now they have that in many ways, if not full combat. And now we have women getting PTSD because of their harrowing service to the country.

Am I the only one to think that this should not surprise anyone? Military men having been coming home from wars with PTSD since the first clashes of humans. Why are we all upset and surprised that, now that we are putting women in a position to see the same sorts of service, women are finding themselves faced with troubled lives afterward?

I am not saying, of course, that we should just brush off these women's troubles, but can we really justify sensational stories about their troubles as if it is somehow shocking? Shouldn't we just expect the problem and make moves to face it and help these women?

http://newsbusters.org/node/11653

 

[Rosotar]

I would say our presence is to prop up the Iraqi government until it can stand on its own, and keep the Islamofascists from getting control of Iraq's oil resources.

Yes and before that our presence there was supposed to be part of the larger "war on terror" even though our own intelligence sources say that our very presence there is fueling terrorism.

Yes, and before that our presence there was to support the formation of a Democratic government and the drafting of a constitution, which by the way we were told would probably end the violence.

And before that we were told that our presence there was to bring Saddam Hussein to "justice" which was supposed to help end the violence but didn't.

And before that we were told that our presence there was to round up Saddam's henchmen and the few "dead enders" (including his sons) which would go a long way toward ending the violence there but didn't.

And before that we were told that our presence there was to "liberate" the country from Saddam's regime which was supposed to transform Iraq into the golden land of milk and honey. We were supposed to be greeted as liberators with showers of rose petals in the streets.

And before that our presence there was supposed to be to find and eliminate Saddam's weapons stockpiles which, it turns out, didn't even exist.

What's next?

Do you see why most Americans may be getting a little burnt out on a new justification for the carnage in Iraq every few months?

 

[red states rule]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

 

[maineman]

another day, another slew of rightwing spam from the guy who proves over and over again that he is incapable of intelligent self expression...

ho hum.

 

[red states rule]

another day, another slew of rightwing spam from the guy who proves over and over again that he is incapable of intelligent self expression...

ho hum.

Exact quotes from Dems who said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's

 

[Rosotar]

Exact quotes from Dems who said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's

Even if you assume that Dems saw the same intelligence that the CIA produced before the caveats were removed by the OSP then all that means is that they were just as wrong as Bush.

So who'se shoulders does the primary responsibility lie?

George Bush and George Tenet.

Now it's time for Dems to put them on the stand and let them explain under oath how everyone got the intelligence so "wrong."

 

[maineman]

Exact quotes from Dems who said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's

I don't think that any of those democrats said there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... I don't think that any of those democrats ordered Blix's UN inspectors OUT of the country so that we could invade. That was all George.... and now the dogshit is on HIS shoes. too bad.

 

[red states rule]

I don't think that any of those democrats said there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... I don't think that any of those democrats ordered Blix's UN inspectors OUT of the country so that we could invade. That was all George.... and now the dogshit is on HIS shoes. too bad.

Amazing - libs will never admit they agreed with Pres Bush and saw the same threats

Selective memory gone wild

 

[maineman]

Amazing - libs will never admit they agreed with Pres Bush and saw the same threats

Selective memory gone wild

find the quote where a democrat said that there was absolutely no doubt that saddam currently had stockpiles of WMD's.

I'll wait.

 

[maineman]

and I notice you failed to acknowledge Bush's sole responsibility for kicking Blix out of the country.

 

[red states rule]

and I notice you failed to acknowledge Bush's sole responsibility for kicking Blix out of the country.

considering Saddam kicked them out why blame Bush? Oh, with you Bush is to blame for everything

 

[red states rule]

find the quote where a democrat said that there was absolutely no doubt that saddam currently had stockpiles of WMD's.

I'll wait.

The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

 

[maineman]

considering Saddam kicked them out why blame Bush? Oh, with you Bush is to blame for everything

Saddam kicked them out years before.... but then they came back...and Bush was the one who kicked them out immediately prior to our invasion....

another case of selective memory?

lol

 

[maineman]

The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

I do not see any absolute certainty there...I certainly do not read anything about stockpiles...he talks about the threat of Saddam with weapons.... not the same thing.

 

[red states rule]

I do not see any absolute certainty there...I certainly do not read anything about stockpiles...he talks about the threat of Saddam with weapons.... not the same thing.

Not surprised by your response. You are one of his biggest ass kissers

 

[maineman]

Not surprised by your response. You are one of his biggest ass kissers

not so.... he was not even my candidate of choice.... I only point out that you cannot find a quote like I asked for...and you ignore the FACT that it was Bush who kicked Blix and his team out of Iraq in the spring of '03.

 

[Annie]

not so.... he was not even my candidate of choice.... I only point out that you cannot find a quote like I asked for...and you ignore the FACT that it was Bush who kicked Blix and his team out of Iraq in the spring of '03.

Who ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq, March of '03?

 

[Bullypulpit]

If so many troops want to stay in Iraq, why are the Marines calling up some 1800 members of the ready reserve, involuntarily, to serve in Iraq? Why are they having problems getting enough volunteers to fill mission critical positions?

 

[maineman]

Who ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq, March of '03?

Bush suggested they leave so that they would not be in harm's way in the ensuing invasion. Saddam certainly did NOT order them out... the UN pulled them when Bush told them to.

 

[Annie]

Bush suggested they leave so that they would not be in harm's way in the ensuing invasion. Saddam certainly did NOT order them out... the UN pulled them when Bush told them to.

Quite. Which is different than this you posted:

...FACT that it was Bush who kicked Blix and his team out of Iraq in the spring of '03...

I'm not a quibbler, I think Bush meant for them 'to get out,' just like Kerry meant certain things, as did Durbin, etc. There of course are differences between our interpretations of what was said and 'FACTS'...