Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Hey, Bush..soldier wants to ask you a few questions

Posted By: gt on 2005-08-31
In Reply to:

Hey Bush:  Specialist Young Would Also Like to Speak With You...

U.S. Army Specialist Tomas Young has some questions for George W. Bush. He's never met with the Commander-in-Chief who sent him into Sadr City, Iraq in a canvass covered truck...






U.S. Army Specialist Tomas Young has some questions for George W. Bush. He's never met with the Commander-in-Chief who sent him into Sadr City, Iraq in a canvass covered truck during a massive uprising in that city on April 4, 2004. The same city on the same day that Cindy Sheehan's son Casey was killed.

Tomas was lucky. He was only paralyzed from the chest down. Amongst other things he'd like to ask of Bush, is why he won't allow funding for stem cell research which might eventually restore the spine that he lost in Bush's War. A spine which apparently Bush has never had.

Tomas and his new wife Bree (also pictured), came to Crawford from Kansas City on their honeymoon to stand in support of Cindy Sheehan.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Bush wants to nuke the planet first, ask questions later.

I hope the Congress isn't stupid enough to go along with this idiotic plan and once again trust Bush's lying claims about who has WMD and who doesn't. Bush isn't going to be happy until he blows up the entire planet. It's becoming clearer every day that he meant what he said when asked about his legacy, he responded with, Who cares? We'll all be dead.


Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons


By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01


The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.


The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.


At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said all options would be available to the president.


The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.


Titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.


A summary of changes included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations.


The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using or intending to use WMD against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.


Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.


That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.


Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.


The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.


But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.


The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction raises the danger of nuclear weapons use. It says that there are about thirty nations with WMD programs along with nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state.


To meet that situation, the document says that responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today.


To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.


The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective. The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.


Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program. She added that members certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy without hearings, closed door if necessary.


A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.


Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions.


Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.


This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons, Kristensen said. It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP.


One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.


In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said. It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world.


Hoekstra questions legality of Bush secrecy.

This is the same guy who tried to peddle the bogus WMD story a few weeks ago with Santorum.  Would have never figured HIM to write something like this.  It's either a good sign or just political pandering to an increasingly unhappy base.  I hope it's sincere.


July 9, 2006


Ally Told Bush Project Secrecy Might Be Illegal




WASHINGTON, July 8 — In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.


The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.


But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.


Recently, after the harsh criticism from Mr. Hoekstra, intelligence officials have appeared at two closed committee briefings to answer questions from the chairman and other members. The briefings appear to have eased but not erased the concerns of Mr. Hoekstra and other lawmakers about whether the administration is sharing information on all of its intelligence operations.


A copy of the four-page letter dated May 18, which has not been previously disclosed, was obtained by The New York Times.


I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed, Mr. Hoesktra wrote. If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies.


He added: The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution.


Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on the concerns raised by Mr. Hoekstra but said that we will continue to work closely with the chairman and other Congressional leaders on important national security issues.


A spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra, Jamal D. Ware, said he could not discuss the activities allegedly withheld from Congress. But he said that Mr. Hoekstra remained adamant that no intelligence programs could be hidden from oversight committees.


Chairman Hoekstra has raised these issues with the administration to ensure that the Intelligence Committee is able to conduct its job of oversight, Mr. Ware said. Intelligence officials have committed to being forthcoming with Congress, and Chairman Hoekstra is going to hold them to their word.


Mr. Hoekstra's blunt letter is evidence of a rift between the White House and House Republican leaders over the administration's perceived indifference to Congressional oversight and input on intelligence matters. Mr. Hoekstra wrote that he had shared his complaints with House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and that the speaker concurs with my concerns.


A spokesman for Mr. Hastert declined to comment.


The letter appears to have resulted at least in part from the White House's decision, made early in May, to name Gen. Michael V. Hayden to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, with Stephen R. Kappes as his deputy. The letter was sent the day of General Hayden's confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.


Mr. Hoekstra (pronounced HOOK-stra) complained publicly about the choices when they were announced, but his private letter to Mr. Bush was much harsher. He warned that the choice of Mr. Kappes, who he said was part of a group at the C.I.A. that intentionally undermined the administration, sends a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over.


Mr. Hoekstra also expressed concern about the intelligence reorganization under John D. Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, who he said was creating a large, bureaucratic and hierarchical structure that will be less flexible and agile than our adversaries.


Mr. Hoekstra's views on oversight appear to be shared by some other Intelligence Committee members.


I think the executive branch has been insufficiently forthcoming on a number of important programs, Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, said in an interview. She would not discuss any programs on which the committee had not been briefed, but she said that in the Bush administration, there's a presumption that if they don't tell anybody, a problem may get better or it will solve itself.


Ms. Wilson said she shared deep concerns about the pace and direction of intelligence reforms overseen by Mr. Negroponte's office. We have some troubled programs, she said.


American intelligence agencies routinely conduct many secret programs, but under the National Security Act, the agencies are required to keep the Congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities. Even in the case of especially sensitive covert actions, the law requires briefings for at least the leaders from both parties of the committees and the House and Senate.


As the administration has asserted broad presidential authority to fight terrorism, concerns about Congressional oversight and checks and balances between the branches of government have become increasingly heated. Democrats complained that the administration's failure to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the N.S.A. warrantless eavesdropping, which focuses on the international communications of Americans and others inside the United States, was a violation of the National Security law. Some members of Congress said they had been briefed on the Treasury Department's bank monitoring program, which examines international money transfers through a Brussels-based consortium, only after The New York Times began making inquiries in recent months.


But the assertion that other intelligence activities had been hidden from Congress is particularly surprising coming from Mr. Hoekstra, who defended the administration's limited briefings on the N.S.A. program against Democratic criticism.


An official familiar with recent exchanges between the intelligence agencies and the House committee said Friday that General Hayden had twice briefed the full committee and had addressed Mr. Hoekstra's questions about the intelligence activities referred to in the letter. The C.I.A. director promised a free flow of information, and Mr. Hoekstra, who initially objected to placing a military officer in charge of the C.I.A., said he would work closely with the agency's new leadership.


The official, who spoke of the briefings only when granted anonymity because they were classified, declined to say anything about what the activities were or which agencies they involved.


Officials with both Mr. Negroponte's office and the C.I.A. declined to comment specifically on Mr. Hoekstra's letter. But Carl Kropf, a spokesman for Mr. Negroponte, said that over the past year his office had engaged in hundreds of briefings, meetings and discussions with Congressional committees.


He added, We value this dialogue with Congress, and we will continue to provide the committee with the information they need to fulfill their responsibilities.


Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a spokeswoman for General Hayden, said that the director believes in the important oversight role Congress plays, and he will continue regular and transparent interactions with members.


Since his appointment as committee chairman in August 2004, Mr. Hoekstra has been a critical ally of the White House on intelligence matters. He has supported the administration's most controversial policies, including its treatment of terrorist suspects, and he has balked at Democratic demands for an investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. He has defended the legality and necessity of the N.S.A. program and the bank monitoring.


Mr. Hoekstra has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress for a crackdown on leaks of classified information to the media, a cause championed by both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.


But in recent months, Mr. Hoekstra has begun to express some disaffection. In March, he joined the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Jane Harman of California, in a public critique of Mr. Negroponte's performance. He criticized intelligence officials for initially resisting his demand that thousands of captured Iraqi documents be posted on the Web. Like other House Republicans, he bristled when Porter J. Goss, a former House colleague, was forced out as C.I.A. director in early May.


Most recently, Mr. Hoekstra strongly criticized a news briefing arranged by Mr. Negroponte's office on an Army report that 500 pre-Gulf War chemical shells had been found scattered around Iraq. On June 29, Mr. Hoekstra, who had said the finding established that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, made public an angry letter to Mr. Negroponte calling the briefing inaccurate, incomplete and occasionally misleading and asserting that attempts were made to downplay the significance of relevant facts.


A spokesman for Mr. Negroponte's office said he had not yet replied to the complaint.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09hoekstra.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=29084f54639e845b&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company  








width=1


That's an Iraqi soldier - not US soldier.
nm
letter from a soldier

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, if you are given this story DO NOT REENLIST!

From: aaronb
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:42 PM
To: soldiers@michaelmoore.com
Subject: army con artist

Mr. Moore,

I would like to start by saying that I think what you are doing for the troops is probably the most supportive thing any one human being could do during this troubled time. I would like to tell you my story, and I hope that it can help other soldiers in my position.

I am a specialist in the US Army, I have served four years on active duty, and I am separating from the service later this month. Earlier this year my wife and I had a baby girl. Unfortunately, she was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, which is a genetic disease which affects the lungs. Her life expectancy is about 30 years old. When she was born she required surgery which kept her in the hospital for about a month. As you can probably imagine, this was quite expensive. I wasn't worried about paying for it because I assumed military insurance (TRICARE) would cover it. I went along with that assumption for the next few months, but about 2 weeks before I was scheduled to ETS, I made a routine trip to the tricare office at the base hospital. When I arrived there and showed them an outstanding bill from the hospital where my daughter had the surgery, which showed an outstanding balance of 127,000 dollars, I was informed that that bill must be paid by me personally because I was required to pay 20% of any medical bill from any hospital or clinic not in the military system. When I asked the clerk what my options were for payment, she informed me that I either pay the bill in full, or reenlist and the bill would be paid for by the army. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, so I left the office without saying another word, went home, and called the 1 800 number for tricare. The representative assured me that the clerks statements were entirely false and that my insurance policy had a catastrophic cap of 1000 dollars. While I have no proof, I believe that the clerk from the office at the hospital (who was a civilian) was receiving some type of payment to try and con soldiers with exceptional family members into reenlisting. I am considering obtaining legal counsel on this matter, but I doubt I have a case. I just wanted to write this to make sure it never happens to anyone else. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, if you are given this story DO NOT REENLIST! Contact the tricare hotline before doing anything based on what you are told. I hope that this has not happened to anyone else, but I fear that is not true.

Thank you for your help,
A soldier for peace


At least one soldier doesn't











src=http://www.armytimes.com/images/aheader_03.jpg
June 06, 2006

Lieutenant defies Army over ‘illegal’ war

By William Cole
The Honolulu Advertiser


In one of the first known cases of its kind, an Army officer from Honolulu is expected to refuse to go to Iraq this month with his unit, citing what he calls the “illegal” and “immoral” basis of the war, his father confirmed.


The officer, 1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada, 28, son of former state campaign spending commission executive director Bob Watada, is believed to be one of the first military officers to publicly take steps to refuse his deployment orders.







Subscribe

“My son has a great deal of courage, and clearly understands what is right, and what is wrong,” Bob Watada said yesterday. “He’s choosing to do the right thing, which is a hard course.”


Watada declined further comment until a news conference planned for 11 a.m. tomorrow at the state Capitol. His son is with a Stryker unit out of Fort Lewis, Wash., and is expected to participate by teleconference.


Jeff Paterson, a former Kaneohe Bay Marine who refused to board a transport in 1990 heading to the Gulf War and now works as an anti-war activist with the organization Not In Our Name, said a second news conference will be held in Tacoma, Wash.


On a Web site Paterson said was created by friends and family, the “Lt.” is quoted as saying: “I refuse to be silent any longer. I refuse to watch families torn apart, while the President tells us to ‘stay the course.’ ... I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. I wanted to be there for my fellow troops. But the best way was not to help drop artillery and cause more death and destruction. It is to help oppose this war and end it so that all soldiers can come home.”


Ehren Watada apparently sought in January to resign his commission, and later asked again and was denied.


Watada, who is not seeking conscientious objector status, but rather has moral objections to the Iraq war, faces the possibility of a court-martial, dishonorable discharge and several years in prison if he refuses the war orders.


According to the GI Rights Hotline, a conscientious objector has a deeply held moral, ethical or religious belief that it is wrong to kill another human being in war.


Some service members discover that opposition after joining the military, and are discharged, the organization said.


Watada doesn’t qualify as a conscientious objector because he does not oppose all wars.


Watada graduated from Hawaii Pacific University in 2003, joined the Army shortly after, went to Officer Candidate School, and incurred a three-year obligation.


The Hawaii man is with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry, at Fort Lewis. The unit is part of a larger 3,600-soldier Stryker brigade combat team similar to a unit being developed in Hawaii with about 300 eight-wheeled armored vehicles.


The Fort Lewis brigade is heading to Mosul in northern Iraq, and the soldiers are expected to leave this month and into July.


At a farewell ceremony on Friday, I Corps and Fort Lewis commander Lt. Gen. James Dubik, a former Schofield Barracks commander, said that of 299 million people in the United States, only 2.3 million serve in uniform to defend the nation, the Olympian newspaper reported.


“Less than 1 percent of the nation is carrying 100 percent of the burden of this war,” Dubik said.


But in a sign of increased opposition to the three-year-old Iraq war, anti-war activists demonstrated at the Port of Olympia after Stryker vehicles drove there for shipment, the Olympian reported.


Police used pepper spray on about 100 activists, and 22 people were arrested in one of the more volatile confrontations, the newspaper said.


Paterson, 38, who in 1990 alleged that the Gulf War was about profits and oil in the Middle East and sat down on the tarmac at Kaneohe Bay instead of boarding a transport, said he’s not sure of the number of Iraq or Afghanistan war objectors.


Cases that resulted in court-martial include a Navy sailor sentenced to three months of hard labor for refusing to board a ship headed to the Persian Gulf, a specialist in the National Guard given 120 days in a stand against fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a soldier sentenced to 15 months for refusing to deploy to Iraq a second time.


Robert Arakaki, the 83-year-old president of the 100th Infantry Battalion Veterans group, who saw combat in Italy in 1945, yesterday said Watada “owes the country a lot.”


There “should be some kind of good explanation” for why Watada wants out, he said, and Arakaki takes issue with claims of an immoral and illegal war.


“Who determines what is legal or illegal? Him or our government? Not him,” Arakaki said.


Retired Navy Cmdr. Jack Miller, past president of the Hawaii chapter of the Military Officers Association of America, said “there’s always been the problem of following orders. This time is no different.”


“Being a Vietnam veteran, we went through this,” said Miller, 72. “The rest of the load had to be shared by those willing to follow orders and serve their country.”


Dependable, loyal officers are needed, and “if one doesn’t fit that qualification, a bad apple will contaminate the barrel. He (Watada) should be punished in some way,” Miller said. “You don’t want someone over there in Iraq who’s not going to willingly follow orders. That’s dangerous.”




Back to top


coords=11,95,101,112coords=108,95,195,112coords=200,95,309,112coords=316,95,416,112
Copyright © 2006
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service.








Letter from a soldier

Here is an email I received from my cousin.  Thought it interesting enough to put up here.  It is a letter written by a soldier in Afghanistan.


Hello everyone,



As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along
that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit toThe War Zone”. I wanted to share with you what happened.



He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area
to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.



As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and
didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General.



As
he finished, the vehicles took him to the Clam Shell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball.  He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.


 


So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President.  I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.


 


I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheer leaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States.  I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.


 


If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.


 


In service,


CPT Jeffrey S. Porter


Battle Captain


TF Wasatch


American Soldier


 


American by birth


MARINE by the grace of God


Semper Fi


Tell it to the soldier's - see message
I'm posting what THEY say. This is their viewpoint. If you want to believe it is pointless you go tell them. Maybe people should fly over there and say "hey there soldier, what your doing is pointless". Meanwhile they can shout slurs at them like they did to the Vietnam war veterans when they came home. Why don't you tell the people who are fighting to help others (and there are many soldiers who believe in the cause they are fighting for) - you tell them they mean nothing.

How much more insulting can you be towards our soldiers who fight for freedom. The freedoms that many Americans take for granted. It seems people have such little regard for the people who put their lives on the line every day to help other countries and help the world be safer so we don't have a mass build up of more terrorist coming to this country and other countries. Tell it to them not me.
God bless this soldier............sm
and others just like him who have and are sacrificing so much.
When a soldier comes home...

Paste this link or follow the link at the bottom of the post.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKdTUcZLSXw


Soldier's voicemail from Iraq
Hey all, just have a second today but I've been listening to the voicemails and reading the letters from a NG soldier in Iraq and I thought anyone who's interested might like to do the same - this is from a website a friend of the soldier has set up. For some reason it's just really grabbed me. I pray every day for this guy and his unit.

If you like you can listen to his voicemails (one of which was in response to Rove's speech the other day):
**************************
Two more voicemails from Leonard
Bloged in Voicemail by leonard Saturday June 25, 2005

Today, 6/26/05, at 3:30am PST, Leonard left these two recordings. Note his comments on Karl Rove’s latest comments regarding “liberals” aiding “terrorists.” This is a “liberal” that is proud to be one, and he is strapping on armor every day to defend an occupation that was based off a lie. This is one “liberal” taking bullets for this administration.

Click here for the first voicemail today.

Click here for the second voicemail today.
***************************
I'm sure the links won't work here but I post the particular date and note so you can find the messages directly on the website:

http://leonardclark.com/blog/

If you have some time give a listen to what he has to say! I have other friends and family in Iraq myself, but they are not allowed to say much in letters and E-mails and assume that all of it is being read and censored (they don't really mind this, in some cases it is understandable) - but Leonard calls directly and doesn't know how much longer they'll let him do so before they hush him up. IMHO, worth listening to him.

Again happy 4th to all.
I never met a soldier who didn't want a package.
Bringing them home does not enter into this.  Yet AGAIN you cannot stop your political agenda long enough to think of just the troops.  I know now it is impossible.  We all want them home.  ALL OF US.  It's just that some us would like to make their lives as easy as possible while they are away, and SOME OF US WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. 
Well....buck up little soldier. I think the financial...
well being of the country trumps your party. Oh wait...what am I thinking.
Saw this on a blog, written by a soldier....sm
Apparently written in response to negative posts regarding our country, the election, the republicans, etc. I felt this soldier's viewpoint is very, very important.



I will tell you about America!! I have been a soldier. I have seen American men and women of all RACES and religions that courageously and proudly serve their country. Many of them made the ultimate sacrifice for their country with their lives. I read these comments putting down what these finest of Americans have done It makes me really ANGRY. These people that put our country down have NO appreciation of the freedoms that they have because of the sacrifice of these military heroes!!

I know that in America we have problems and although it has taken along time to fix many of these problems, we still FIX things. That is what Americans do. There have been racial problems but in 1862 there was slavery .A Christian republican president (Lincoln) issued the Emancipation Proclamation that ended the slavery and set our country on the road to racial equality. We are not entirely there yet but we have come a long way. It would have been impossible in years past for a black man like Obama to make 4million dollars a year not to mention actually run for president.

The capitalist system that he is trying to destroy has been really good to him.

I have been around the world and I have seen “civilized” socialist European countries that have a 6o% tax rate on the working class in order to “spread the wealth” and few personal freedoms. I have seen third world countries where one in three babies die due to water born disease. I have also seen American Christian organizations voluntarily drilling wells to help these people survive. I have seen Americans risking their lives to provide medical assistance to people that have no access.

When that enormous tsunami hit Indonesia, Who was there first??? America was there first. American Marines put down their weapons and began digging the out survivors as well as those who didn’t survive. Americans set up water purification units to provide safe drinking water, setting up field hospitals aiding the injured, setting up temporary housing for these victims and food services for the victims. America was there FIRST!!

I have seen countries where the middle class live in filthy squalor, with open sewers and trash in the streets, living under oppressive totalitarian regimes. I have seen communists that plunder, murder, rape and torture the very people that they are supposedly “liberating”.

You people who want to believe that America is so bad really don’t have a realistic view of the world. NOWHERE in the world do people have a higher standard of living due to our capitalist free market system. NOWHERE in the world do people have the personal rights that we have in America. NOBODY in the world puts so much effort in to helping other people, even some that are not very friendly to us. NOBODY matches our humanitarian worldwide efforts. Why do you think that so many people want to get to America????

You people that put America down should really open your eyes and take a good honest look at the rest of the world. You should also question the anti-American rantings of people like Mr. Ayers, Mr. Wright and those associated with them. If these people had spouted this stuff in 90% of
other countries, they would have been thrown in prison or would have wound up in an unmarked shallow grave somewhere. Instead Mr. Wright lives in a 1.2 million dollar home and Mr. Ayers is a professor in a prestigious university.

Again, only in AMERICA…..

WAKE UP AMERICA……WAKE UP!!!!
Try Googling Winter Soldier.
There's a whole other world just waiting for you to discover it that lays just beyond the horizon of the US mainstream media.
Thanks for splaining that to me. I wasn't aware of the soldier
killing fellow soldiers. The sign was disrespectful. But, if you think counterposting disrespect for disrespect solves anything go for it. Just proves both people were/are dead wrong.

This is like, he hit me, well he hit me too. HEHE.
The sicko who shot the army soldier

and murdered him justifies himself by saying it was not a murder; it was a justified killing.......    Our liberal media has been so hush hush about the murder of this solider, maybe they think they same thing!!  They sure have talked about the baby murderer's murder til I'm sick to death of hearing it!!! 


Too bad Obama thought discussing the tiller murder was more important than mentioning a soldier's murder in THIS country due to a sicko islamic convert within our own country....  speaks volumes to me...


The sicko who shot the army soldier

and murdered him justifies himself by saying it was not a murder; it was a justified killing.......    Our liberal media has been so hush hush about the murder of this solider, maybe they think they same thing!!  They sure have talked about the baby murderer's murder til I'm sick to death of hearing it!!! 


Too bad Obama thought discussing the tiller murder was more important than mentioning a soldier's murder in THIS country due to a sicko islamic convert within our own country....  speaks volumes to me...


Yeah, my proud nephew soldier cannot stand
nm
We lost the first soldier from our small town here in Alabama this week, sm
and there was an article in yesterday's paper about a reverand who was going to protest at the ceremony, but due to community outrange I think this has been halted.
Say it ain't so....Family Upset Over Soldier's Body Arriving As Freight..sm

I hope this family is able to effect a change in this. This would be something worth quitting your job and marching for change.  I'm heartbroken reading of the audacity of the military to ship a fallen soldier as freight.  This has to be a mistake. Pinch me I'm dreaming...Democrat. 


 


Family Upset Over Soldier's Body Arriving As Freight


Bodies Sent To Families On Commercial Airliners



POSTED: 4:46 pm PST December 9, 2005

UPDATED: 10:19 am PST December 12, 2005








There's controversy over how the military is transporting the bodies of service members killed overseas, 10News reported.

A local family said fallen soldiers and Marines deserve better and that one would think our war heroes are being transported with dignity, care and respect. It said one would think upon arrival in their hometowns they are greeted with honor. But unfortunately, the family said that is just not the case.

Dead heroes are supposed to come home with their coffins draped with the American flag -- greeted by a color guard.

But in reality, many are arriving as freight on commercial airliners -- stuffed in the belly of a plane with suitcases and other cargo.















John Holley and his wife, Stacey, were stunned when they found out the body of their only child, Matthew John Holley, who died in Iraq last month, would be arriving at Lindbergh Field as freight.

Matthew was a medic with the 101st Airborne unit and died on Nov. 15.

When someone dies in combat, they need to give them due respect they deserve for (the) sacrifice they made, said John Holley.

John and Stacey Holley, who were both in the Army, made some calls, and with the help of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, Matthew was greeted with honor and respect.

Our familiarity with military protocol and things of that sort allowed us to kind of put our foot down -- we're not sure other parents have that same knowledge, said Stacey Holley.

The Holleys now want to make sure every fallen hero gets the proper welcome.

The bodies of dead service members arrive at Dover Air Force Base.

From that point, they are sent to their families on commercial airliners.

Reporters from 10News called the Defense Department for an explanation. A representative said she did not know why this is happening.



AWOL soldier surrenders and refusing to go back to Iraq. sm

He is from my neck of the woods.   


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/awol-soldier-surrenders-after-19-months/20060901041609990017?ncid=NWS00010000000001


True to their newest stand, right wing blogger smears family of murdered soldier.

Predictably, falling right in line with Tony Snow and his *2,500 is a number* statement on June 15, followed one day later by the fiercely *patriotic* Rush *I'dLoveToServeMyCountryButCan'tBecauseOfThisPimpleOnMyButt* Limbaugh, reminding them that aborted fetuses are more important than murdered American soldiers (as was posted on the *other* board on June 16), all the while publicly declaring that all liberals who post on this board don't care about our troops.  *Profound* indeed.


http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/06/post_134.html#002858 


The Horse's Mouth
A blog about the reporting of politics -- and the politics of reporting. By Greg Sargent






« | Main | »






WINGNUT JOHN HINDERAKER SMEARS DEAD SOLDIER'S UNCLE. A couple of minutes ago I came across this Associated Press story saying that the uncle of Kristian Menchaca -- one of the U.S. soldiers who was missing and is now said to be dead -- criticized the United States for Menchaca's disappearance and death. My first thought was to do a post asking how long it would take before the wingnuts started smearing the grief-stricken uncle.


Alas, I'm too late. Over at Powerline Blog, John Hinderaker has already cranked up the slime machine and let fly:


In a sick coda, Menchaca's uncle, Ken MacKenzie, appeared on the Today show and recited weirdly inapplicable Democratic Party talking points in relation to his own nephew's death...No shame.


I've asked this before, but what is it about the relatives of people killed by terrorists that these wingnuts hate so much? Recall that Ann Coulter smeared the widows of 9/11 victims and that many righty bloggers smeared the father of Nick Berg, who was beheaded in Iraq. Their sin, of course, was that they criticized America and George Bush.


Let me put this as clearly as I can: To the likes of Hinderaker, the pain of those who lost loved ones to this war only matters to the extent that the bereaved allow their grief to be used to prop up the war effort and Bush himself. If the bereaved relatives don't allow their grief to be used in this fashion, their sacrifice and loss no longer matter a whit -- they're not to be pitied or empathized with, but scorned and humiliated as brutally as possible. Despicable.


--Greg Sargent




More questions...

When and where did Democrat deny in the past being African-American?  I don't recall seeing a post to that effect and can't even imagine the reasons or circumstances under which such a post would even be posted.  If you want to be believed, produce the post.  Otherwise, it's just another necon lie, designed to take the focus off the real problem, which is a racist who apparently is proud to be such a deplorable human being.


More importantly, why are you so aggressive in your defense of such a deplorable human being when your own president has condemned what he said?  Sounds like you and Bennett were cut from the same cloth, which frankly isn't surprising.


Better be careful, though.  The next inconvenient group of people he might be interested in exterminating could be poor, uneducated, clueless, hateful, bigoted, ignorant white neocons.


Questions....! And more
Yep, cover their ears and yell la la la the whole way, that's the MO of the staunch repubs. What I really want to know is, what all exactly of this Bush admin are they so proud of?? What exactly have they accomplished, or even planned, that would actually succeed?? Health care? Social Security? Prescription program? Job security? Immigration? Judges and other appointees? Mishandling and misbehaviors? The environment? A straight answer for continually dumping billions overseas? But I've noticed any kind of even polite queries on that board get blasted off as usual, like a year and 2 years ago when I frequented these discussions. No direct answer whatsoever, just some name calling of us, the dumb ones. Hmmmm. Like I always say, if you're not outraged, you're not thinking....
Few questions.

I'm curious about a few things. 


What do you personally do to help in your community? 


What do faith do you have?


Do you have a mortage and what is the status?  Been able to make payments on time, behind, lost your home?


Do you have health insurance?  If not, why?


Do you have young children?


Were you for the bailout?


Do you have money invested in stocks?  Have you/are you going to cash it in?


Think we should bring our troops back?


Now, who do you think you will vote for?


 


That's what I got, 66.67%, or 22 out of 33 questions right, I think it said...sm
I had a brain freeze on several of them, where several answers seemed right on each one....

Answers to your questions.

Why would I not want you to post here anymore? 


I'm happy now and was happy prior to this also.  Why do you ask?


Those may be good questions.

But I probably won't take the time to research them.  Politics and corruption seem to go hand in hand.  Democrat or Republican.


Joe McCarthy actually started out as a Democrat.


Oh, I should mention that very big business and corruption also seem to go hand in hand -- often -- not always.


Let me answer your questions:

I'm going to repost your post and answer the questions in context:


I happen to agree with you, but does this also mean:


That all liberals aren't as bad as they are routinely portrayed on the conservative board?  I'm sure there are some liberals that aren't as jaded as you and some others here.  They routinely show up here only to be labeled a conservative when they don't go to the extremes that you do. 



 


That all Muslims aren't death-seeking people?  Maybe there are Muslims that are not death seeking.  Where are they?  Point them out to me?  Why are they allowing their faith to over-run by extremists?  Many of us keep waiting for the good Muslims to stand up against the radical Islamofascists, but they are strangely silent which leads me to believe that they are either scared of the extremists or they stand behind what the extremists are doing.  I mean, there are a lot of people on many different forums and appearing on television to relay the fact that the *Jesus Camp* is an extreme fringe of Christianity and not true Christianity, but there is not a vocal majority coming out within the Muslim community to say the extremists are not representative of mainstream Islam. 



 


That extremist fringes in any group are bad?   I think I made that clear in my first post.



 


Muslims are routinely portrayed on this board and by the media and by Bush as lumped together in one violent clump. This is unfair, untrue and does nothing to promote peace and understanding.


Again, I don't see how it's unfair or untrue based on the evidence all around us, because the Muslim community is doing nothing to try and counter that they are anything but a religion of war (Jihad).  They do not want peace. They do not want understanding  They want annihilation of anyone who does not convert.  If you can prove to me that the Muslim MAJORITY is peaceful then I will listen, but all the evidence I have studied up to and including some of the Koran proves otherwise.



 


All religions need to be respected and tolerated in America. Isn't that what America is supposed to stand for?  Well sure...that is if the religion is not dead set on destroying America.  America is to protect America and the Judeo-Christian beliefs it was founded upon.  We tolerate any peaceful religion who wants to tolerate us in return, but if your sole purpose is to destroy America, well, common sense tells  you that America has to defend herself and other weaker countries that are susceptable to bullying from the warmongering religion.


 


A couple of questions...
what proof do you have that the war has anything at all to do with oil...and what do you mean...you "bought" your patriotism?  "Served it?"  Curious as to what that means.  And ya know...I have been kinda tired for YEARS as the terrorists picked off our people by the hundreds until they hit the big one on 9-11 and took out 3000 at one time.  Just wondering if you think that was worth fighting over.  Just wondering.  If not...what?  When they kill 8,000?  10,000?  How many will it take?  Just wondering.  How much innocent blood will have to be spilled here to get you as angry at the terrorists as you are at conservatives?  Just wondering.....
Few questions......don't sweat...

Who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve?


Who wants smaller government?  No more taxes?  No government interference in our lives? 


Who is for abolishing the IRS? 


Who believes that government should only be in place to run our military for OUR safety? 


Who wants government out of our public schools? 


 


Character questions

We all know that we can go back and forth on which candidate is the best for our country. We also know that when running for president candidates can promise a lot.  Since it is not possible to know how each candidate's economic, tax or any other policy will turn out until they are actually in office, I will be basing my vote on how they feel about moral issues, i.e. marriage, abortion, etc. Each candidate has a platform/an agenda they will be pushing once elected.  Their platform can be seen on the internet by googling 2008 Democratic Party Platform or 2008 Republican Party Platform. There is some very interesting stuff in there. Check it out.


Why are they the wrong questions?
Why has he never answered the questions truthfully?
He has answered the questions
by what authority do you determine he has not answered the questions truthfully?
So I'm bringing my questions right along behind you.
Never said you were lying. Simply asked for what you have provided and I was able to finally find on my own. So here is the post you would like to leave buried below while you celebrate your victory. Still need these answers.

So, it seems that McCain also has a refundable tax credit in his plan too...larger, in fact than Obama's. $2500 for individuals and $5000 for couples for health insurance. This begs my original question, which yet have to answer.

Whe Obama adjusts taxs rates within our historical progressive tax structure, it's socialism. When anybody else does it, it's not. So, I am wondering...if Obama has a smaller refundable tax credit in his plan than McCain, why is it welfare under Obama and not under McCain?
I agree with you, Lu! So many questions about O.
nm
Here's 3 links. Any questions?
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf
Page 4 of this document. Includes a video.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/full-text-barack-obama-speech-real-leadership-for-a-clean-energy-future/


http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2008/03/08/news/casper/doc47d2397a06235615103300.txt

This leads me to other questions.
Think epidemics and isolating towns and/or cities with military.
this is exactly why I asked the questions I did -
everybody else either has to make it on their own or fail - they obviously have been ripping the American public off for years - a quality product could have been made for a lot less money. Why should we have to bail them out now? The problem is they don't want to lose those big bonuses and big paychecks and actually have to get a job like the rest of us do!
No one seriously questions that the attack on
Actually, I'm embarassed that our notion of "torture" is so wimpy. "You can put a caterpillar in his cell, but you must inform him that it is not a stinging caterpillar". PUHLEEZE.

What is pathetic is you liberals calling any of this torture - which you are doing purely to make political points, pure and simple. How people like Jews who survived the Holocaust and who have really been tortured must laugh at your quaint ideas!

"Oooh - they gave a prisoner a nasty look! Oooh - they spoke loudly to a prisoner! Oooh - they piped bad music into their cells! Oooh - they burned the prisoner's toast! Oooh - they didn't fluff the prisoner's pillows! Oooh - they opened the prisoner's mail! Oooh - they didn't give the prisoner a second helping of Beef Wellington!"

You people make me sick, and it makes me sick to think that, thanks to Obama, what AL Qaida actually knows is that our notion of torture amounts to nothing more painful than making them watch old episodes of "I Love Lucy" (with a doctor in attendance, of course, in case the prisoner faints from boredom).


You have failed to answer any questions
You have been asked several times by different posters what you would propose to do to keep America safe. You avoid that question. All you seem to be able to do is criticize and insult others and essentially run people off this board who deviate from your extreme views. Sorry I invaded your hatefest.

I can square it because they are questions not statements.
Biblically, only those who accept Jesus as their savior will go to heaven.  That is a CHRISTIAN view.  Jews have their own Messiah and their own belief as to heaven.  As for me, I would gladly welcome all to heaven. But I am not God. 
He looks a few questions away from losing control...nm

Answers to rhetorical questions...
You keep saying you guys... again lumping a group of people together which you keep telling ME not to do...

My comment about Lurker was made because you invoke her to beat me over the head with. I did not say you were or were not her *equal.* I did not use that word. I said you were not in her league. What I meant by that is that Lurker, even when angry, makes a clear and concise post, devoid of things like you are delusional, you make me feel defecated upon, to name a few. She makes her point and moves on. She does not engage in derogatory diatribes and post things like they are disturbing in their being out of touch with reality and accusations and they waste my time. In other words, she is not hateful. In other words, you are not in her league, as I stated. Merely an OBSERVATION.


HA HA.. Obama needs to answer MANY questions
nm
He already has answered tough questions and without a

teleprompter.  Now it is about time they let Palin answer a few.


Right, Indy! Anyone who questions O is termed a
nm
Questions regarding mail in ballots

Here in OR we mail in our ballots.  I filled mine out and signed the back of the envelope as it says its not valid unless signed.  However, I signed my husbands envelope by mistake (din't realize they had our printed names off to the side).  Do you think it will make any difference if I cross out my name and he signs or do you think the state would have a problem with this and just throw it out?


Just wondering.


My questions are not meant to attack.
So, what freedoms (aside from the ones we have already sacrificed on the altar of the Patriot Act) do you think you will lose? Your right to bear arms is protected by the constitution. Do you have any idea how hard it is to pass a constitutional amendment? Stricter gun control of assault weapons and enforcement of existing point-of-sale checks are hardly going to put a dent in that.

Government already has power over your money...or hadn't you noticed that...especially lately. Revising tax rates, giving tax cut and tax credits is the prerogative of any president. What was it that Bush did that wasn't about controlling your money, by taking it out of your hands and moving it on up the ladder so you could wait for it to trickle down again?

Making health care more affordable and accessible, providing better coverage and giving people a CHOICE to keep their existing policies or enroll in a really good national plan is hardly taking control. The national plan will not be CONTROLLED by the government....it will be offered by them. Otherwise, it works like the existing policy that currently covers Congress, the Senate and federal employees. And by the way, it is a GREAT plan...a whole lot better than anything you will find offered by the MTSOs.

I'm curious. How can we get any more vulnerable than we already are? Got a 401K? Did yours lose 40% in the last 2 months?

MSNBC will be the only station they will allow to ask questions...

they must be talking to Hugo Chavez about how to handle the press.


Please explain to me how my legitimate questions
I am simply trying to get somebody to help me make some sense out of Reagan's statement and what the devil it has to do with anything under heaven.