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

I have a friend in the same situation...sm

Posted By: m on 2008-11-18
In Reply to: I struggle with this actually because - Chele

His father worked for GM and died several years ago, leaving my friend a nice trust fund and health care benefits and pension for his widow who currently is in a long-term care facility. My friend, who is an MT and cannot afford insurance and is in bad health himself, told me that when his mom loses her benefits at the first of the year, he doesn't know what they will do.

I don't know if blame the government for this mess as much as I blame mismanagement by the automakers with their big executive salaries and perks and insistence on manufacturing super trucks and huge SUVs. It seems to me that more could have been done to stem this before it got this far.


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

This is not a situation that can
...be simplistically reduced to a quarrel over "doom and gloom" or not, IMHO. Top military brass has tried repeatedly to bring the message home to this administration that we don't have the troops or planning necessary to "win" anything in Iraq and this has created a terrorist hotbed and training ground where none existed before. This is just a fact that no amount of "can-do" attitude can fix.

Of course, if the intention is simply to create a state of chaos that can enable thieves to steal with impunity, the job is more than fixed.

Also you might want to note that the 1700 casualty figure is grossly understated. Only combat deaths that occur in Iraq are counted. Those whisked out of the country to Germany or elsewhere and die en route or at the destination hospital are NOT counted. This is official US policy - a Bush policy. Ask yourself why they would have this policy.

I agree with MTME about the lying - I am sick of it myself. I would like the truth for once, instead of more spin and more efforts to divide the American people (more chaos, more cover for thieves).
If she (or anyone in that situation) sm
had kept her legs together she wouldn't be in this predicament.  Simple solution.
and I am sorry for your situation!
x
what situation?
nm
And you should understand the situation more. nm

come on bush, help with the oil situation

And here comes the winter..Im sure Bush with all his power can find ways to help America through the winter with oil prices but..nah..he has to pay back his oil cronies..OMG, if we can influence countries to stop nuclear production we surely can influence companies to help us through the oil crisis.  The profits the oil companies are making is obscene..I have a friend who lives in Bakersfield, an oil town.  He and his wife divorced and she married the head of a major oil company in the Bakersfield region.  Not gonna say the name of the company but it is one of the biggest in America..He told me she lives in extreme luxury..I bet, especially in Bakersfield where prices are relatively low anyway..These oil barons are living high and we are, as my aunt used to say, *robbing peter to pay paul*.   Ummm.do I smell and feel a revolution arising..sure hope so.. 


It's a no-win situation for Bush with you

The 9/11 commission criticizes his lack of a security plan pre-9/11(that's just barely 8 months after he enters office BTW).  Then he's criticized for doing wiretaps in the name of national security which the FISA act gave the authority to do.


Okay, then which one is it--he's not tough enough on National Security or he's too tough bordering on some perceived legal violation?


Wait a minute, I know your answer Well, it's both.  Sheesh...


It is a weird situation, for sure...
...but not really getting a good in-depth report on it from the news, have to think there MUST be more to the story - though can't think what in the world could explain such an attitude as prison is not going to help this offender (heard the judge himself say that). Whoever said prison was to HELP anybody? It's PUNISHMENT!

But then again, have never gotten the whole story- you never do on TV news, and have caught O'Reilly in numerous fabrications and exaggerations and grossly slanted panel discussions before, so who the heck knows!
From *The Situation* last night.

And Tucker Carlson is hardly a liberal.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459509/


But first to a story horrifying even by the coarsening standards of Iraq, the brutal murder and torture of two U.S. soldiers. 


Privates first class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker went missing Friday after an attack on a checkpoint they were manning south of Baghdad.  Their bodies were found on Monday night.  They were reportedly so badly mutilated they were tentatively identified by tattoos and scars.  The corpses were also booby-trapped, an apparent effort to kill recovery teams.


Al Qaeda‘s new leader in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the soldier‘s slaughter. 


In the face of brutality like this, is Iraq worth the cost in American lives?  Here to answer that question, Brad Blakeman.  He‘s the former deputy assistant to the president.  He joins us tonight from Washington. 


Brad, thanks for coming on.


BRAD BLAKEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Tucker.


CARLSON:  So we have spent untold billions of dollars, 2,500 American soldiers killed, all in an effort to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq.  In return, they torture and murder and mutilate our soldiers.  Remind me why this is a good bargain?


BLAKEMAN:  Well, Tucker, look, this is a tough thing, and our hearts go out to every soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can live in freedom. 


But Iraq is worth fighting for.  The region is worth fighting for.  It‘s in our interest.  These terrible, brutal dictatorships must be brought down when they become a threat to our national security.  You know...


CARLSON:  OK.  But that‘s not the rationale the president has offered.  He has said now, because as you know, and not to rehash the whole war, but no weapons of mass destruction were found.  And he‘s said now this is worth doing because it‘s worth bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.  They yearn for freedom, and it‘s our duty to give them the freedom they yearn for. 


My question is how have they earned our sacrifice to bring them that freedom?  What about Iraq justifies the death—brutal deaths of American soldiers?  Why should we feel like it‘s worth it to bring these people democracy when they behave like animals like this?


BLAKEMAN:  We‘re focusing on the animals and not the good and decent people of Iraq.  The vast majority of Iraq is peaceful. 


CARLSON:  Is that right?  I don‘t think—I don‘t think there‘s any evidence of that.


BLAKEMAN:  There are 12 million people who went to—who went to the polls.  They have four successful elections.  They have a new government.  We tend only to focus on the very bad, on the insurgencies, and the evil people.  But the vast majority of Iraqis want to be free. 


You know, if we took your attitude...


CARLSON:  Is that true?  Is that true?


BLAKEMAN:  Hold on, Tucker.  If we took your attitude, we would have turned back at the beaches of Normandy when all those people...


CARLSON:  Spare me the tired, hackney, cliched World War II analogies.  Let‘s get to the war in progress, and that‘s Iraq.  There are decent people there.  I have been there.  I‘ve met decent people there.  I know firsthand. 


However, your claim that most people want peace is bosh as they say. 


Let me show you...


BLAKEMAN:  It is not.


CARLSON:  It certainly is.  A poll undertaken by the ministry of defense from Great Britain, part of the coalition, said 65 percent of Iraqi citizens support attacks on U.S. citizens. 


Our own polling, done by World Opinion, public opinion, 47 percent approve attacks on U.S. forces, 88 percent of Sunnis, 88 percent approve of attacks on U.S. forces. 


These are—are these—these are the people our sons and daughters are dying to make rich and free?  How does that work?


BLAKEMAN:  It is our responsibility.  We brought down this dictator, this evil dictator...


CARLSON:  How are we responsible?


BLAKEMAN:  ... who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people.  Now, it‘s our responsibility to bring democracy to these people.  We can‘t cut and run and defeat the dictator and then leave...


CARLSON:  Why is it our responsibility?  There are countries across the world who live in shackles.


BLAKEMAN:  We are the freest nation on earth.  That‘s why it‘s our responsibility.  We‘re the freest nation on earth.  We brought down the dictator, and now it‘s our responsibility...


CARLSON:  How does that work?  They have not done one thing for us.  Look—look, think of the implications of what you are saying.  I don‘t know if you have thought this through.


BLAKEMAN:  I‘ve thought it through very well.


CARLSON:  Nation after nation after nation, starting with Mugabe in Zimbabwe, moving all the way to communist—still communist, still unfree China, people who are living in fetters who are unfree, who are oppressed, is it our, as you put it, obligation as a free a nation to free those nations?  Do you really want to play this?


BLAKEMAN:  Is it—do you know what our obligation is?  It‘s to bring freedom to those people who yearn to be free.  And China has come a long way. 


CARLSON:  So it‘s your obligation to sent your son, my obligation...


(CROSSTALK)


CARLSON:  ... people I‘ve never met in countries that hate us?  You‘ve got to be kidding.  It‘s my obligation to do that?


BLAKEMAN:  Yes, it is our obligation.  Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation. 


CARLSON:  Where does the obligation come from?  I didn‘t sign up for that obligation.


BLAKEMAN:  It‘s our obligation.  Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation to go into Europe where we weren‘t attacked?  No, Europe let a dictator get so strong that collectively they couldn‘t take him down, and we had to come down. 


CARLSON:  We got in war when we were attacked.


BLAKEMAN:  We lost 400,000 Americans in that war.  We lost—a million people were wounded in that war.


CARLSON:  Right.  And there were...


BLAKEMAN:  But was it worth it?


CARLSON:  Let me just remind you, we entered that war on December 7, 1941, when our soil, the protectorate of Hawaii, was attacked by a foreign nation and thousands of Americans died.  We went to war on that day, and not before.  OK?  So the overall principle you are stating here, that we have a moral obligation to free the unfree, think it through, man.  It‘s... 


BLAKEMAN:  I didn‘t say that, Tucker.  I said when we took down the dictator, when we made an obligation to risk our soldiers to free a country, we just can‘t cut and run.  We have to establish a government for them.  We‘ve got to give them the opportunity to succeed.  That‘s our obligation.


CARLSON:  And you may be right as far as that goes.  But the blanket obligation that Bush implies, and you just stated, that we have to go free the world, to send our sons and daughters to go...


BLAKEMAN:  No, we don‘t have to free the world


CARLSON:  ... die for other people‘s freedom, people who hate us, it‘s a scary thing.


BLAKEMAN:  Well, then you know what?  Didn‘t the Japanese hate us? 


Didn‘t the Germans hate us?  Do they hate us today?


CARLSON:  They attacked us first.  We had no choice.


BLAKEMAN:  They‘re our allies.  They our allies, and they stand shoulder to shoulder with us.  Should we have waited to get attacked by the Iraqis?  No.


CARLSON:  You know, I thought—when I supported the war initially, I thought that they were capable of attacking us, and it turns out, as you know, and I‘m sad to report, that we weren‘t. 


BLAKEMAN:  They were pretty capable of attacking us if they wanted to. 


CARLSON:  Brad Blakeman, thanks a lot.


BLAKEMAN:  You are welcome. 


It depends on the situation
I voted for Bush the first term. He was running against Gore. The country could not afford another 4 years of Clintons. I voted for Bush and I'm proud I did because it helped keep a known bafoon who didn't know squat diddly out of the white house. After Bush was elected a lot changed. I didn't want to vote for him again, yet the best the dems could do was give us Kerry???????? There were so many qualified people running. How that ninny got in there (must have been all those purple hearts). So I voted for Bush again. However I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against Kerry. That doesn't make me and others morons, it makes us well-informed voters. If it meant four more years with Bush in there then so be it, but I'll tell you something. With everything that has happened in the world these past eight years the US is lucky that Gore and Lerch were not in office. That's the way a lot of people feel.

Now we're in a totally different election. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are very different from their usual party people. This year is an unusually difficult election. Times are quite different than they were 4 and 8 years ago.

To tell someone they are a moron because they didn't vote for democrats? The other choice would have been even more moronic to vote for.

With everything that has happened I'll take Bush over Gore or Kerry anyday. And before anyone goes blaming him for everything that's happened - He's just a talking head being told what to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the bafoons in his party (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc to include the people who tell Bush what he's going to do).
Every situation is different, but I do know people
nm
my understanding of the situation...
My understanding is that Obama says this is a practice that can be regulated at the state level. The federal government is just making sure that abortion stays legal and then the individual states decide how far their state will go with it.
Yes, it is a no-win situation all the time.

Governing bodies do their budgets on what the expected income will be at that time. Any time anything goes wrong, it throws a monkey wrench into their budgets, then everybody has to fork over extra money.


It's always the taxpayers who lose in the end, no matter what.


My twist on your situation
I was a democrat who became a republican and will probably reaffiliate as an independent in the not-too-distant future. I find the assumptions made on this board amusing and likely as not completely off base.

I think Obama is a likeable guy, but his starry-eyed supporters drive me up a wall. If not for the lunacy surrounding him and his office I probably wouldn't feel as apprehensive and insecure about his presidency as I do. Okay, I don't agree with him on much so far, but I so believe he's intelligent and sincere.

Try not to take the categorizing too seriously; it's just more silliness.
At lest Obama is TRYING to better the situation.
If he will be successful the future will show. At least we should give him some TIME.
The republicans would not have even TRIED to better the situation, but would have trotted along the same path, down into the final abyss.

But I agree with you that discussions about pub : dem AND about pro-life : pro-choice 'suck' and lead nowhere but to personal attacks.
When you say "world situation"....(sm)

and that Obama has played a big part in it, exactly what are you talking about?  The economy was in the toilet before he got there, and yes, he's spending a lot of money, but that's in an attempt to try to stop (or at least slow) the progression of this economic downfall. 


As far as foreign affairs go, I think we're on better terms with just about everyone now. 


So I don't get what you're talking about.


situation in Iran

Iranian opposition leader calls for rally Thursday 



because the situation OVER THERE CHANGED,
Taliban in Pakistan is getting stronger!
Think and get more flexible.
exploring situation from both sides? What?
Exploring the situation from both sides?  What two sides?  The man stated crime would go down if we aborted black babies.  What is the side you are referring to?  It is a racist remark, a dumb remark and insensitive hateful remark.  No two ways about it..PERIOD..
His bosses handled the situation, as it should be - nm
x
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
In all honesty, you are the aggressor in this situation (sm)

You came on to a political board and insulted the way everyone on here has behaved.  Would you teach your daughter to do that? I'm sorry. I am a very nice person too...I just think you were kind of asking for trouble by doing that. 


With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.

Whether Obama or McCain were elected would make no appreciabe difference in our tax situation because this huge bailout has to be recouped in some fashion and it will be off the backs of ALL Americans.....at least the ones who pay taxes.
Your the one showing how little you understand about the situation
What part of Hamas and Israel at war don't you understand.

What part of Hamas terrorizing Israel don't you understand.

What part of Hamas slaughtering and killing innocent citizens, women and children don't you understand.

To me it looks like you don't understand any of what is going on over there, therefore should keep your comments to yourself.

I just say thank goodness our incoming President understands it very well.

What was that quote I read that Ben Franklin said "Better to keep one's mouth closed ...".
There is no Biden situation. Therefore, I did not comment.
I replied to a post that also did not comment on the so-called Biden situation but I don't notice you jumping all over that one.

Obama cannot dispatch anyone to anywhere until after Jan 20. As a sworn sitting senator and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I think Biden's trip is perfectly appropriate and evidently, so does the Senate.

Another thing I am not in the habit of responding to (besides non-issues conflated only in the imaginations of O haters) would be phoney outrage. It was tiresome during the campaign, is downright boring now and not the least bit compelling.

You may think that gutter-bound gripes and groans are "intelligent" legitimate political dialog, but it's not my thing. Once again, Obama did not send Biden anywhere. In his capacity as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that would be the prerogative of the Senate, over which Biden will be presiding as VP, so his relationship with them will be ongoing and, under those circumstances, I appreciate the sense of continuity he is maintaining.

Finally, it is truly laughable in a pathetic sort of way that you are accusing a lib dem of sidestepping issues. Puh-leeze.
Our economic situation is in no way as simple as that...wish it were!.....sm
What Mr. Rogers (love the name!) does not take into account in this equation is that in our particular case, which he did not forsee before his death, I believe, is much different. There are many hardworking, ethical, proud Americans who are very reluctantly receiving "handouts" from the government because there ARE NO JOBS to be had, the bills are due, the house is on the auction block, cannot afford medicine for a sick child, food for a starving family, heat and shelter....there are definitely people who abuse the system and use it as their piggy bank, but nowadays it can be me, you, your neighbor, anyone, no matter how many years you have worked hard, no matter how you have tried, we are in a crisis of almonst UNPRECEDENTED proportions, and still gettin worse. As for the rich, please do not get me started....TAKE from them???? don't you think that they are robbing all the American People and the System when they use all types of tax loopholes not to pay their fair share of taxes, when they move operations overseas for cheap labor and once again to avaid American taxes, when they pay lobbyists, who pay politicians, to look the other way in Congress on bills that would hurt big business but might HELP Amerfican workers???? Okay, I could go on, but I guess you get the idea how this poster feels about that particular quote. All for freedom, yes. But Free Enterprise has become the Evil Empire, as in Star Wars, (okay, hokey analogy!), and until we get that particular 2000 pound elephant out of the room and roasted, we are sunk as a nation.
I understand that is a horrible situation for
it's not my responsibility to pay a mortgage for someone who had no business getting one in the first place. I have to pay my bills and my mortgage; they should never have had a mortgage.


UAW is definitely to blame for GMs current situation.

Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Automobile Workers Union?


Mises Daily by | Posted on 4/19/2006 12:00:00 AM



"This is a question that no one seems to be asking. And so I've asked it. And here, in essence, is what I think is the answer. (The answer, of course, applies to Ford and Chrysler, as well as to General Motors. I've singled out General Motors because it's still the largest of the three and its problems are the most pronounced.)


First, the company would be without so-called Monday-morning automobiles. That is, automobiles poorly made for no other reason than because they happened to be made on a day when too few workers showed up, or too few showed up sober, to do the jobs they were paid to do. Without the UAW, General Motors would simply have fired such workers and replaced them with ones who would do the jobs they were paid to do. And so, without the UAW, GM would have produced more reliable, higher quality cars, had a better reputation for quality, and correspondingly greater sales volume to go with it. Why didn't they do this? Because with the UAW, such action by GM would merely have provoked work stoppages and strikes, with no prospect that the UAW would be displaced or that anything would be better after the strikes. Federal Law, specifically, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, long ago made it illegal for companies simply to get rid of unions.


Second, without the UAW, GM would have been free to produce in the most-efficient, lowest cost way and to introduce improvements in efficiency as rapidly as possible. Sometimes this would have meant simply having one or two workers on the spot do a variety of simple jobs that needed doing, without having to call in half a dozen different workers each belonging to a different union job classification and having to pay that much more to get the job done. At other times, it would have meant just going ahead and introducing an advance, such as the use of robots, without protracted negotiations with the UAW resulting in the need to create phony jobs for workers to do (and to be paid for doing) that were simply not necessary.


(Unbelievably, at its assembly plant in Oklahoma City, GM is actually obliged by its UAW contract to pay 2,300 workers full salary and benefits for doing absolutely nothing. As The New York Times describes it, "Each day, workers report for duty at the plant and pass their time reading, watching television, playing dominoes or chatting. Since G.M. shut down production there last month, these workers have entered the Jobs Bank, industry's best form of job insurance. It pays idled workers a full salary and benefits even when there is no work for them to do.")


Third, without the UAW, GM would have an average unit cost per automobile close to that of non-union Toyota. Toyota makes a profit of about $2,000 per vehicle, while GM suffers a loss of about $1,200 per vehicle, a difference of $3,200 per unit. And the far greater part of that difference is the result of nothing but GM's being forced to deal with the UAW. (Over a year ago, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that "the United Auto Workers contract costs GM $2,500 for each car sold.")


Fourth, without the UAW, the cost of employing a GM factory worker, including wages and fringes, would not be in excess of $72 per hour, which is where it is today, according to The Post-Crescent newspaper of Appleton, Wisconsin.


Fifth, as a result of UAW coercion and extortion, GM has lost billions upon billions of dollars. For 2005 alone, it reported a loss in excess of $10 billion. Its bonds are now rated as "junk," that is, below, investment grade. Without the UAW, GM would not have lost these billions.


Sixth, without the UAW, GM would not now be in process of attempting to pay a ransom to its UAW workers of up to $140,000 per man, just to get them to quit and take their hands out of its pockets. (It believes that $140,000 is less than what they will steal if they remain.)


Seventh, without the UAW, GM would not now have healthcare obligations that account for more than $1,600 of the cost of every vehicle it produces.


Eighth, without the UAW, GM would not now have pension obligations which, if entered on its balance sheet in accordance with the rule now being proposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, will leave it with a net worth of minus $16 billion.


What the UAW has done, on the foundation of coercive, interventionist labor legislation, is bring a once-great company to its knees. It has done this by a process of forcing one obligation after another upon the company, while at the same time, through its work rules, featherbedding practices, hostility to labor-saving advances, and outlandish pay scales, doing practically everything in its power to make it impossible for the company to meet those obligations.


Ninth, without the UAW tens of thousands of workers — its own members — would not now be faced with the loss of pension and healthcare benefits that it is impossible for GM or any of the other auto companies to provide, and never was possible for them to provide. The UAW, the whole labor-union movement, and the left-"liberal" intellectual establishment, which is their father and mother, are responsible for foisting on the public and on the average working man and woman a fantasy land of imaginary Demons (big business and the rich) and of saintly Good Fairies (politicians, government officials, and union leaders). In this fantasy-land, the Good Fairies supposedly have the power to wring unlimited free benefits from the Demons.


Tenth, Without the UAW and its fantasy-land mentality, autoworkers would have been motivated to save out of wages actually paid to them, and to provide for their future by means of by and large reasonable investments of those savings — investments with some measure of diversification. Instead, like small children, lured by the prospect of free candy from a stranger, they have been led to a very bad end. They thought they would receive endless free golden eggs from a goose they were doing everything possible to maim and finally kill, and now they're about to learn that the eggs just aren't there.


 


Here is the link for the rest of the article:  http://mises.org/story/2124


Obama about to make a bad situation 10 times
nm
It is a new lawsuit - but I think the point is the situation has already been settled - nm
x
I understand completely....people can see the same situation in 2 different ways....
I am not trying to bash your opinion either...and I will just touch on this briefly and leave it alone. Wanting regime change in Iraq did not originate with George Bush. It originated during the Clinton administration:

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance

President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.

US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.

U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.

More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.

Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.

Pentagon unveils details of Operation Desert Fox
Transcript:Text of Blair's remarks on Iraq attack
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

RELATED VIDEO
Clinton statement from the Oval Office on attack against Iraq
Windows Media 28K 56K

Pentagon outlines 'Operation Desert Fox'
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K

British Prime Minister comments on the airstrikes
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K

Watch as anti-aircraft fire erupts over Baghdad
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K


In this story:
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.


'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.


Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.


•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links



"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."


In-depth special:

Strike on Iraq
Related stories:

Explosions in sky over Baghdad - December 16, 1998
Iraq not cooperating with U.N., chief inspector says - December 15, 1998
Visiting U.N. weapons inspectors depart Iraq - December 14, 1998
Iraq oil sale wins approval from U.N. chief - December 12, 1998
Cohen: Iraq could be attacked at any time - December 10, 1998
U.S. reacts sternly to Iraq's rebuff of inspectors - December 9, 1998

There were limited bomb strikes at that time. And then we had not been attacked. George Bush did not invent the idea of regime change in Iraq. No, it did not turn into full fledged war at that time...but we had not lost 3000 of our citizens either.

Also, please check out the Iraq Liberation Act passed and endorsed enthusiastically by Democrats. And if you check closely...the same democrats who are decrying going into Iraq now were all for it then. When I look at the entirety of it...and I remember well Clinton saying from the oval office he was going to bomb Iraq and why he was going to do it...I agreed with him and I agreed with Bush. That is what I absolutely hate about politics...that partisan lockstep. If a Democrat President thinks we should bomb and/or invade Iraq, the Democrats are all behind him. Remember, the majority of Democrats voted this time to go in too. It was not George Bush alone. And the intelligence he used to make his decision is the same intelligence Bill Clinton had. I don't want to make argumentative. Just stating facts. And it is the totality of it that makes me say what I said about Bush. I do not believe for one minute that he went into Iraq knowing there was no WMD, any more than I think Clinton bombed Iraq knowing there was no reason to do so.

So far as I can see, John McCain did not say he was for more war. Even Obama has said that we cannot just pull out. So no matter who is elected, we are there for awhile. The say in Iraq for 100 years was misquoted and misrepresented by the Obama campaign and others...what he said was that there "could" not will be an American presence in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, like bases, advisors, etc. Not fighting soldiers. Like we had bases in Germany, bases in Korea, etc. Those wars had been over a long time and we still had bases there. He did not say we would be fighting in Iraq in a hundred years. That being said, if we are attacked again, he is certainly not afraid to fight. We can't afford a President who is not willing to fight. Clinton did not react to the first world trade center bombing, the khobar towers bombings, the embassy bombings, or the bombing of the USS Cole. Had he done so, we might not have had 9-11 and we would not have gone into Iraq. If Clinton had accepted bin Laden from the Sudan when they offered him...if, if, if. The war in Iraq was not the product of one man.

Again, not trying to be argumentative, but I do not understand how a huge group of people can blame one man for all the ills of this country and congress gets a pass. Bush by himself can't do very much. I mean I got pretty disgusted with Clinton at the end, and I didn't much care for a lot of the things that happened during his admin, but I did not blame him personally for it. That is not how the government works.

Yes, there are some things I did not like about the Bush admin and still don't like...but I don't demonize him and make him the poster chld for everything wrong with the country...I blame Congress. THey are the ones who can change things. And they haven't done diddly.
Limbaugh stated today he was asked to do an op-ed for the whole situation. nm
x
Reminded me of a real-life situation when I was a child -
My sister, cousin, and myself had a koolaid stand on the side of the country road where we lived. We spent the day selling koolaid to mostly family. Halfway through the day, my sister decided it was too hot and she quit. We divided the money up 3 ways at that point and started all over.

At the end of the day, my sister had come back and spent all her money at our koolaid stand. My cousin and myself divided the money up 2 ways at that point when we quit.

An hour later, my sister was complaining to my grandfather that she had no money, that we had all the money and did not give her any... My grandfather proceeded to count our money and give her the exact amount we ended the day with!

I just started comparing that story to the government when I saw this cartoon! Boy, that made me mad...!!!
Same to you, my friend!!

Knowing this is late, I hope you had the best day ever!


OK. You are right. I am not. My friend
is not. Don't know why she would bring that up as we drove by gas stations in St. Pete, but obviously she was having a senior moment, was in an altered mental state or just flat-out lying...that is what it probably was, flat-out lying. I know it is important for the right to be right so I acquiesce. You are right and I am not.
MY FRIEND
x
Your friend must have been
hot.........
Your friend must have been
hot.........
You my friend
scare me and millions of others with your so-called tolerance of death and disease for our children and youth. We should be hating it. AIDS and mental disease is not pretty.
Saddam US friend

Six months after the gassing of Kurds in 1988, the White House lent Saddam a billion dollars.  In 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, US troops stood idly by while Saddam's presidential guards ruthlessly suppressed the uprising by the Kurds that Poppy Bush encouraged and had called for.  In 1980, Saddam was made an honorary citizen of Detroit, Michigan.  He was our friend back then, even though we knew his blood thirsty ways.  We even supplied him with WMD, which we then destroyed with fly over bombing through the 1990's with sanctions placed on the country to weaken it even more.  We also were friends with Osama in the 1970's when we had him and Afghan freedom fighters fight against Russia as we did not want Russia to have control of Afghanistan.  In essence, Osama was trained by our CIA for war.


friend in Vietnam
I had two friend who went to Vietnam, one returned..and yes, he too was traumatized emotionally.  He returned to his parents house and I used to stay over all the time as it was a *hang out house*..had a pool, large yard, you name it..we all hung out there (smile)..anyway, John was in Vietnam in 1969..he used to sent tapes home to his parents and we would all listen..when he returned to his parents house, forget it..you could not wake him in the morning, you would make a noise or call his name and he would jump up ready to fight you..He lived like this for a few years then he married..Since then I lost contact but I can tell ya, this guy had major issues trying to reconnect with **civilization**..I ache for the soldiers who are now fighting..the dead, the maimed and the emotionally and spiritually destroyed forever..FOR WHAT??????
I had a friend on Right Nation who went down there. SM
He lives about an hour away.  He did not gestimate anywhere even close to that. 
I'm a friend of Bill!
from the uber-liberal state of Massachusetts. I was just responding to previous post of why Observer posts on this forum.
You keep calling me your friend...

...why is that?  I hope you don't generally treat your friends this way.


As far as me singling people out to torment -- it would only be you and it would be singular.  Plus, I didn't "single" you out, just saw your posts on a PUBLIC forum and as I said, they looked kind of mean and cruddy.  However, I would say you are the PLURAL stalker.  Come one, come all you will take them on and condemn and mock all that folks say on the liberal board!!  And then accuse them of all being the same person.   Lots of paranoia goin' on in that ole brain of yours, doesn't sound very healthy at all!!!   No, sir!!!


Yes, and Obama has at least 1 friend
nm
Well, Obama does have a friend who could help him
nm
That's her imaginary friend (nm)
x
All you can do, my friend, is vote.

Everybody gets one vote (hopefully only one) to make her voice heard.  One side has to lose.  Be prepared either way. 


I have a friend of mine who has a

few nieces who are biracial and they are absolutely beautiful kids.  I think some of the cutest kids are "oreos."


Obama's friend
http://noblesseoblige.org/wordpress/2008/10/05/bill-ayers-weather-underground-not-just-anti-war/
close friend
My best friend had an abortion when she was a senior in high school. She was afraid to tell her parents. I took her and her boyfriend paid for the procedure. He did not go with her. Fast-forward 24 years. She has 3 children and has been married for 20 years. Does she regret her decision? Some days she does. Would she do it again? She says she would. She has talked about it with her teenage son and hopes that her children will never have to make the choice. She is a conservative Christian now (Assembly of God) and she still fights for abortion rights.