You might find Russia more to your liking......... sm
Posted By: m on 2008-12-20
In Reply to: Far left tolerance....(sm) - Just the big bad
I'm sure they don't have a church on every corner, "in Gdo we trust" isn't on their money, and if you are lucky enough to even have a TV then I doubt there is a preacher on it. Can't say for sure if their leader knows his anatomy from that of Mother Earth's or not, though.
As for what the right is sacrificing, how about our children being taught in school that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle, that it is just as acceptable as a heterosexual lifestyle and not an amoral, sinful lifestyle. Or how about having to tell you daughter 'no' when she wants to buy a 'toy' out of those vending machines so thoughtfully placed in every gas station restroom across the country and then have to explain to her why she can't have one. We have to explain to our children what they are seeing when the news runs a story about 2 men or 2 women getting "married" and why it is not acceptable to us.
If gay people want some kind of legally binding union, fine. Let them have it. I'm not the one who has to answer for it, but please don't parade it around on television for the rest of us to have to look at and please don't call it a "marriage." Call it a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever other PC term you want to call it.
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
Not what they said at all! Just your twisting it to your liking!
nm
I may have to start liking ole Billy boy.
I just heard that Bill Clinton admitted that the democrats in congress are responsible for this economic crisis stating that even he tried to stop this FMFM situation and each time the dems voted against it. I was trying to find the information on the internet but I just saw it on TV and not sure if there is a link to that information yet or not.
I think you're right about him not liking Obama...
but what could his plan be when he keeps making himself look so dumb? Do you think maybe he's trying to make Obama look bad somehow?
No, am not being racist by not liking how words are spoken
If so then would be against my racially mixed family. I do not like hearing ebonics, I do not care for certain dialects. I am able to say this because I live in America. I do not see hypocrisy in being able to say how I feel. Oh, I do feel the cartoon is racist. How many times have black folks been referred to in that same vein. Certainly it is.
Russia
Was wondering what you all thought of Russia's response to President-elect Obama. Are any of you concerned about that guy more so now than before?
Can they see Russia from their house?
I have always been worried about Russia
There was a great quote from 40 or 20 years ago, from a Russian professor, I'll have to search for it. But, basically it said something like, "We will bring them in with good will and kindness, and then we will crush them with our iron fist!"
However, the issue with Russia doesn't raise any concerns over Obama with me. Maybe he can use a little diplomacy instead of just trying to bomb everything off the map, lol!
Yes, I am worried about Russia.
I do not mean to sound churchy, but I have been brought up that it states in the Bible that Russia (known as another name in Bible, but shows it on a map where Russia is) to be very worried. When the country Russia comes into play, need to worry about Amargeddon, The End Times. Not the countries of Iran, North Korea, etc., but Russia. Yes, I am concerned about Russia.
Russia's opinion
We never believe a word they say unless it somehow coincides with our own opinions, huh?
I brought up Russia............sm
because it was an example of basically an exact opposite from what America is. You seem to want to live completely opposite than Americans have lived for the 150 (give or take) years before Madelyn Murray O'Hare started raising Cain (no pun intended) about prayer in schools, etc. While I realize atheists did exist prior to her time, for the most part, they pretty much "lived and let live" much as Christians did with respect to co-existing with them. That is more what I would call "tolerance" rather than getting all up in arms because God's name appears on the currency that puts a roof over your head, food on your table and clothes on your back.
As to the issue of Christian gays and lesbians, I really feel that is a subject more for the Faith forum and would happily discuss it with you there sometime as I have opinions on that as well. (are you surprised? LOL)
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman period. Unless you are married to a woman, then of course I feel your marriage is valid and certainly not worthless. You are really stretching the limits of common sense on this subject with your suppositions.
Your next to last statement is absolutely correct. There is only one way for true Christianity and that is based solely on the teachings in the Bible. People who do not believe the Bible do see it as divisive and intolerant, but like Paul said "the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe." Again, another fascinating subject for the Faith forum, but I would state that it is not Christians who seek to divide this nation but unbelievers who do because of their unbelief.
With all that said, JtBB, I will say this. I find you a very interesting person and really enjoy debating issues with you and hope you realize that just because our opinions clash some, okay most, of the time does not mean that I don't like you. :o)
Based on what is going on right now with Russia and georgia...
I would say looking in his eyes and seeing KGB is pretty much on the mark. McCain knows who and what Russian "management" are. You can see what they think about negotiations. Basically told the world up yours, if we want Georgia back we are going to take it. Why doesn't Obama go visit them like he did Germany and give a speech about how he is a citizen of the world and see how far it gets him. Sigh....Careful what YOU ask for.
It ain't Russia I'm immediately worried about...
xx
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:
1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.
A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.
RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.
I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat.
That is the modus operandi of Russia....
and probably one of the early tests Biden was talking about. I don't think it came as a surprise to him. I am not concerned about Russia's response...I am concerned about Obama's response to them, but we will have to wait awhile to find that out, I am assuming, since he has not formally taken the job yet.
I do think, however, that Russia's response to a McCain win would have been different. They don't need to test him...they already know where he stands (I looked in his eyes and saw KGB).
The commend from Russia was directed at the new...
administration, not the current one. So it is not Bush's problem. Bush admin reacted the way they should have to the aggression in Georgia...and yes, I think Georgia was aimed at the election. Do you not remember Joe Biden going over there because he "friends" with the Georgian President? Came back denouncing the invasion. How long after that was he pegged for VP? Yeah, I would say the Russians were doing a little water testing.
I wish I shared your optimism about Obama. In sincerely wish I did. I sincerely wish he would take a look at Russia and realize that Marxist socialism does not work. But every torchbearer of Marxism that has come down the pike really believes that he will be the one to make it work. Sigh. Those who do not learn from mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
All that being said...again. I wish I shared your optimism. But history should tell you, Russians are not interested in diplomacy. They are interested in world domination and they want to see if Obama will allow them to swallow it up, one little piece at a time. We shall see.
Venezuela and Russia are going to hold
military manuevers near Venezuela.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457106,00.html
This is what Russia thinks will happen
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457550,00.html
Because of our economy, United States will be split: The Pacific area, The South, Atlantic area, etc. As for Alaska? Could be Russia's for the taking.
What is amazing to me about Alaska is Palin. Palin was not to be our next VP, but it sure shows Russia who she is and how she tries to fight for Alaska. Of all states, Alaska came out of no where during the election and shows what Alaska has to offer including Palin who will fight for her state against Russia.
Russia's laughing at us, too. Thanks, Obama!
So much for those hopes of Obama 'repairing our image' in the world.
China's laughing at us.
France and England are scolding us.
And Russia's already written our obituary.
"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."
"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe."
Here's a link to the article in Pravda:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
I heard this morning russia is buying up
iceland's debts, guess they are in real trouble. supposedly could be a change in the balance of power (not a good one if you know what I mean)...?
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.
You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.
We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.
When you see that, folks, the end is near.
Russia against sanctions for Iran and North Korea. Therefore:
U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01
President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.
Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.
The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.
In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.
At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.
You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.
Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.
The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.
Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.
But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.
Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.
The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.
Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.
But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.
Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.
The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.
The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.
Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.
This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.
Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.
The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Piglet: Kasparov calls Russia's elections...s/m
meaning the recent Putin reelection.....the *dirtiest* in their history.....
http://newsfromrussia.com/news/russia/03-12-2007/102126-kasparov_elections-0
find out. I find sam's posts to the point
nm
Foreign investors. China and Russia insisted on Fannie Mac bail out.
dd
I couldn't find that one but I did find this
S.Amdt.4170: To protect families, family farms and small businessees by extending the income tax rate structure, raising the death tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum death tax rate to no more than 35%; to keep education affordable extending the college tuition deduction; and to protect senior citizens from higher taxes on their retirement income, maintain U.S. financial market competitiveness, and promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividents and capital gains.
NAY: Biden and Obama YEA: McCalin
I.E., this is in the voting record in the public records. There are not too many voting records there for the O since he started his campaign and most of those he voted NAY or say Not Voting.
Well, then, please find me one that you find to be racist.
Find it yourself...
I used to answer all of these posts requiring that I go back and find the names and dates and places of anything that I posted to prove what I was saying. What usually happened was that it would still be discounted for some reason or another as biased, meaningless or just untrue so I have stopped reresearching for the nonbelievers. I read papers. I watch news shows. I watch senate proceedings. David Gergen, Ed Gillespie, William Buckley, Susan Collins, Peter King, Bill Bennett are a few off the top of my head but if you need proof, you do the legwork. I assure you it is out there. C-SPAN is a good source. You can see and hear them in action.
You know what I find to be
OFF-THE-WALL mindboggling about the king's apologists/cultists is that they shriek about illegal immigration with *They're breaking the LAW!*....hmmm, so they don't hold their king to the standard they expect from noncitizens of this country? It's hard work drinking all that Kool-Aid!
Meanwhile, Cheney claims he hasn't seen the senate report re: no connection between Osama and Saddam, and Rice insists there WERE ties and it was all Tenet's fault. HUH?! So now I'm wondering, does this mean Tenet has to return his medal of freedom? After all, it's not like he said he was pressured to manufacture the intelligence to suit Bush and Co.
Took me a while to find this....
And Clinton is a serial rapist. So what is your point? sm
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]
Posted By: Brunson on 2006-05-03,
In Reply to: Hitchens is a public and private severe alcoholic - Mind
Everyone knows that Hitchens is an alcoholic. You are adding nothing to this conversation. Act like an adult or leave.
I cannot find it
but I have also seen a picture where Obama is standing on a platform with other people who are pledging allegiance to our beautiful flag with their hand over their hearts, and Obama is just standing there. This is the picture that really made me wonder what this guy is made of, where he is coming from, and where he wants to take us!
I find it odd.....
I find it odd that people won't follow the constitution written about 200 years ago by our founding fathers (people we know what they looked like). They say it's old and archaic and has no place in today's world - times have changed.
Yet...they will follow the bible word for word that was written around 1500 to 400 BC. - which by the way was written by men keeping in the parts they wanted to and not putting in other parts they didn't want to.
Where is the sanity?
why can't they find them?
They have to put the info into a computer somewhere? Why can't it just tell them that it is invalid - my local office was able to tell me within 24 hours that I was okay to vote this year.
Where did you find this?
xx
Once again, you only want to find something to
X
Won't be able to find you and your ilk. You;ll be
living under the same rock you crawled out from under. Bye-Bye, sad Brad.
If you can't find them...well (sm)
you obviously have a problem already. Sources I've used include a direct link to the US Senate, factcheck.org (an organization that even Fox uses), going to bills/legistation directly....etc.
We can find these all day...
long, but until you actually look at McCain's voting record, posts like this (including the one below) are nothing but opinion.
http://vetsforobama.org/
The ones I find concerning:
AIDE TO IRAN'S AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, ALI AGHAMOHAMMADI
"The president-elect has promised changes in policies. There is a capacity for the improvement of ties between America and Iran if Obama pursues his campaign promises, including not confronting other countries as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also concentrating on America's state matters and removing the American people's concerns."
In other words, sit down with us with no preconditions and let's powwow.
RUSSIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER GRIGORY KARASIN
"The news we are receiving on the results of the American presidential election shows that everyone has the right to hope for a freshening of US approaches to all the most complex issues, including foreign policy and therefore relations with the Russian Federation as well."
In other words, come into my parlor said the spider to the fly...
The rest kind of backs up his citizen of the world mantra. Will wait and watch for how that plays out.
The one I find amusing:
SUDANESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN ALI AL-SADIG
"We don't expect any change through our previous experience with the Democrats. When it comes to foreign policy there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats."
LOL
They won't find it. LOL (nm)
I always find that the most
vociferous against religion are the ones who are so afraid there is a God that when their time comes and their life is judged, they know what's coming, and feel guilty for the life they are leading.
I don't want to find out what comes after
trillion but if our government continues to spend the money, I fear we may find out the hard way. All I've heard about is how Bush doubled our deficit in 8 years. Well, Obama has been in office not even a full month and wants to add 1 trillion dollars to it....although he continues to say 800 billion in his charismatic speeches. I'm also so tired of the blame game. Obama himself made sure in his speech last night at the democratic retreat (which, BTW, taxpayers helped pay for, thanks O) to mention that government is a group of people throwing out ideas and it isn't one person dictating everything. Yet he continues to blame one person, Bush, for our crisis. This crisis has been a long time coming people and started before Bush, although he didn't help either. I blame government as a whole and I intend to hold both dems and pubs feet to the fire and since the dems are currently in control......they are most definitely getting more criticism from me because they are in charge at this point. Doesn't mean I'm not keeping an eye on the pubs too cuz Lord knows there are crooks in both parties.
Find it For Yourself
.
what I did find out
Each province administers their own so perhaps what I said in jest is actually true. Montreal has figured out something Ontario has not. It seems some provinces have got this down pat, no long waits, no refusal of particular cares, etc., etc., etc., and their residents are extremely satisfied. Costs are quite low, can be as low as $98 per month for a family of four, which covers basically everything except prescriptions. Not to worry, however, as prescription costs are much lower in Canada. Plus most employers cover the full cost for their employees (not the prescriptions but the insurance). All the things we hear of as awful are just not true - in some provinces. However, in other provinces they are true - long waits, no care, etc., etc., etc. If we could but have the good parts of their plan!
Does anyone else find it
interesting that Obama ridiculed McCann for taxing healthcare benefits during his campaign and yet that is now something on the table Obama is considering to help fund his healthcare reform. Funny how something that was once ridiculous to him is now something okay to do and how dare we question him.
Once again.....why aren't democrats holding Obama's feet to the fire here? Lie after lie and broken promise after broken promise. If anyone from any other party flip flopped and lied like this....you guys would crucify him/her. What gives?
Okay, now that I know where to find it...
has anyone read this crap? I'm about 100 pages in and none of it sounds good yet.
Have I just not gone far enough to get to the good part?
Where did gt do that? Show me please because I can't find it.
I find it hard to believe you don't see it.
Couldn't find it.
All I could find on that board was complaining and whining about liberals and how they're all terrible and godless, etc., etc. 'Nuff said. 
I I find it difficult to take anything that ..
O'Reilly says to heart. His demeanor is the true definition of a blowhard bully. I tend to tune out when people are screaming at me or really dishing out the hate stuff. Having said that, I do not believe that the Marine thing is about **good** or **bad** apples. War is an unnatural state. War without end is even worse. I don't know any details - none of us do - but in a setting where soldiers are deployed and redeployed and redeployed over and over in a hostile tribal environment where they do not know who is friend or foe, this tragedy does not come as a surprise. I certainly don't condone this, no one would, but I understand how it could happen and I believe that if it did happen that those involved are not necessarily **bad apples.** Everyone keeps saying that 99.9% of the military are exemplary soldiers. I am not so sure that those involved are not as well. Gross mismanagement of the troops, a complete lack of understanding of the tribal nature of Iraq, in other words, a failure from the Pentagon on down would be the culprit in my opinion. These are the people who should be held accountable but that, of course, will not happen. A few very low-on-the-totem-pole soldiers will be the scapegoats in this and generals and civil service Pentagon folks will just walk away. I am still waiting for the dogs from Abu Ghraib to be indicted. That is just about how inept and ridiculous the management of the war has been. As far as Murtha goes...I believe he truly believes what he says and is extremely concerned about the troops themselves, the real people fighting on the real ground in real Iraq. I think he speaks from his heart and could care less about payback or whatever. I think that he is frustrated and angry and feeling helpless as many of us are over a situation that has good outcome possible.
Where did you find this story? sm
I can't find anything anywhere on this. Thank you!
If they can find the right spin they will..sm
But they have to be careful how the approach active duty soldiers you know. Especially since they have spent the last 3 years saying liberals were not supporting the troops.
|
