Alan Moore **************************************************************** 12-13-04, 04:46 PM honilov That is ridiculous!!! After sacrificng for his country, this is how he's treated. It kind of confuses you as to who are your 'real' enemies.
12-13-04, 07:58 PM AMoore
QUOTE]Originally posted by honilov: That is ridiculous!!! After sacrificng for his country, this is how he's treated. It kind of confuses you as to who are your 'real' enemies.[/QUOTE]
In yet another example, the Denver Post reports on the substandard medical treatment being provided to the Gaurd and Reserves at Ft. Carson. http://tinyurl.com/6vkjz
The Army, to it's credit, decided to do something about the situation. To their discredit, what they did was to ban the Denver Post from the base. http://tinyurl.com/56k3s
Let's hear it for the moral values of the Bush administration.
Alan Moore
12-16-04, 10:06 AM newnickname "If the public gets the idea Bush's brass, who have no qualms about paying Halliburton and other no-bid providers gazillions of taxpayer dollars for apparent phantom services, are now trying to diminish the horrendous expenses of the Iraq misadventure by nickel-and-diming injured soldiers -- amputees, for pity's sake! -- over hospital travel expenses and bogus deployment costs, what support exists for the White House will blow away in the winter wind.
And it appears that's what's happening. Clinton's office is looking into at least 19 other cases in which similar payroll snafus have landed on injured combat veterans." www.niagarafallsreporter.com
Is Bush going to lose supporters over this, and armour for Humvees?
The writer predicts that '...the public could soon get the idea the current Bush administration may be all about national security and anti-terrorism -- but, in its waning years, more about collusion and profiteering.' Bush's second term doesn't seem to be getting off to a good start - or am I just being bamboozled by The Awful Liberal Media?
12-18-04, 01:32 PM newnickname All The President's Problems More on the shaky start to Bush's second term ('Once the election dust settled, the Bush gang looked like country-bumpkin first-termers.') including Rumsfield's problems with the armour question.
Where have this forum's Bush supporters all gone? Where's the right-wing voice? Seriously - is there another bulletin-board somewhere, full of neocons congratulating themselves on how well it's all going? Any ideas?
12-18-04, 06:07 PM DorianGreyed At least one is busy with his real life, and at least one has left because of me. It seems I was not willing to let his factual errors pass without comment, and was certainly not willing to treat him any differently than I treat others (and no differently than I am treated). Some, no doubt, preferred to speak out when there were more Conservatives than Liberals, and didn't like it when the numbers became more equal. Then we have those who just cannot defend how this war has been run, but are unwilling to admit that this administration has created a far bigger problem than the one it intended to remedy. Finally, there must certainly be some who just gave up, thinking they we just don't understand that everything is going well in Iraq.
12-19-04, 12:38 PM newnickname Without those contributors, it's difficult to get an idea of how 'the right' in the US is thinking. Looking at the websites often linked to by The Missing, there's a lack of coverage on Iraq.
Today...
Newsmax' only front page Iraq stories are one about cancellation of Iraqi debt and another, dubious, one about The Soldier Who Questioned Rumsfield having been put up to it by a reporter and getting his facts wrong in any case. Methinks Rumsfield wrote it.
Worldnet has an entertainingly wacky story about how everyone (not just the Shiites, who are bound to win in a vote divided along ethnic and religious lines, leading to score-settling...) in Iraq is really excited about the elections and it's all going swimmingly except for a few malcontents. The story also manages to compare Islam to the lost Aztec religion. (There are also some stories about how 9/11 was Clinton's fault, and on the recent Bin Laden tape. Otherwise it's all about the threat from Iran and North Korea, and how persecuted US Christians are ).
Foxnews, to its credit, does carry the Associated Press reports of attacks across Iraq and in 'downtown Baghdad'. (Fox' own headline to the report is "Desperate Measures". That could refer to either side, couldn't it?)
Can anyone give some idea of what those who recently voted for Bush are thinking about Iraq? Are they thinking about Iraq?
12-19-04, 12:55 PM MsSueM newnickname,
Off the top of my head, I know of two "conservative" message boards.
http://www.hannity.com You have to register with a screen-name to view the threads there, some of which are as follows: "I invite any liberal to debate me on the global warming farce" "Clinton's Army Won in Afghanistan?" "Alert! Closing in on bin Laden big time!" "That whole armor thing was just a sick joke" "Another liberal attack on Christmas" "Morality and the Left" "The UN Oil for Food Scandal and Bill Clinton" "O'Reilly calls them Un-American and he's right!"
Big Grin 12-19-04, 01:05 PM newnickname Thank-you. Maybe I should have breakfast before I take a look...
12-19-04, 06:32 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: Without those contributors, it's difficult to get an idea of how 'the right' in the US is thinking. Looking at the websites often linked to by The Missing, there's a lack of coverage on Iraq.
Today...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/19/102144.shtml' only front page Iraq stories are one about cancellation of Iraqi debt and another, dubious, one about The Soldier Who Questioned Rumsfield having been put up to it by a reporter and getting his facts wrong in any case. Methinks Rumsfield wrote it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41924 has an entertainingly wacky story about how everyone _(not just the Shiites, who are bound to win in a vote divided along ethnic and religious lines, leading to score-settling...)_ in Iraq is really excited about the elections and it's all going swimmingly except for a few malcontents. The story also manages to compare Islam to the lost Aztec religion. (There are also some stories about how 9/11 was Clinton's fault, and on the recent Bin Laden tape. Otherwise it's all about the threat from Iran and North Korea, and how persecuted US Christians are Roll Eyes).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141971,00.html, to its credit, does carry the Associated Press reports of attacks across Iraq and in 'downtown Baghdad'. (Fox' own headline to the report is "Desperate Measures". That could refer to either side, couldn't it?)
Can anyone give some idea of what those who recently voted for Bush are thinking about Iraq? _Are_ they thinking about Iraq?
I believe Newsmax to be correct about the reporter putting a gaurdsman up to asking "the question" and have heard that he also shmoozed the guy with the mic to make sure the question got asked. I couldn't comment on the rest of the article, except to point out that they didn't mention that Rumsfeld asked for (and got) a repeat of the question, and, to judge from the sound of the recording I heard broadcast, most of the crowd applauded and cheered the questioner.
Regarding worldnet, I'd say that they are probably correct in thinking that everyone in Iraq is excited about the elections, although their interpretation may be incorrect. After all, even the administration is saying that the elections are a motivation for the increased levels of violence now being seen in Iraq. That constitutes excitement in almost anyone's view.
As to whether the Bush supporters are thinking about Iraq, I don't suppose they are. After all, Bush already told us he doesn't think about binLaden much any more. I suppose Iraq is also "falling off the radar."
At least Reagan had Alzheimer's to blame it on...
Alan Moore
12-20-04, 09:53 AM methos Yes, the reporter asked the gaurdsman to ask the question. The gaurdsman's girlfriend (credible source? who knows) said that he was concerned about it on his own anyway. The gaurdsman is still the one who made the decision to ask, and there was a large cheer when he asked the question, showing that many of the other gaurdsmen in the room were concerned about the isssue.
12-20-04, 10:00 AM newnickname
quote:...he was concerned about it on his own...
The alternative would be that the soldier was incredibly suggestible: "Well, sure I'll ask The Big Boss an embarrassing question in the most public way..."
12-21-04, 07:16 PM Scotty
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121804K.shtml More on the shaky start to Bush's second term (_'Once the election dust settled, the Bush gang looked like country-bumpkin first-termers.'_) including Rumsfield's problems with the Armour question.
Where have this forum's Bush supporters all gone? Where's the right-wing voice? Seriously - is there another bulletin-board somewhere, full of neocons congratulating themselves on how well it's all going? Any ideas?
It seems that all of you Kerry supporters are forgetting that he voted against giving the troops body Armour. It is easy to pass the blame on to others.
12-21-04, 07:27 PM newnickname "...Bush ads released April 26 recycle some distortions of Kerry's voting record on military hardware. We've de-bunked these half-truths before but the Bush campaign persists.
The ads -- many targeted to specific states -- repeat the claim that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream weapons including Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache helicopters, and also repeat the claim that he voted against body armor for frontline troops in Iraq. In fact, Kerry voted against a few large Pentagon money bills, of which Bradleys, Apaches and body armor were small parts, but not against those items specifically.
Analysis
On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror"
Misleading Claims
The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.
The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total..." www.factcheck.org
What Kerry supporters? Isn't the election over? Smile
12-21-04, 07:51 PM DorianGreyed Actually, what Kerry voted against was a bill which had no funding. He was in favor of an almost identical bill which had funding in place, a pay as you go type of thing.
12-22-04, 09:57 AM teeceeum Here is a blog from a Lt. in the medical corp of the 278th just deployed to Iraq. Yes, the guy definitely is a Republican. But I still think you can get a sense of the soldier's life in a war zone. The comments are interesting also.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2012 | Location: USA | Registered: 10-05-03
).
