|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
Not to sound crass about a brother dieing in combat, but Augie's father should just shut up with his rantings and blamings over his sons death.
His son signed a contract to join the Marines, where whould he expect to end up doing this? Good chance would be a combat zone.
If he was drafted, then his father could rant all he wanted to. But then again many men have died to allow Augie's father to rant. So rant away.
|
reconmike....at best.... "Augie's" CIC is a duplicitous, intentionally misleading, propagandist. At worst, he is a war criminal deeply enmeshed in a criminal conspiracy. In either scenario, the CIC has broken the commitment to our troops to only order them into combat in cases where it is "absolutely necessary". The invasion and occupation of Iraq, hardly rises to a level of necessity. These special circumstances and the insincerity and demonstrated lack of credibility of the "vacation president", masquerading as the "wartime president", create the circumstances that compell Augie's father to speak out and denounce Bush. This is as patriotic and as "American" an act, as any you will witness, under these extraordinary circumstances. Bullshit is no substitute for sincere leadership.Augie "signed a contract".....that is true...but he contracted with officials who swore to "uphold and defend" the Constitution. These "officials" cannot even keep their "story" straight. If Augie's father can, by his remarks, influence the inevitable process of bringing our CIC to accountability for his unnecessary "war of aggression", another father may not have to experience the loss, frustration, and emptiness that he has to. Do you believe that the father of a brave, dead, US Marine, would choose to believe that his son died for "nothing"? Bush and his neocons did that to Augie and his father, when they started this war.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html</a>
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.
Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
|
Yet.....Bush still implies, this week,,,that his illegal invasion of Iraq is somehow "connected"...
Quote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/04/news/bush.php
GRAPEVINE, Texas President George W. Bush has publicly overruled some of his top advisers in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."
In a speech on Wednesday, Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times......
............"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Bush said in his address, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."............
|
reconmike, you fall victim to Bush's duplicity when you post criticism here of a man whose son was stolen from him, under false pretenses, by your "vacation president". Please reconsider your post. Augie's father is a patriot. Can you say the same of Bush, with any conviction?
Our CIC does not even subscribe to his own rhetoric....but he orders other American's sons and daughters to there deaths as he repeats his own, empty, BS....whatever it takes.....
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040806-1.html
August 6, 2004
President's Remarks to the Unity Journalists of Color Convention
Washington Convention Center
Washington, D.C.
Q Good morning. My name is Mark Trahant. I'm the editorial page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a member of the Native American Journalist Association. (Applause.)..............What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state governments?
THE PRESIDENT: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.............
........Q Mr. President, this week, General Tommy Franks, your former CENTCOM commander has been on tour, talking about his book, talking about his Iraqi experience. And he conservatively estimated two to four more years of a large-scale American presence in Iraq. This morning there is fresh fighting in Najaf, Nasiriyah, Samara. What is the mission at this point, for 140,000 American forces? And how will we know when they're done? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The mission is for the -- their mission is there to be a democratic Iraq, where they have elections to elect their government. That's the mission, to help them achieve that. And that's important. And that's necessary work. The tactics to achieve that are, one, we help provide security to the Allawi government as they move toward elections. Obviously, there are people there that are still trying to disrupt the election process. They can't stand the thought of a free society in the midst of a part of the world that's just desperate for freedom. These people don't like freedom. You know why? Because it clashes with their ideology. We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. (Laughter.)
No, that's what they do. They use terror to -- and they use it effectively, because we've got good hearts. We're people of conscience, they aren't. They will cut off a person's head like that, and not even care about it. That's why I tell you, you can't talk sense to them. Maybe some think you can, I don't. I don't think you can negotiate with them. Let me --
|
Quote:
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...5647-6162r.htm
Commentary: An unwinnable war?
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Washington, DC, Sep. 6
........ So it is encouraging to hear Bush himself make several little-noticed allusions to an understanding that terrorism is not what his war is against.
"We actually misnamed the war on terror," he told delegates to the Journalists of Color Convention in Washington Aug. 6. "It ought to be 'the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try and shake the conscience of the free world.'"
Bush seems to have intended the remark as a joke -- and the audience certainly took it as one -- but last week he repeated it, stripped of hyperbole, in all seriousness. "Frankly, the war on terror is somewhat misnamed," he told Time magazine, "It ought to be called the struggle (against) a totalitarian point of view that uses terror as a tool to intimidate the free."
But here is Bush seems to be trying a neat trick -- abandoning the useless definition of the enemy as terrorism, but replacing it with one so wide and general that it can still do the necessary work in Israel and elsewhere. ..........
|
Quote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/
Today show
Updated: 1:35 p.m. ET Sept. 2, 2004
LIMA, OHIO
..........Lauer: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?
President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.
Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?
President Bush: I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way. .........
|
|