Barbara Boxer - not her finest moment

[lancelva]

Right on target "kev." The real divide in America is those who see 9/11 as the beginning of a war and those who don't. We should really be able to express our views for or against that statement with respect and understanding towards each other. But for far too many their Bush/Republican hatred colors everything.

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. Sep 2001 changed everything; how I vote and how I view those "leaders", like Boxer who don't understand we are at war.

It was the beginning of a war: the War on Terrorism. I supported that war. I understood that we were at war. I understood that Osama bin Laden attacked us and that Bush promised to find him "dead or alive."

And Iraq is not even the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where more Americans were killed last year than the year before, where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's total opium production, and where commanders on the ground tell us the Taliban is planning a dangerous offenisive this spring and we don't have enough troops there to supress it.

We have more than 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than we have in Afghanistan. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden?

What's more, we've spent $97 billion on the war in Afghanistan and $379 billion on the war in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us.

When we could have killed bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, the Bush Administration turned American troops away and let poorly trained Afghan warlords handle it--the same men who had been fighting against us weeks before.

That's the enemy that started war on 9/11. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of Tora Bora alive. That's the enemy that has developed a complex network covering at least 60 countries, in an even stronger position than before 9/11. That's the enemy that's using our occupation of Iraq as a recruiting tool.

So let me amend your commen: there is a divide between those who wanted to continue and accomplish the goal of the war that began on 9/11 and those who wanted to divert our resources a drag us into a completely unrelated conflict.

How dare you defend this war in Iraq in the name of 9/11?

 

[chance1]

Chance, its difficult to have a meaningful dialogue with you because most of your responses are non sequiturs.

sorry smelter - another one of my shortcomings

often I feel so at ease that I just talk in shorthand

either way - did not mean to diss u

just thought your comment was about outrage by boxer "haters" - I'm not one

and I thought there were more "boxer is great" posters

hope that explains my position

 

[chance1]

It's our men and women who've died, and those of the 21,000 new troops who WILL die, in Bush's Iraq war that Senator Boxer referred.

Bush & Co deliberately misled the American people and Congress when they drew a connection between 9/11 and attacking Iraq.

Saddam Hussein and Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11.

9/11 was not the beginning of a war in Iraq. Bush started the war in Iraq. Totally unnecessarily.


Boxer's point is who is and who is not paying a personal price for that war. Bush talks about "sacrifice" but, as she pointed out, the only ones sacrificing on a personal level are military personnel and their families. If this is a war shouldn't we all be sacrificing?

I think you're mixing your hatred for "anything George" with the facts

GWB deliberately mislead ................. - your opinion - not proven. One of the problem with hating someone and his policies so much that your opinions get expressed as something more than that - and they are not.

The "sacrifice" thing is a bad faith play - kinda like hardliners calling u "unpatriotic" if ur against the war. Other posters (not u) that suggested I should enlist - so silly. I'd not be able to beat the drum that is pro war here (I have Colbert on the brain sorry)

Successful wars are not to be expedited - they are to be won. The crime being committed in Iraq is not that our soldiers are there - it is that we are not trying to win - we are not allowing our soldiers to engage, seek out and kill the enemy.

Back to Ms. Boxer

not a bad person

not a bad democratic

but a bad moment

we all have them

my 2 cents

nothing personal

 

[chance1]

Right on target "kev." The real divide in America is those who see 9/11 as the beginning of a war and those who don't. We should really be able to express our views for or against that statement with respect and understanding towards each other. But for far too many their Bush/Republican hatred colors everything.

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. Sep 2001 changed everything; how I vote and how I view those "leaders", like Boxer who don't understand we are at war.

Oh we are at war

everyday

Hezbollah want to infiltrate the U.S.
Al Qaeda is real and dangerous

The world is a very dangerous place

Frankly I prefer conflict outside of U.S. soil - as opposed to here

 

[Andreus]

It was the beginning of a war: the War on Terrorism. I supported that war. I understood that we were at war. I understood that Osama bin Laden attacked us and that Bush promised to find him "dead or alive."

And Iraq is not even the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where more Americans were killed last year than the year before, where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's total opium production, and where commanders on the ground tell us the Taliban is planning a dangerous offenisive this spring and we don't have enough troops there to supress it.

We have more than 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than we have in Afghanistan. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden?

What's more, we've spent $97 billion on the war in Afghanistan and $379 billion on the war in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us.

When we could have killed bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, the Bush Administration turned American troops away and let poorly trained Afghan warlords handle it--the same men who had been fighting against us weeks before.

That's the enemy that started war on 9/11. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of Tora Bora alive. That's the enemy that has developed a complex network covering at least 60 countries, in an even stronger position than before 9/11. That's the enemy that's using our occupation of Iraq as a recruiting tool.

So let me amend your commen: there is a divide between those who wanted to continue and accomplish the goal of the war that began on 9/11 and those who wanted to divert our resources a drag us into a completely unrelated conflict.

How dare you defend this war in Iraq in the name of 9/11?

great post lance

unfortunately the republican lie machine will never let go of this one

they are just going to insist that it was really about something that has been factually proven to be wrong

these people have no shame and they have no morals

if they did they would be honest to the american people and insist that thier minions be educated. but....

they created a lie and they further it with innuendo and subterfuge

 

[NW007]

this thread was inspired by nothing less than hatred of the democrats and their new wins in the congress last election, so thats just about as two faced a statement as Ive read here in a very very long time.

Here you go ahead, expressing opinion not fact! Politics in the U.S. needs to get back to having differences of opinion, not this constant hatred of the other side "talk" all the time.

 

[Andreus]

Here you go ahead, expressing opinion not fact!

lol

well that opinion is an obvious reality to just about everyone here, RR

 

[NW007]

lol

well that opinion is an obvious reality to just about everyone here, RR

Yes, I am glad you qualified your answer; because that is a limited slice of America

 

[Andreus]

Yes, I am glad you qualified your answer; because that is a limited slice of America

the polls of america would indicate that we are the vast majority at this point and Ms Boxer is the champion of the belief system of that vast majority

so you ought to reconsider that ....

 

[NW007]

the polls of america would indicate that we are the vast majority at this point and Ms Boxer is the champion of the belief system of that vast majority

so you ought to reconsider that ....

still trying to get me over to you side, aren't you

 

[chance1]

I love it

"the polls agree with me" so therefore I am right

therefore it is fact

the polls before were for the war - so they were right then too?

polls that suggest anti gay sentiment - does that make them right?

way to use polls to your advantage

kinda lame

 

[Andreus]

still trying to get me over to you side, aren't you

and remember...

theres a blowjob and a lapdance for every convert...lol

now theres a program that i'd bet boxer would even approve of

 

[chance1]

Aw, choice1, you don't like the ol' argumentum ad populum (aka the bandwagon fallacy)?

choice1 - I love it

Not a big bandwagon guy - not at all - on either side mind u

Clearly a vast majority Americans right now would do just about anything to get out of Iraq - they are sooooooo sick of it

But that's why we have elections - and the Pres is the Pres - no do-overs

I am glad we can't have a national vote on "should we get out of Iraq"

We are not qualified to make that decision - and it should not be a popular vote thing

The debate is great

The decision making is where it should be

 

[Centexfarmer]

It was the beginning of a war: the War on Terrorism. I supported that war. I understood that we were at war. I understood that Osama bin Laden attacked us and that Bush promised to find him "dead or alive."

And Iraq is not even the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where more Americans were killed last year than the year before, where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's total opium production, and where commanders on the ground tell us the Taliban is planning a dangerous offenisive this spring and we don't have enough troops there to supress it.

We have more than 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than we have in Afghanistan. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden?

What's more, we've spent $97 billion on the war in Afghanistan and $379 billion on the war in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us.

When we could have killed bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, the Bush Administration turned American troops away and let poorly trained Afghan warlords handle it--the same men who had been fighting against us weeks before.

That's the enemy that started war on 9/11. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of Tora Bora alive. That's the enemy that has developed a complex network covering at least 60 countries, in an even stronger position than before 9/11. That's the enemy that's using our occupation of Iraq as a recruiting tool.

So let me amend your comment: there is a divide between those who wanted to continue and accomplish the goal of the war that began on 9/11 and those who wanted to divert our resources a drag us into a completely unrelated conflict.

How dare you defend this war in Iraq in the name of 9/11?

Reading through just about every comment here in CE&P, it's nice to read a post which not only puts things into their proper perspective, but honestly clarifies what's really going on, and has been going on with this "war."

Good Job!

 

[JayHawk]

It was the beginning of a war: the War on Terrorism. I supported that war. I understood that we were at war. I understood that Osama bin Laden attacked us and that Bush promised to find him "dead or alive."

Bin Laden has been neutered, thats all we needed to do

And Iraq is not even the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where more Americans were killed last year than the year before, where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's total opium production, and where commanders on the ground tell us the Taliban is planning a dangerous offenisive this spring and we don't have enough troops there to supress it.

We have more than 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than we have in Afghanistan. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden?

Now that is ignorance at its finest. What state can arguably be called the greatest state sponsor of terror?

What's more, we've spent $97 billion on the war in Afghanistan and $379 billion on the war in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us.

When we could have killed bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, the Bush Administration turned American troops away and let poorly trained Afghan warlords handle it--the same men who had been fighting against us weeks before.

That's the enemy that started war on 9/11. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of Tora Bora alive. That's the enemy that has developed a complex network covering at least 60 countries, in an even stronger position than before 9/11. That's the enemy that's using our occupation of Iraq as a recruiting tool.

And your in Washington? What won'tyou believe. What about a headless organization don'tyou understand?

So let me amend your commen: there is a divide between those who wanted to continue and accomplish the goal of the war that began on 9/11 and those who wanted to divert our resources a drag us into a completely unrelated conflict.

How dare you defend this war in Iraq in the name of 9/11?

The 9/11 Hijackers din't come from Afghanistan they were Saudi born. Why aren't we attacking there? Is it extreme muslim ideology or specific sovreign nations that are supporting this world wide initiative to destroy industiralized christian nations. SO who in the middle east is espousing radical muslim ideology? WHo supports terror networks to further their goals? WHo is too big to attack with Carriers and Long Range Bombers? WOrk it out....

On Topic: You ask the questions or the thread wouldn't be here on Iraq and 9/11

Boxer will continue to say thing that are outrageous and while she is the toast of Dem land right now as we get closer to 08 she will becoming polarizing and will be told to shut up for the cause...


FInally what Barb said was so irksome due to the fact that she speaks for a extreme minority of Military families. She does not represent the main stream in no way. We don't like her politics, her values or her cowardice. I hate it when lawmakers use something they despise to defend their position.

 

[Andreus]

mazda

you just arent getting the reality here that the vast, and i mean vast, number of americans agree with Boxer and her statements when they are considered in their proper context.

what is outrageous is that rice has lied over and over again to congress and the american people and some people think that she is not

 

[JayHawk]

No actually I didn't get that impression. In fact I am pretty sure America got over it a day or two after. We seem to not be able to.

I just get tired of reiterated half truths to defend a off hand comment

 

[lancelva]

FInally what Barb said was so irksome due to the fact that she speaks for a extreme minority of Military families. She does not represent the main stream in no way. We don't like her politics, her values or her cowardice. I hate it when lawmakers use something they despise to defend their position.

The day after Senator Clinton introduced her legislation that would put a cap on troop levels and call for the beginning of a phased redeployment, the office was flooded with calls from military families wanting to "thank the Senator for speaking out for us."

Senator Clinton represents the 10th Mountain division--based at Fort Drum in upstate NY--in the U.S. Senate. The 10th Mountain is the most delpoyed division of the U.S. Army. So we are no strangers to military families.

And a recent Military Times poll showed that only 38% of the troops support the escalation. At the same time, only 35% approve of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. And from what I have seen and heard, Boxer speaks for a vast majority of military families.

On a side note, you may know that the Senator recently visited troops and commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. Commanders in Afghanistan told us that they are faced with a strong resurgence of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, and don't have enough troops to fight it. They say that they expect a massive offensive some time in the spring. As the Senator put it, our priorities are "upside down." Commanders told us they need more troops in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. At the same time, the Administration is taking troops from Afghanistan and putting them in Iraq.

Our military presence is leading to a growing insurgency in Iraq--and an increase in al Qaeda activity in the country (which did not exist prior to our invasion)--while our lack of troops in Afghanistan is leading to a potential resurgence of Taliban and al Qaeda forces who were behind the 9/11 attacks. In other words, if we continue as the Administration wishes, we would be left with two terrorist states in the region.

 

[JayHawk]

Quote your source. I did not read the 38% figure mentioned in your post while i was reading the article.

Maybe I read through it. I dunno. I would agree that military families are probably estatic over the idea that their loved ones are not in harms way. It only makes sense.

Seems funny that the author would point out that this should not be viewed as the overall military.

I agree on afghanistan. Although not for bin laden. We need to involve Pakistan much more to cut off the retreat and the 17000 troops in theater can be suplimented by the security forces

Military Times poll:

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

The results should not be read as representa tive of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on aver age older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more ca reer-oriented than the overall mil itary population.

Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surpris ing 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the re spondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.

 

[JayHawk]

In addition i went back and looked at the poll questions. The overwhelming answer to the will we prevail in Iraq was somewhat likely. Only one third said not likely. I answered somewhat on the last poll I took also, I think mine was zogby though. The reason I answered was since the congress will be pulling support out from under us on a moral ground, they will keep the bucks flowing but how can you win a war that everyone says is lost.

The military that called overwhelmingly somehow also belives that congress does not have their best interest at heart