Barbara Boxer - not her finest moment

[smelter]

The guy who wrote this needs a refresher course in English Composition 101. His article is disjointed and confusing in both writing style and layout. I reread it 3 times and still don't understand it. When I was in school (about 100 years ago), the nuns would have graded this thing with a big red F.

Military Times poll:

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

 

[NickCole]

GWB deliberately mislead ................. - your opinion - not proven.

Yes it's my opinion.

Unless someone admits to lying it cannot be proven because we don't know FOR SURE what they were thinking.

But all the facts point to deliberate misleading. The neocon plan for attacking Iraq long before 2001. Bush & Co given information that made clear Saddam Hussein and Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11, that it was bin Laden and al Qaeda and, carrying out the attack, mostly Saudis. Bush & Co had that information and yet over and over and over they reinforced in their public words a connection between Hussein, Iraq and 9/11. Everything we know indicates Bush & Co, to get support for their longtime desire to attack Iraq, deliberately misled Americans and Congress about a Saddam/Iraq/9-11 connection.

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.

My opinions are based on informed analysis and reasoning. You can state over and over, in BushRepublican propagandist fashion, that I hate Bush but that doesn't mean it's true. I have very rarely hated anyone and I certainly don't waste emotion as self-destructive as hate on someone I've never met.

The "sacrifice" thing is a bad faith play - kinda like hardliners calling u "unpatriotic" if ur against the war.

Not remotely. The "sacrifice thing" that I, and Barbara Boxer, raise is not about the voluntary effort you or any other American makes. It's about what Bush and Rice, et al, ask of the American people. They're asking 21,000 additional troops to put themselves into harm's way -- that's 21,000 more of the people who've already made personal sacrifices for this Iraq war. Meanwhile what personal sacrifices have Boxer and Rice and Bush made? None. And the same goes for you and me, and most Americans. Our taxes haven't even been raised to pay for the hundreds of billions being spent on Iraq -- in fact they've been lowered. Boxer makes an excellent point and it's not a propagandist point, it's real and true.

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)

It's not silly at all. It's not the same point Boxer is making but the revealing response it's brought from you makes it a very smart question. You've proven, with your cavalier and snide response that either you don't have the integrity to put your own life on the line as you're comfortable expecting others to do or you are being dishonest about believing the grave seriousness involved in "winning" in Iraq. Posting here in support of Bush isn't doing a damn thing to help "win" in Iraq.

Successful wars are not to be expedited - they are to be won.

Bush & Co are not winning this one. They're incompetent.

Neocons are great at wanting war but clearly they're no good at winning them.

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.

Who's stopping our soliders from "engaging, seek out and kill the enemy"?

Back to Ms. Boxer

not a bad person

not a bad democratic

but a bad moment

It was one of her finest moments. She was right, she said something hard that should be said to Bush & Co and heard by Americans. It showed her intelligence, her compassion, her courage. One of her finer moments.

 

[NickCole]

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.

I'm glad Senator Clinton went there and listened to what military Commanders told her, but the truth is that information was already available to all of us.

Peter Bergin and other unheralded reporters have been telling and showing us this for some time now. I've seen reports on Anderson Cooper's show, for instance, that make everything you've stated very clear. This information is available to any American with access to CNN, so it's obviously available to Bush & Co.

Many of us are grateful to Senator Clinton for using her voice and her bully pulpit to get this information more attention.

 

[chance1]

Yes it's my opinion.

Unless someone admits to lying it cannot be proven because we don't know FOR SURE what they were thinking.

But all the facts point to deliberate misleading. The neocon plan for attacking Iraq long before 2001. Bush & Co given information that made clear Saddam Hussein and Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11, that it was bin Laden and al Qaeda and, carrying out the attack, mostly Saudis. Bush & Co had that information and yet over and over and over they reinforced in their public words a connection between Hussein, Iraq and 9/11. Everything we know indicates Bush & Co, to get support for their longtime desire to attack Iraq, deliberately misled Americans and Congress about a Saddam/Iraq/9-11 connection.


My opinions are based on informed analysis and reasoning. You can state over and over, in BushRepublican propagandist fashion, that I hate Bush but that doesn't mean it's true. I have very rarely hated anyone and I certainly don't waste emotion as self-destructive as hate on someone I've never met.


Not remotely. The "sacrifice thing" that I, and Barbara Boxer, raise is not about the voluntary effort you or any other American makes. It's about what Bush and Rice, et al, ask of the American people. They're asking 21,000 additional troops to put themselves into harm's way -- that's 21,000 more of the people who've already made personal sacrifices for this Iraq war. Meanwhile what personal sacrifices have Boxer and Rice and Bush made? None. And the same goes for you and me, and most Americans. Our taxes haven't even been raised to pay for the hundreds of billions being spent on Iraq -- in fact they've been lowered. Boxer makes an excellent point and it's not a propagandist point, it's real and true.


It's not silly at all. It's not the same point Boxer is making but the revealing response it's brought from you makes it a very smart question. You've proven, with your cavalier and snide response that either you don't have the integrity to put your own life on the line as you're comfortable expecting others to do or you are being dishonest about believing the grave seriousness involved in "winning" in Iraq. Posting here in support of Bush isn't doing a damn thing to help "win" in Iraq.


Bush & Co are not winning this one. They're incompetent.

Neocons are great at wanting war but clearly they're no good at winning them.


Who's stopping our soliders from "engaging, seek out and kill the enemy"?


It was one of her finest moments. She was right, she said something hard that should be said to Bush & Co and heard by Americans. It showed her intelligence, her compassion, her courage. One of her finer moments.

As you said, your opinion - thank u for being honest about that - you do however present it more often than not as quite more than that

Your on going commentary about Bush clearly represents a hatred - not gonna cut and paste all of your posts - but I think you are being untruthful when you suggest otherwise

I should enlist is stupid - I'm not part of the military. We are all aware of the sacrifice. You and your buds make it like you cornered the market on pity/concern for our troops. That is a joke - and a bad one. Your carping of the Admin does more to put them in harm's way than someone who is pro military. You are on the opposite side of supporting the troops. And the sacrifice thing is lame emotional play that serves no purpose other than to divide. So if the shoe fits .............

And to you and all other JUBBERs who pretend to be war/policy experts, I trust Bush and his people to administer the war moreso than you neophytes, wanna be experts, etc.

It's his/their job - not yours

wake up call

my 2 cents
nothing personal

 

[NickCole]

As you said, your opinion - thank u for being honest about that - you do however present it more often than not as quite more than that

As I said, unless Bush admitted to lying, which he doesn't have the integrity to do, of course it's "opinion." But all the evidence makes, in reasonable analysis, that opinion inescapable.

Your carping of the Admin does more to put them in harm's way than someone who is pro military.

Criticizing the actions of the administration doesn't put a single troop in harm's way. But there it is again -- the BushRepublican-style attempt to bully opposition voices into silence.

You are on the opposite side of supporting the troops.

That's not true. I support our troops, Barbara Boxer supports our troops, Democrats support our troops. Shame on you for reaching, again, to the BushRepublican playbook of trying to smear a fellow American simply because he doesn't agree with you. That's just nasty stuff and says more about you than you attempted to say about me.

And the sacrifice thing is lame emotional play that serves no purpose other than to divide.

It is the truth. Most Americans have personally sacrificed nothing because of Iraq, while many military families have sacrificed a great deal. But the truth and BushRepublicanism are incompatible.

And to you and all other JUBBERs who pretend to be war/policy experts, I trust Bush and his people to administer the war moreso than you neophytes, wanna be experts, etc.

Bush & Co and their experts have failed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But BushRepublicans do like to support their failures.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

It's his/their job - not yours

And their repeated failures have given us a full picture of their incompetence.

Some people continue to support them despite staggering evidence of failure. And some look for ways to learn from those failures and structure a way to succeed in the future. Thank goodness Democrats are in control of Congress. Next, the White House.

 

[Andreus]

this thread has really veered all over as its defenders have tried one tack after another to assert a valid point here. there is no valid point in reference to the thread title.

lets cover the basics

the press reports that this thread are based on have now been revealed to be partisan hack peices and the senators words have been taken out of context.

after reading the senators full comments all reasonable people have agreed that she has actually done her job with the comments by representing the vast majority of americans and their beliefs.

thanks nickcole for standing up for the good guys here

 

[naked gent]

And to you and all other JUBBERs who pretend to be war/policy experts, I trust Bush and his people to administer the war moreso than you neophytes, wanna be experts, etc.

It's his/their job - not yoursl

chance I have to agree with Nick here. What evidence can you provide that Bush&Co know how to fight a war. I'd submit to you that if they did our current position would be vastly improved.

I was never in the military and neither were you but I bet we both knew that in war one needs to control territory, one needs to take land and keep it.

Part of the reason for this 'surge' is so we have enough soldiers for just that purpose.

Discovering four yrs into a war that its important to hold territory as well as take it indicates little understanding of war or how to win one.

 

[chance1]

chance I have to agree with Nick here. What evidence can you provide that Bush&Co know how to fight a war. I'd submit to you that if they did our current position would be vastly improved.

I was never in the military and neither were you but I bet we both knew that in war one needs to control territory, one needs to take land and keep it.

Part of the reason for this 'surge' is so we have enough soldiers for just that purpose.

Discovering four yrs into a war that its important to hold territory as well as take it indicates little understanding of war or how to win one.

I think elected officials determine national policy - not JUB posters - call me crazy

While I agree that the actions post invasion have been impotent, I still prefer our military leaders decisions to NickColes or yours or mine or anyone on this board or on the street

Not defending the war decisions - I just think it's easier to throw stones than actually do the job

Back to Barbara

I would never want her making military decisions - I picture her crying in the meeting, unable to control herself - good for a mom perhaps, but not for an elected official with real responsibities and decisions to make

 

[smelter]

Back to Barbara

I would never want her making military decisions - I picture her crying in the meeting, unable to control herself - good for a mom perhaps, but not for an elected official with real responsibities and decisions to make

Chance, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. At 5 feet tall and 64 years old, Barbara Boxer would kick the shit out you in a fair fight. In an unfair fight, she'd yank off your head and shit down your neck.

LOL, Is that tough enough for you?

 

[NickCole]

I think elected officials determine national policy - not JUB posters - call me crazy

Ya think?!

Nobody's pretending to determine national policy here.

We're citizens expressing our opinion. And if you look back over the past few years, some of us have called it right more often than Bush administration officials.

While I agree that the actions post invasion have been impotent, I still prefer our military leaders decisions to NickColes or yours or mine or anyone on this board or on the street

Stick with losers if that's your pleasure.

Not defending the war decisions - I just think it's easier to throw stones than actually do the job

That's not saying anything, it's only another way to distract from the discussion.

Back to Barbara

I would never want her making military decisions - I picture her crying in the meeting, unable to control herself - good for a mom perhaps, but not for an elected official with real responsibities and decisions to make

Ah yes. Always fun to throw in a little misogyny --or racism or homophobia-- when all else fails. Barbara Boxer's a woman so she'd cry and make a good mom but isn't up to taking real responsibility and making real decisions.

Another lovely BushRepublican argument.

 

[NickCole]

In his response to Bush's SOTU speech:

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues — those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death — we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm‘s way. --Senator and vet Jim Webb

 

[NickCole]

A Marine comes home from the war and gets married. This is his wedding picture:

http://www.worldpressphoto.com/inde...sk=view&id=875&Itemid=146&bandwidth=high]?rss

 

[NickCole]

A personal price.

VA system ill-equipped to treat mental anguish of war

FORRESTON, Ill. — A year ago on Thanksgiving morning, in the corrugated metal pole barn that housed his family's electrical business, Timothy Bowman put a handgun to his head and pulled the trigger. The bullet only grazed his forehead. So he put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger again.

He had been home from the Iraq war for only eight months. Once a fun-loving, life-of-the-party type, Bowman had slipped into an abyss, tormented by things he'd been ordered to do in war.

"I'm OK. I can deal with it," he would say whenever his father, Mike, urged him to get counseling.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is facing a wave of returning veterans like Bowman who are struggling with memories of a war where it's hard to distinguish innocent civilians from enemy fighters and where the threat of suicide attacks and roadside bombs haunts the most routine mission. Since 2001, about 1.4 million Americans have served in Iraq, Afghanistan or other locations in the global war on terror. ...

But an investigation by McClatchy Newspapers has found that even by its own measures, the VA isn't prepared to give returning veterans the care that could best help them overcome destructive, and sometimes fatal, mental health ailments.

McClatchy relied on the VA's own reports, as well as an analysis of VA data released under the federal Freedom of Information Act. McClatchy analyzed 200 million records, including every medical appointment in the system in 2005, accessed VA documents and spoke with mental health experts, veterans and their families from around the country.

Among the findings:

The lack of adequate psychiatric care strikes hard in the western and rural states that have supplied a disproportionate share of the soldiers in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - often because of their large contingents of National Guard and Army Reserve troops. More often than not, mental health services in those states rank near the bottom in a key VA measure of access.

Montana, for example, ranks fourth in sending troops to war, but last in the percentage of VA visits provided in 2005 for mental health care.

Moreover, the return of so many veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan is squeezing the VA's ability to treat yesterday's soldiers from Vietnam, Korea and World War II. And the competition for attention has intensified as the vivid sights of urban warfare in Iraq trigger new PTSD symptoms in older veterans. ...

More: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/veterans/16636341.htm

 

[LaloGS]

Don't think for a moment that any U.S.President has enjoyed having to send troops into battle.

The why does GWB always smile whe he declairs himself a "war" president?

 

[LaloGS]

Also, why is it that all you right leaning Jubbers are so willing to believe everything you hear on Fox News? Could it be because they feed you what you already believe to be true, therefore eliminating the need to think about what is happening to the country?

 

[OtterJoq]

I picture her crying in the meeting, unable to control herself - good for a mom perhaps, but not for an elected official with real responsibities and decisions to make

Nice to know how you view women.

Probably a very good thing you're gay.

 

[White Eagle]

A personal price.

And the decider is gonna cut benefits to the VA. Very impressive chance1

 

[naked gent]

I thought of this thread yesterday when I heard Charlie Rangel's comments on the House floor during the Iraq resolution debate. He was talking about bringing back the draft and said he believed that were there a draft people would have more of a stake in the war and with a draft we would be more careful about getting involved in other countries.

I think its safe to say Charlie wouldn't think there was anything wrong with Senator Boxer's question.

 

[chance1]

Nice to know how you view women.

Probably a very good thing you're gay.

You make no sense

On a consistent basis

 

[NickCole]

You make no sense

On a consistent basis

He makes perfect sense, and an excellent point.

You wrote, "I picture her crying in the meeting, unable to control herself - good for a mom perhaps, but not for an elected official with real responsibities and decisions to make."

Of course what you "picture" never happened, it's made up in your own imagination -- and that means it reveals nothing about Boxer but a lot about how you view women.

Is that the way your mom reacted? Barbara Boxer is a mom and she's never exhibited behavior anything remotely like what you describe.

In fact, Barbara Boxer demonstrated in the very speech you started this thread about that she is not weak and weepy, unable to control herself -- she's stong and assertive and isn't afraid to stand up to authority by confronting them with issues that most people are too timid to address.