Move America Forward Condems Attack On Marines At Berkeley
(Crossposted From Move America Forward)
Berkeley Attacks U.S. Marines - MAF Responds!
MARINES ATTACKED IN BERKELEY, CA
City Calls Marines “Unwelcome Intruders”
SAN FRANCISCO – The City of Berkeley, California has passed two resolutions attacking the United States Marine Corps, calling the Marines, “uninvited and unwelcome intruders in the city.”
The Berkeley City Council voted to condemn the Marines on Tuesday night (January 29th) as part of a campaign by anti-war activists to shut down a U.S. Marine Recruiting Center located in the city of Berkeley.
The votes by the Berkeley City Council were immediately condemned by Move America Forward, the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop organization.
“It is disgraceful that in the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, anti-military activists would attempt to silence the same military men and women who serve this country and give their lives to protect the free speech rights of all Americans, including these ungrateful and despicable people on the Berkeley City Council,” said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.
The actions by the Berkeley City Council followed continuous protests by Code Pink and other anti-military organizations that vandalized and defaced the U.S. Marine Recruiting Center in September 2007.
One of the two resolutions passed by the Berkeley City Council last night granted a parking spot in front of the Marine Recruiting Center to be used by anti-military activists to harass Marine recruiters. The anti-military activists would not need to apply for a sound permit for the next six months – allowing them free reign to disrupt the day-to-day operations by the Marines.
Move America Forward organized a counter-protest in support of the Marines last October that attracted over 400 pro-troop supporters who stood in solidarity of the Marine Recruiting Center.
“We have hundreds of thousands of military men and women serving honorably overseas to protect our freedoms. Imagine how they feel when they go to turn on the news and see that they are being stabbed in the back by shameful people here at home, it’s disgraceful!” said Catherine Moy, Executive Director of Move America Forward.
This release posted at: http://www.moveamericaforward.org/
***NEW: Register your complaint with the City of Berkeley via Phone or Email -CLICK HERE:
Story Here
Berkeley Council Tells Marines To Leave
Recruiting Station Not Welcome
Mistreatment Of U.S. Troops At Oakland Airport...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where is the outrage? First they would'nt let one of our Navy ships dock in port a while back, then they booed our Soldiers that came home and were on a pit-stop in Berkeley on thier way to other places in the United States, and now this.
It's time to Boycott San Francisco altogether. And where is Nancy Pelosi on all this? I havent heard a word from her.
I will NEVER set foot in San Francisco EVER!!
THIS IS YOUR DEMOCRAT PARTY AT WORK FOLKS!
***********************************************************
UPDATE:
U.S. Senator Wants to Revoke Funding From City of Berkeley, Calif., for Vote to Boot Marines
*snip*...WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., says the City of Berkeley, Calif., no longer deserves federal money.
DeMint was angered after learning that the Berkeley City Council voted this week to tell the U.S. Marine Corps to remove its recruiting station from the city's downtown.
"This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."
"If the city can’t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts," he added.
In the meantime, a senior Marine official tells FOX News that the Marine office in Berkeley isn't going anywhere.
"We understand things are different there, but some people just don't get it. This is a part of the military machine that gives them the right to do what they do, but what they are doing is extreme," the official said.
Rest Of Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wooooooooooooooooo Hooooooooooooo Way to go Senator DeMint!!! They dont deserve the money, take it from them :-) ,|,, Code Pink!
Berkeley Attacks U.S. Marines - MAF Responds!
MARINES ATTACKED IN BERKELEY, CA
City Calls Marines “Unwelcome Intruders”
SAN FRANCISCO – The City of Berkeley, California has passed two resolutions attacking the United States Marine Corps, calling the Marines, “uninvited and unwelcome intruders in the city.”
The Berkeley City Council voted to condemn the Marines on Tuesday night (January 29th) as part of a campaign by anti-war activists to shut down a U.S. Marine Recruiting Center located in the city of Berkeley.
The votes by the Berkeley City Council were immediately condemned by Move America Forward, the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop organization.
“It is disgraceful that in the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, anti-military activists would attempt to silence the same military men and women who serve this country and give their lives to protect the free speech rights of all Americans, including these ungrateful and despicable people on the Berkeley City Council,” said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.
The actions by the Berkeley City Council followed continuous protests by Code Pink and other anti-military organizations that vandalized and defaced the U.S. Marine Recruiting Center in September 2007.
One of the two resolutions passed by the Berkeley City Council last night granted a parking spot in front of the Marine Recruiting Center to be used by anti-military activists to harass Marine recruiters. The anti-military activists would not need to apply for a sound permit for the next six months – allowing them free reign to disrupt the day-to-day operations by the Marines.
Move America Forward organized a counter-protest in support of the Marines last October that attracted over 400 pro-troop supporters who stood in solidarity of the Marine Recruiting Center.
“We have hundreds of thousands of military men and women serving honorably overseas to protect our freedoms. Imagine how they feel when they go to turn on the news and see that they are being stabbed in the back by shameful people here at home, it’s disgraceful!” said Catherine Moy, Executive Director of Move America Forward.
This release posted at: http://www.moveamericaforward.org/
***NEW: Register your complaint with the City of Berkeley via Phone or Email -CLICK HERE:
Story Here
Berkeley Council Tells Marines To Leave
Recruiting Station Not Welcome
Mistreatment Of U.S. Troops At Oakland Airport...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where is the outrage? First they would'nt let one of our Navy ships dock in port a while back, then they booed our Soldiers that came home and were on a pit-stop in Berkeley on thier way to other places in the United States, and now this.
It's time to Boycott San Francisco altogether. And where is Nancy Pelosi on all this? I havent heard a word from her.
I will NEVER set foot in San Francisco EVER!!
THIS IS YOUR DEMOCRAT PARTY AT WORK FOLKS!
***********************************************************
UPDATE:
U.S. Senator Wants to Revoke Funding From City of Berkeley, Calif., for Vote to Boot Marines
*snip*...WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., says the City of Berkeley, Calif., no longer deserves federal money.
DeMint was angered after learning that the Berkeley City Council voted this week to tell the U.S. Marine Corps to remove its recruiting station from the city's downtown.
"This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."
"If the city can’t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts," he added.
In the meantime, a senior Marine official tells FOX News that the Marine office in Berkeley isn't going anywhere.
"We understand things are different there, but some people just don't get it. This is a part of the military machine that gives them the right to do what they do, but what they are doing is extreme," the official said.
Rest Of Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wooooooooooooooooo Hooooooooooooo Way to go Senator DeMint!!! They dont deserve the money, take it from them :-) ,|,, Code Pink!
Labels: Marines, Move America Forward
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 12:01 AM
39 Comments:
And as far as Code Pink goes:
...................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\
OY
I agree with your post and your comment here, Marie! I will never set foot in San Francisco either, I can assure you of that. This is utterly dispicable behavior on their part. Actually, the way I see it, they have defected from American values and America itself. I no longer consider them part of this country. Wish I had the power to make that official!
San Francisco is the bastion of socialism and is a total liberal and moral mess. This doesn't shock me, but it is outrageous and I am glad you posted on it.
Amen Marie..amen!
My freedom has yet to be threatened, externally that is.
I love when they throw that quote around, "defending your freedoms", as it always gets Conservatives all hot and bothered.
Thankfully, in my 36 years in this country, my freedom has never been jeopardized by foreigners. It's most likely attributed to the fact that we have the most powerful and skilled military in the world without finding it necessary to always demonstrate it.
As the great Donald Rumsfeld said, "you go to war with the army that you have, not necessarily with the army that you want."
I'd say that was pretty insulting...but no outrage at that time.
People voting and exercise freedoms....don't you just hate it when democracy happens :-)
As is the case every single time...you really have to investigate a bit further when a story breaks on Fascista News.
They're talking about blocking a Marine Recruiting Office, not barring anyone who is a Marine from entering the city limits of Berkeley. People protest Hooters and strip clubs, too. Citizens in a community have the right to protest any business that deem harmful or immoral.
This is just another story that can get the right-wing to hate more and push for a civil war in this country. Sadly, many on the right would relish in physically injuring those who are against the war: yes, even those who say "they don't hate liberals [...] they are just mis-led." This is what it has become: absolute, pure, toxic hate.
Great job, Karl Rove. You took 9/11, the one of 2 events in our history that united ALL of us and made it political only to make it divide us all.
What's it like being a dishonorable appeasing wimp Federalist? You seem to fit the description fairly well.
You seem to have a hard on for Karl Rove, I'm glad the man lives rent free in your silly little mind. Karl Rove, Karl Rove, you are now going to be Karl Rove. What a pea sized brain you posses.
Federalist,
As the great Donald Rumsfeld said, "you go to war with the army that you have, not necessarily with the army that you want."
I'd say that was pretty insulting...but no outrage at that time.
You dont have any idea what he was talking about do you?
The Army was deteriated and broken when Rummy got ahold to it. Clinton stripped the Military down so low we were lucky we had attack planes in the air on 9-11.
My Air Force Base "Tinker" was threatened to be closed on many, many occasions. We made it through thankfully thank's to Frank Keating Governor at the time, who did everything in his power to save Tinker and Lawton.
We now park most of the Awax Aircraft that patrol the entire Country at Tinker since we have been at war.
Thankfully Tinker was'nt closed under a Democrat Administration!
And since Bush, Tinker has grown and is a top Air Force Base in this Country now.
So when you refer to Rummy saying that, that's what he was talking about. And refering to other bases that were almost torn apart by Clinton. Insulting? You damn right it was insulting that Clinton stripped our Military down so low they were still in "Cold War" fighting mode and Clinton knew Al-Qaeda declared war on us in 1996 and failed to update our Military.
But that's the Democrat's for you, they strip the Military down to nothing and when we really need them, they are almost non-existent.
So we did go to war with the Army we had, not the Army we wanted!
Dont even begin to argue about our Military with me!
They're talking about blocking a Marine Recruiting Office, not barring anyone who is a Marine from entering the city limits of Berkeley. People protest Hooters and strip clubs, too. Citizens in a community have the right to protest any business that deem harmful or immoral.
We are talking about a Federal Business being interrupted on a day to day basis by idiot's that insist on disrupting thier operation just because they have a problem with it.
Sort of like a bunch of people that are against alcohol protesting in front of a Liquor Store daily, keeping the trucks from delivering thier product, and all because they dont want anyone to drink alcohol. How well do you think that would go over with the public?
J_G,
There you go again with those wonderful, loving Christian principles of yours! Amazing! You must be proud.
Marie,
Yes, I do know what he was talking about. It was in response to a question regarding why the Hummers lack under carriage armor. That had nothing to do with Clinton. Nice try though. Not everything is Clinton's fault. Trust me Marie, I'll never argue alcohol or military with anyone from Oklahoma.
Not only am I a Christian but I am an American veteran as are many of my friends who are Marines. We aren't going to stand by to be punching bags by you leftists and we aren't going to standby as you and your ilk try and degrade us by comparing the Marines to a strip club or Hooters restaurant. You underestimate and have no understanding what a Marine is. If you attack one Marine because he or she is a Marine you attack them all and insult them all. It's not just the recruiting office in Berkley, it's your whole attitude of disrespect and being a loser that bothers Americans. The US military has kept you and and your leftist elitist friends free to say the stupid things that you say for all these years and respect is due but not expected from your kind. Most of us that have served have little time for you and your ilk because we are above your smallness and narrow minded ignorance.
J_G,
My attitude bothers Americans or just you and those who think like you? YOU are now the minority. Most Americans are against the war in Iraq. The attitude towards the military stems from the Conservatives and their attempt to "own the military."
With this many people against the war, you have to ask yourself, maybe there is something to this. How could this many people be wrong?
"Stupid things we've said for years?" You mean the last 7 years? It wasn't like this before 9/11.
Hard to be stupid and elitist at the same time.
I'm neither stupid nor ignorant, and certainly not elitist (can't be elitist if we're all socialist, right?)
I certainly wasn't comparing the military to Hooters or a strip club. That is a cute way of twisting my words (right out of the O'Reilly/Hannity playbook)
May God bless you and keep you J_G as you trudge the road of happy destiny.
Federalist,
Marie,
Yes, I do know what he was talking about. It was in response to a question regarding why the Hummers lack under carriage armor. That had nothing to do with Clinton. Nice try though. Not everything is Clinton's fault. Trust me Marie, I'll never argue alcohol or military with anyone from Oklahoma.
Haha Oh really!!
You think people in Oklahoma dont know what the hell is going on dont you?
The answer Rumsfeld gave was indeed due to un-uparmored Hum V's, but who didnt up-armor them? They sure didnt get up-armored by Clinton!
And we had to ship them off the way they were and the Soldiers had to use them just the way they had been sitting during the entire Clinton administration!
When roadside bombs started being used in Iraq was when they were working head over heals to get Armor fast enough out to the Troops.
Funny, in Kosovo/Bosnia (Where Clinton sent the Troops that are STILL THERE) when roadside bombs were used Clinton didnt demand the Hum V's nor the APC's were up-armored and no one bitched about it then!
Sorry but you blameing Bush and Rumsfeld for everything that ever went wrong just doesnt wash anymore.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marie,
You should take those facts to Fox News, they would definitely be interested.
1) That there were road side bombs, IED's, identical to those in Iraq being used in the Kosovo conflict. That is the first I've heard of that.
2) That Clinton voluntarily decided to not authorize that the Humvees be produced with additional armor to combat IED's in the Kosovo conflict.
This is really breaking news! How is it that you are the only one that knows about these incidents? You are doing your party (and Bush) a disservice by not divulging that information.
J_G,
I guess you could make the argument that, regarding my statement about my intelligence, it is similar to the question of WMD's in Iraq: because we didn't find any doesn't mean they don't exist...? Based upon that syllogism you can employ the same logic, right?
The more you continue with the personal attacks, the more I pray for you that God remove your resentment, anger and hate.
Federalist,
Why are we still argueing old history?
You blame Bush I blame Clinton and on and on when you and I both know everything just happened the way it happened.
We are at war and there isnt a damn thing we can do but enlist and fight the bad guy's ourselves and we probably both would too, if they would take us.
Back to the story at hand however,
I dont like the way our Military is treated in San Francisco, and I do believe Federal funds should be witheld from the City by the Bay!
I do NOT like Code Pink and they should NOT be given a parking spot!
As for Oklahoma, that crap would NEVER fly here thank God!
I respect your opinion. I just don't like it when the facts are not reported truthfully and instead are twisted to fan the flames of the hate movement. They are not against Marines universally; they are against having recruiting offices in their community. That's their right.
Democracy is kind of an "all or nothing" thing. You have to respect it and accept all of it or you against it. Sort of like J_G's metaphor where "if you are against one Marine, you're against them all." It doesn't mean that you have to like it. If you oppose a part of the American democratic model, then you are not for it.
Federalist,
Hey now lol,
I didnt twist any facts to fan any hate movement, it is true that we had to go to war with what we had and we all wish at the time we had better.
It did take awhile for the Army to adjust to a new kind of enemy and you cant lay the blame on Bush, and I suppose I cant lay all the blame on Clinton.
As far as Jenn is concerned, you have to understand where she is coming from. She was in the Navy for I forget how many years and they have the same creed they all do, once a Marine alway's a Marine, and same with the Army and Navy and all the branches of service.
When you think about it we all have one common enemy, angry Muslim's that have taken and hijacked a religion and twisted it to suit thier own purposes. Call them what you want but that is our true enemy, not each other!
You may recall that they couldn't run the Marines out of Belleau Wood, they couldn't run them out of Tarawa, they couldn't run them out of Changjin, they couldn't run them out of Khe Sanh, (okay, they ran them out of Beirut, but that was Reagan's call, and one of the few outright failures of his administration) and they aren't running them out of Baghdad. Nonetheless, they think they're going to run them out of Berkeley. Check out http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_marine_corps_2-1-2008/ for a look at how much the liberal/progressive element loves the country and supports the troops. (Caution: link contains unredacted profanity.)
Marie,
I agree 100% with the last part of your post. That is one of the many reasons why I felt that the Iraq war was unnecessary. There were no radical Muslims in Iraq.
I just take serious offense when fellow Americans accuse ME of "disrespect and loser attitude". I just don't care for the personal attacks Marie...especially by those who say they're Christian!
My stepfather was a Marine and did two tours in Vietnam: the first in '65 and the second in '67. He was part of a reconnaissance force that engaged in terrible atrocities. To this day he still suffers from an occasional horrific nightmare which has him nearly gasping for air (he's 62 years old now). His best friend "Chris", who was drafted with him, died of a heroin overdose several years after returning from Vietnam.
As a child I used to frequently take out his Marine Corps Yearbook (as I called it), that red, leather bound book with all kinds of black and white photos in it. I would always try to find another picture with him in it.
I was very close to joining the Army in 2003. I had just completed my master's degree at Florida State University and was interested in service at the DLI in Monterey, CA. I speak several foreign languages, none of which the military called "hot" languages (Tagalog, Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, Aramaic). The offer was incredible after my initial examination: $40,000 to join, all of my student loans paid for, housing and unlimited airfare for my 16-month language training in Monterey. I would have had to do 4 years of guaranteed enlistment and of course basic training, which involved weaponry. I was not shy about the physical training part as I played ice hockey in high school but I have always been fearful of guns. My stepdad used to take me hunting when I was as young as 6 years old and the sound of a .12 gauge shotgun at that age is frightening. I never conquered that fear.
Not only do I have respect for our military but I have done more than you, Jen, Wordsmith or anyone else on here can imagine a "liberal" doing.
Uncle Pavian,
You need to draw the very important and serious distinction between supporting the military and love for one's country. They are two entirely separate and mutually exclusive ideals.
There will always be lunatics on both the left and right fringes. The difference is that the right claims their fringe doesn't represent them and I believe them. Unfortunately, the right believes anyone on the left is in step with the fringe left. O'Reilly and Hannity feed that theory daily. It's simply false, categorically untrue.
Berkeley is against Marine recruiting offices in their community. If instead there existed a facility that helped curb the outrageous suicide rate that is happening as a result of the Iraq war or the drug addiction that is becoming so incredibly pervasive, you may find less of a resistance.
Federalist,
I agree 100% with the last part of your post. That is one of the many reasons why I felt that the Iraq war was unnecessary. There were no radical Muslims in Iraq.
On a previous post between you and Wordsmith, Wordsmith outlined all the Islamic Terrorist groups that were working free handidly in Iraq way before we ever got there, I believe these were the groups:
No Ties to Al Queda?
http://www.scottmalensek.com/PhaseIIrebuttalrpt.pdf
Media Reports Connect Saddam to 9/11 Plot
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4425_0_4_0_C/
BUSH LIED; pt1/5 "Those NO TIES Lies"
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09252006.htm
Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 2
Only 18% of Intel Still Says There Were No Ties Between al Qaeda and Hussein
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09262006.htm
Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 3
Is Saddam a Liar?
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09272006.htm
Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 4
There Are No Jihadis in Iraq
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09282006.htm
Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 5
The Real Ties and Truth About the Lies
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09292006.htm
No WMD?
In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
Introducing Iraqi General Georges Sada
Part 1 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04032006.htm
In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
The Russian Connection
Part 2 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04042006.htm
In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
Russian Intelligence, Belarus & Highway 11
Part 3 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04052006.htm
In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
Saddam’s “Special Weapons”
Part 4 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04062006.htm
In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
The Documents Tell the Story
Part 5 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04072006.htm
Democrats as grownups:
How Opposition Rhetoric Helps Terrorists
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/07312006.htm
Progressives Try to Plagiarize National Security Strategy…Again
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/08182006.htm
Dem Lies Dey Are a Dyin'
http://www.conservativepunk.com/ColumnItem.asp?reviewId=15
pics from the Duelfer Report can be found here and linked to from this site for use on other boards-po's the moonbats something bad
http://www.scottmalensek.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=248
I dont think you ever did respond to Wordsmith's reply to your reply.
But nevertheless there were Islamic terrorists in Iraq, working free handidly whether or not you want to believe it.
I just take serious offense when fellow Americans accuse ME of "disrespect and loser attitude". I just don't care for the personal attacks Marie...especially by those who say they're Christian!
Since when did I personnally attack you? And I dont believe I have ever talked about my religious preferences on this blog ever!
That's the last thing I want to do is get into a religious debate.
I keep my religious belief's to myself.
My stepfather was a Marine and did two tours in Vietnam: the first in '65 and the second in '67. He was part of a reconnaissance force that engaged in terrible atrocities. To this day he still suffers from an occasional horrific nightmare which has him nearly gasping for air (he's 62 years old now). His best friend "Chris", who was drafted with him, died of a heroin overdose several years after returning from Vietnam.
As a child I used to frequently take out his Marine Corps Yearbook (as I called it), that red, leather bound book with all kinds of black and white photos in it. I would always try to find another picture with him in it.
I come from a Military family also: My Grandfather was in WW2, my Father served in Korea, all my cousins were in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and I have a son in the Army who just got called back up.
One of my cousins that was in the Air Force also went to Viet Nam and he also died from some kind of drug overdose, my Aunt didnt really like to talk about that much so I dont know what drug he died from.
But I may as well let this out now, I really didnt like to talk about my son on this blog, but I guess it's time.
My son has already been to Iraq/Kuwait. He has seen what great progress has been made and believes Bush made the right decision in going there.
He has sat down with Iraqi's and Kuwaiti's and had meals with them and jokes about what is taking so long to get the Iraqi Government up and running is that they pray 5 times a day and then eat after every prayer.
Which I found somewhat amusing, and that it quite possibly be true lol.
But he agrees they want Freedom and the Iraqi's that used to hang around him even told him of some terrorist activities that were going on in Iraq before we got there. This is classified and He cant tell me anymore about it no matter how much I would love to know.
There is alot of classified information that many of us that arent in the Military will NEVER know. And those that are in the Military cant discuss.
I would read Wordsmith's link's and Think about what my son told me seriously.
I was very close to joining the Army in 2003. I had just completed my master's degree at Florida State University and was interested in service at the DLI in Monterey, CA. I speak several foreign languages, none of which the military called "hot" languages (Tagalog, Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, Aramaic). The offer was incredible after my initial examination: $40,000 to join, all of my student loans paid for, housing and unlimited airfare for my 16-month language training in Monterey. I would have had to do 4 years of guaranteed enlistment and of course basic training, which involved weaponry. I was not shy about the physical training part as I played ice hockey in high school but I have always been fearful of guns. My stepdad used to take me hunting when I was as young as 6 years old and the sound of a .12 gauge shotgun at that age is frightening. I never conquered that fear.
Not only do I have respect for our military but I have done more than you, Jen, Wordsmith or anyone else on here can imagine a "liberal" doing.
After telling you about my son, now you know why I carry this war in my heart.
I am a Blue Star Mom, and A Proud one :-)
By posting about Fox News, ranting about Rumsfeld, and (by my count) hitting 23 of the most popular leftist anti-war talking points, it would appear that Federalist is an opponent of the war in Iraq as a means of opposing the Bush Administration. Whether that's the case or not, he's clearly misinformed by Daily Kos, Huffpo, and Keith Olberman...or perhaps his version of truth comes from the half truth that is satire on The Daily Show? In any event, his facts are off the mark in each and every case. It's sad, but some people just can't face the reality that Iraq and 911 are not the same battle, but they are the same war.
Fortunately, I've read enough liberal blather to a blathering liberal soon enough not to have to read the entire blather.
Federalist is a fool who does a disservice to Federalists by using the moniker.
Berkeley is not entirely populated by Code Pinkos. There are many fine people there, liberal and conservative, who are fully aware of the service and sacrifice of our Marines. Code Pinkos will go anywhere to spew their bile. Berkeley just happens to have the right reputation for mushy thinnking.
Marie,
I was referring to J_G with the personal attacks, not you.
I choose not to consult blogs when looking for truth. Wordsmith is undoubtedly intelligent but his suggestion to research blogs for factual information is perhaps what got us into this mess to begin with. Scott Malensek posits many theories. But in the end, they are simply that, theoretical.
Regardless of what your son says, and no disrespect to him or his mates in the unit, from the FBI agent assigned to interrogate Saddam to the White House and everyone in between, without question, know with crystal-clear certainty that there were no operational ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Iraq, among Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iran, was the ONLY country without radical extremists. Saddam made sure of it. He was the most Western of any of the leaders over there. I'm not saying he was a great guy. He was evil and a psychopath.
If there had been ties Marie, don't you think the White House would have touted this valuable information to silence any opposition to the war and increase political capital? Have you seriously given that thought? You don't think Cheney or Bush would have held a press conference, smiling ear to ear, claiming to have found the ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda?
Are there Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East? Yes. Are there some now in Iraq? Yes. Were they in Iraq before we invaded? No. Now, if you want to say this instead, although I would oppose it, it would still be honest and transparent: had Bush just said, "Look, Iraq had no ties to al-Qaeda and no WMD's, but damn it, I needed a battle ground to fight the Islamic terrorists, so they would all converge on a central location...and... so I picked Iraq." There you go! Now we're making progress. Although illegal and wrong on nearly every level, AT LEAST HE WOULD BE EXHIBITING HONESTY AND TRUTH!
Those who oppose the war have issues with lies and deception.
Scott,
What a convenient and easy way to dismiss by using the Hannity/O'Reilly approach. And I get my talking points from Daily Kos? Laughable.
Olberman, entertainer. O'Reilly, entertainer. Limbaugh, entertainer. Why would I get news from these guys?
Perhaps you are Scott Malensek, since you used his quote at the end of your post. Either you're being intellectually dishonest or you are the sole originator of the theory that had the first Bush stayed in Iraq in 1991 there would be no Bin Laden. That's fairly ambitious. But you write op-ed pieces and I don't. And I assume you're American so you have the right to state your opinion.
Funny how the 9/11 plot would be put in motion because we were bombing a country that had no ties to al-Qaeda. Moreover, Saddam, according to FBI agent Piro (perhaps he's a spy for the left) told him that he thought Bin Laden was crazy and that he wanted to distance himself from that type of attention.
You did put a lot of solid thought into this theory, and I will grant you that. But in the end, it's a theory. Just like the fanatics who claim that the U.S. government executed 9/11.
Hi anonymous Federalist, yes, I am Scott Malensek, but the words and historical facts speak whereas names are as important as "identities" such as your own (pot meet kettle?).
Regarding the idea that if Pres Bush sr had removed Saddam there would have been no 911, this is a simple matter of fact since UBL didn't decide to kill Americans until 12/92 (per 911 Comm rpt), and he did so because of frustrations caused by NOT removing Saddam in 1991 (see pg 48/49 911 Comm rpt). Those frustrations were the continuing war on Saddam in 12/92 and beyond (a war that wouldn't have been continuing if Saddam had been removed in 91), the presence of US forces in Saudi and vicinity which were only there to continue the war on Saddam and if Saddam was removed in 91, then they wouldn't have been there, and there'd have been no 2nd casus belli from UBL. Of course, UBL's last excuse was the US support of Israel, but that makes perfect sense since 2/3+ of AQ's reborn/reformed leadership structure in 1992/93 was actually Egyptian Islamic Jihad (per Clinton Admin FBI description of AQ). Remove the reasons for jihad described by the 911 Comm=removing UBL's jihad. It's pretty simple and clear.
As to regime ties to AQ, this was originally misrepresented by politicos after the first Sen Intel Com investigation into pre-war intel on Iraq. The second phase of the investigation didn't form conclusions and only cited the assessment of a single interim DIA officer while dismissing any and all detainee interrogations as well as all captured docs and tapes (what was left after the IIS burned their records-why'd they do that?). No sir, the regime ties to AQ were in fact far deeper than originally feared, and that's why members of the 911 Commission have asked for a renewed investigation into their depth, and so have many Senators who worked on the investigations. Lacking that, the hundreds of regime leaders caught working with AQ, as well as Saddam's successor's admission that they worked with AQ, and the thousands of dead arab terrorists who fought and were killed by US Marines in Iraq all combine to prove the matter rather than leave it to the once ambiguous statement that "there wasn't enough evidence gathered".
First of all, Federalist, I never said anything about supporting the military. What I said was "support for the troops", which is not quite the same thing. Even so, let's assume that your contention that the love of one's country and support for the military are mutually exclusive. I happen to think that they are not, but let's pretend that they are.
My point was that the progressive left doesn't support either one, as demonstrated by the photos posted at Zombietime from the demonstration in Berkeley, and in fact by the signs and speeches you will encounter at any gathering of the progressive left. They hate the military and the people who serve there, and they hate the country.
Enough said, I didn't realize that Bush Sr. was, according to your argument Scott Malensek, mostly responsible for 9/11. Try not to diffuse that too much on this person's blog. They simply would not accept that argument.
I must admit that the incipit to your post was entirely unintelligible. Is there a possibility that you could provide some clarity there?
Regarding the ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, I do hope that you are not referring to Chalabi or to "curveball". As for the 9/11 commission reports, which "report" are you referring to? According to events that broke on September 9, 2006, not only did the Senate Intel report conclude that there were no ties, they went to conclude that defectors from the INC falsely reported the existence of such ties along with false claims of chemical and biological weapons that simply were unable to be located, in fact, not even documented to have ever existed.
June 17, 2004, the 9/11 commission report concluded that, "there were no collaborative ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq." Perhaps they had hummus and a Turkish coffee, but no terrorist back rubs or magic carpet rides.
I find the first half of your post very interesting. I will make an effort to research that further.
I find the second half of your post rather ordinary. There is nothing new that you report other than the typical "super-secret, ninja" investigations that are going on as we type to prove the "evidence" that the ties were MUCH deeper!
Federalist,
I choose not to consult blogs when looking for truth. Wordsmith is undoubtedly intelligent but his suggestion to research blogs for factual information is perhaps what got us into this mess to begin with. Scott Malensek posits many theories. But in the end, they are simply that, theoretical.
I tend to believe blogs for the truth more than the news agencies seeing as they have doctored photos, outright lied as reporters, and jimmied the truth to suit thier own political agendas more than reporting the actual news as it happens.
This is the first time I have ever witnessed this. The world has really changed as far as reporting goes.
Take for instance the Dan Rather situation shortly before Bush was elected President for the second time. Rather had inaccurate information that he tried to pass off as being accurate about Bush's Military record! He was caught with his pant's down! Caught by "Bloggers".
The entire election cycle has changed since blogging has come into the picture. Those that try to lie thier way into winning an election will be caught and made fools of by bloggers and thank God for them!
Really! No one can get away with anything untruthful anymore thank's to Bloggers, Cell Phones, and Video Cameras!
Keeps the reporters in check so to speak.
Yes Wordsmith is one of the most intelligent people I know, and he has enlisted in the National Guard himself.
They may not comment about it but I have people contibuting to my blog that worked for President Reagan, have been in the Military and are still in the Military, and know alot more about what's going on in these conflict's (As well as my son) than I do.
I tend to trust them alot more than anyone else. I like to hear from actual people on the ground in theatre's of operation than any news story.
Regardless of what your son says, and no disrespect to him or his mates in the unit, from the FBI agent assigned to interrogate Saddam to the White House and everyone in between, without question, know with crystal-clear certainty that there were no operational ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Iraq, among Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iran, was the ONLY country without radical extremists. Saddam made sure of it. He was the most Western of any of the leaders over there. I'm not saying he was a great guy. He was evil and a psychopath.
Well Fed, I am going to trust what my son has told me over anyone. Even though he cant tell me everything, and has told me that all the truth will never be known about all of this for years and years to come because of the classified nature and further operations that will be conducted in the Global War On Terror.
I still have a roll of film my son took from Iraq that I still havent developed yet (I have never told anyone this) that shows a few things Iraqi's were doing along with Al-Qaeda, which most of them are dead now, but I cant develope this film until years from now when everything has calmed down and it wouldnt be considered classified anymore, hell the camera still has sand from Iraq in it.
I know you mean no disrespect to my son, but speaking of Turkey, my son on his first TDY was stationed at Ramstein Air Base in Germany where he met his now wife.
Turkey wouldnt let the 4th ID (Infantry Division) cross through thier Country or let them use thier airspace for this massive project in the beginning of Iraqi Freedom.
My son was in the 612th Tansportation Battalion while stationed on the Iraq/Kuwait border. He and his unit had to escort the 4th ID all around and down a different direction to get them into Theatre. If they had been able to use Turkey's airspace, we wouldnt have had so many insurgents when all hell broke loose. Thank You Turkey! They since changed thier mind about letting us use airbases and ground for the duration. But that didnt do a whole hell of alot of good in the beginning.
Since he is called back up I can mention now what unit he was in because that isnt classified anymore and now Blackwater has control over security on the Iraq/Kuwait Border.
And Oh, By the way, if you can name me any other outfits that are capable of rebuilding Iraq besides Blackwater, Kellog Brown and Root (KBR), and Halliburton, I would love to know about them! Before you go off about rewarding contracts to those companies! Not that you will, but just in case you do.
If there had been ties Marie, don't you think the White House would have touted this valuable information to silence any opposition to the war and increase political capital? Have you seriously given that thought? You don't think Cheney or Bush would have held a press conference, smiling ear to ear, claiming to have found the ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda?
As a matter of fact NO! They cant discuss any of the connections yet because there is still an ongoing war and alot of this information is still classified! I bet they would love too, I'm not exactly an idiot ya know, I know Zarqowi was in Iraq for a leg operation, hmm why Iraq? Maybe so he could rejoin his commarades and re-group because he knew the US was coming and he actually thought he had a chance against the US?
But 'ol Zarqowi may he rest in Allah's ass, didnt get the better end of the deal now did he? And I bet he never got his 72 Virgins either. (What a crock of shit)
Are there Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East? Yes. Are there some now in Iraq? Yes. Were they in Iraq before we invaded? No. Now, if you want to say this instead, although I would oppose it, it would still be honest and transparent: had Bush just said, "Look, Iraq had no ties to al-Qaeda and no WMD's, but damn it, I needed a battle ground to fight the Islamic terrorists, so they would all converge on a central location...and... so I picked Iraq." There you go! Now we're making progress. Although illegal and wrong on nearly every level, AT LEAST HE WOULD BE EXHIBITING HONESTY AND TRUTH!
Those who oppose the war have issues with lies and deception.
Now that takes the cake! "Are there some NOW in Iraq", uh.... I am almost to the point if you dont believe they were there already, you havent been paying much attention since 1996!
We have already been all over the intelligence issue, everyone, I mean EVERYONE, Israeli, British, even Middle eastern countries (Iran included) said and knew Iraq had WMD's they used them on the Iranians and you know they had them and everyone knew they had them unless you were living in a cave for the last 20 years.
You have got to be kidding me when you say Bush needed a stomping ground for the Troops and just out of no-where chose Iraq!
Oh My, I really wish you would read the links provided, ya know sometimes opposing points of view can be very valuable!
Uncle Pavian,
You sound like a politician..."I didn't say anything about supporting the military, which is different from supporting the troops." Huh?
Let's compromise. Support the "soldiers"? Does that work for you?
If it's easier for you to hitch your belt buckle on to the O'Reilly train by categorizing the progressive left as hating the country and hating the military, so be it. I will never impede your tireless efforts to remain narrow-minded and lemming-like in nature. God gave us free will and you are using it.
Federalist, I hope you're accidentally misquoting the report and not doing so intentionally. The 2004 Senate report said there was no evidence of collaborative ties. The 911 Commission said the same thing. The reason there was no evidence was because (as cited in the 04 Sen report and by the 911 Commission members later) no one had investigated the matter. In fact, from 1998-2003, the US didn't have a single human intelligence asset inside Iraq. Not a one. The intel was very weak-particularly in terms of regime ties. However, as I said, both the second Sen report and 911 Commission members have since called for a formal investigation into how close the ties were. Now, this is important...That there were ties was never denied-only the depth of the relationship was questioned, and that was because of a lack of evidence gathered; no spies=no evidence gathered. (specific quotes avail upon req)
note: curveball was a source for intel on bioweapons labs not ties to AQ, and I never cite him or INC. Contrary to opposition beliefs, there were many many more sources of intel than just the INC. Foreign intel services and leaders en masse reported on regime ties as well as WMD. Specific list avail upon req.
The Saddam/UBL hated each other is an often pointed to mantra of opponents to the war in Iraq. Saddam didn't like UBL, and UBL didn't like Saddam, BUT both Saddam's regime and AQ were more than willing to use each other for their own ends (CIA reporting presented in both Senate reports as well as the 911 Comm report confirms this). Take for example, the US and Russia. We don't particularly like each other (maybe France is a better example), but we're more than willing to use each other to further our own ends. Nations and their leaders don't have to be snuggle bunnies to use each other as allies.
Earlier you mentioned the 60min interview, I'm glad you did for a number of reasons. Most especially because it serves as a lynchpin to the WMD discussion where many people believe no stockpiles=no threat, the threat was actually more complex, more acute, and more real than imagined.
""super-secret, ninja" investigations that are going on as we type to prove the "evidence" that the ties were MUCH deeper!"
The investigation and translation of the captured tapes and docs is not at all a super-secret ninja op. It's actually open-source per DoD directive. Similarly, the fact that US Marines have been stationed and writing home and sending emails from foreign terrorist training camps that they captured is not a super secret except to the msm and opposition news sources. Surely the dead bodies are not a super-secret investigation, and when I referred to Saddam's successor, I refer to his open statements that he's been giving while in exile as leader of the Iraqi Baath party of Iraq in Syria. This guy even gave an interview to TIME.
Remember, nations and their leaders don't have to be snuggle bunnies to use each other as allies. If one believes UBL worked with the CIA, then one must believe he'd be willing to work with a secular Muslim. If Saddam harbored terrorist legends (and he did), his IIS worked with AQ affiliates (and they did, and now give interviews to the effect), and if Saddam was willing to use Islamic extremists to launch attacks in Syria, Kuwait, etc., as well as work with them after the invasion (ignore that he trained Islamic extremists by the tens of thousands called Martyrs of Saddam), then yeah, he was probably willing to harbor a few thousand till it didn't suit him.
Like most of the progressive leftists I've met, Federalist, you've veered off topic.
It's an old, but patently dishonest debating trick to misquote what a person says, then attack the misquotation. If you're going to criticize my position, you don't help your argument by getting what I said wrong.
As for whether progressive leftists hate the country, the ones I've met going back to the 1970s certainly did. But obviously you're clever enough to make your own decision.
By the way, this obsession with O'Reilly is probably having more of an effect on you than it is on them. Personally, I go to NAPA.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I kind of like the personal attacks. It saves a lot of time because debating left wing ass wipes takes up valuable time and they never understand what is going on anyway so you might as well call it like you see it.
There are many who believed that Iraq was a threat. Powell and Condi went before the country and stated unequivocally that Iraq had no WMD and that it was not a threat (February 2001). I believe that if Saddam could have gotten away with it, he would have eventually used WMD.
But it's presumed to be difficult to invade a sovereign nation on what someone "wants to do if they have the chance." I would like to think that in the 21st century the need for proof and evidence (physical) is still quite necessary.
To this day we have yet to find what is considered an operational weapon of mass destruction, yes, those weapons which we claimed were in the thousands and that we stated clearly we knew of their location. As far as I know that fact is still indisputable.
If we are to debate whether Saddam was a threat, that is an entirely separate issue, legitimate nonetheless.
Marie,
You keep a tight grip on this Zarqawi leg incident as if it is the smoking gun to tie Saddam and Bin Laden. I would say that is a very fragile argument, at best. But I know that "your people" told you that and you believe them without question (for if you questioned it, you wouldn't be American and would be considered unpatriotic).
The information that Scott Malenesk relays is interesting. There is no doubt Scott, that you have dedicated an enormous amount of time to the geo-political situation of this region. For that I commend your efforts and your desire for knowledge. This particular region and its history have never been my strongest discipline. I am more of the Michael Walzer following, studying the just and unjust wars of our time and teaching European Intellectual History and WWII literature.
What you say in your post COULD be, in fact, true. If all of your theories prove to be true, please send a note to my blog and I will congratulate you without a hint of hesitation.
But, at this moment in time, your theories remain in a holding pattern. What I found remarkable about your last post was that you report that no one from the 9/11 Commission Report investigated the information regarding Iraq and al-Qaeda. I have to admit, and perhaps I'm not the only one, that is the most incredible piece of information I have heard in quite some time.
I still search for truth and regard such matters as false until I can verify completely. To say that Saddam and Bin Laden never communicated at all would be severely naive. I believe they did. I just do not believe that they had any type of collaborative relationship whatsoever. But it was interesting that Bush and Cheney, after claiming that Saddam and al-Qaeda had a working relationship in June of 2003, planted such a seed that even 2 years later and despite intelligence information that unequivocally contrasted that claim, approximately 17% of the registered Republicans were still believing that Saddam had a hand in 9/11.
At this point I will agree to disagree. As I have repeatedly said I will wait for the truth to emerge, as it always does.
J_G,
You are spiritually sick. I'll pray for you.
Federalist,
"There are many who believed that Iraq was a threat. Powell and Condi went before the country and stated unequivocally that Iraq had no WMD and that it was not a threat (February 2001)." Those are quotes of which I'm acutely familiar. As I said, the US had not a single HUMINT inside Iraq until 12/02-1/03. Their comments were based on Clinton admin intel reporting (hardly unusual given that the comments were made less than 4 wks into the Bush Administration.
"But it's presumed to be difficult to invade a sovereign nation on what someone "wants to do if they have the chance." I would like to think that in the 21st century the need for proof and evidence (physical) is still quite necessary." Normally I'd like to agree here, but by 2003 a simple timeline bears out that there was no period of peace from 8/90-3/30, and that's why the invasion was done under UN 678, 687 (1991 resolutions) and supporting resolutions. The idea of pre-emptive attack was not singular in that the invasion was more substantively an attack of conclusion or a means of ending the war rather than pre-empting a specific threat. However, to your comments directly, if a convicted killer who has always used a .45cal in his murders refuses to tell police where his .45cal ammo went (ammo the police had on record as him having purchased or made), and at the same time this same killer is making threats to kill you with a .45cal pistol, then that's not the kinda threat to be dismissed until the ammo is found. No, you do what you can to find it, and at a certain point you have to put the guy back in a cage. Ultimately, I believe the war was more a case similar to a pile of kindling soaked for years in oil, and eventually the smallest spark would set it off therefore...the problem was not the spark, but the kindling.
"What I found remarkable about your last post was that you report that no one from the 9/11 Commission Report investigated the information regarding Iraq and al-Qaeda. I have to admit, and perhaps I'm not the only one, that is the most incredible piece of information I have heard in quite some time." Well, I apologize for linking to FR, but the original link died in a site upgrade. Only FR and my hard drive have the original:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818001/posts
To be clear, the 911 Commission investigated AQ/regime ties, but its findings were based on the Sen Intel Com report which repeatedly says that there was a lack of evidence, BUT the lack of evidence was due to a lack of intel gathered.
I submit and suggest and request that as a historian-amateur or professional-and as a person in search of reason, that you be much more careful in examining what you've been led to believe not only from the Bush Administration, but that you give equal and due diligence to the claims from political opponents of the war. Ask, "Is this the full quote?" "Did the President really say that-is that what he was trying to say?" "Was there any culpability and/or responsibility on the part of those who oppose the Bush Administration when it comes to how and why the war went from an ignored war (91-03) to an invasion?"
In almost every single case of political opposition to the war, I can point to a half quote, a misquote, or an uninformed/inaccurate quote.
Why? Because as much as the Bush Admin used the PR from the war to bolster support and political power, the opposition used it more, and is using it more."
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/02/04/the-left-their-conspiracies-about-iraq/#comment-14679
Sorry those links didn't work. Feel free to email me (anyone can) at pender@neo.rr.com, and I'll happily send you these links and more.
-Scott M
Federalist,
Marie,
You keep a tight grip on this Zarqawi leg incident as if it is the smoking gun to tie Saddam and Bin Laden. I would say that is a very fragile argument, at best. But I know that "your people" told you that and you believe them without question (for if you questioned it, you wouldn't be American and would be considered unpatriotic).
You're kidding right?
No One could be that blind to not see the ties between the two.
Who exactly are "My people?" The Pentagon?
Fragile arguement? Well ok, you tell me another reason Zarqowi went to Iraq of all places for a leg operation.
Did they just happen to have the best medical facilities in the neighborhood?
C'mon Federalist You must see some kind of a link here.
If you dont, how about Answar-Al-Islam that was operating freely in Iraq?
Look at the links provided you.
So you don't mind someone recruiting your kids and friend to go die so Exxon can post record profits??
Its not like Marines cant walk around or even have a conversation. Quit trying to spin this. They simply don't want Marines trying to recruit people to go kill Muslims.
Gayle:
Berkely is not in San Francisco. Its its own independent town near Oakland.
Wow, talk about the blind leading the blind.
I just think its funny when you people think its ok to stand outside of Planned Parenthoods and spit on girls trying to get a monthly check up but college kids can't stand outside a Marine recruiting center and try to save lives.
And I was also wondering if you are going to write a post about all the God Bobs down south who shut down liquor stores and make the sell of alcohol illegal, or the people who protest sex shops and shut down sex shops or do you think people in local communities have a say in what types of business can be conducted there?
Talk about the pot and the kettle.
Federalist:
Maybe you weren't here but we were threatened here about 6 years ago on a day called 9/11. Maybe you forgot. Where was our Military and Commander in Chief then? Were they too busy being stationed overseas to protect us? Was your president too stupid to take the warnings seriously or did they let it happen.
Toad,
So you don't mind someone recruiting your kids and friend to go die so Exxon can post record profits??
Its not like Marines cant walk around or even have a conversation. Quit trying to spin this. They simply don't want Marines trying to recruit people to go kill Muslims.
Oh you are so out of it and wrong my friend lol
I have a million pictures of Soldiers walking around with the Iraqi Troops walking around also.
Here we go with the same washed up arguement about oil and that idiotic crap.
It's old Toad! Get over it!
Post a Comment
<< Home