The Benghazi cover up continues
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … medium=RSS
Access is denied to the survivors.
Now why can't they be interviewed?Oh I have no doubt that's in there somewhere.
Barefootfae,
You are mistaken. The POTUS said he was going to be the most transparent president ever. We now have hope and change. Just look at Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Our debt is less and improving. People are back to work. Guantanamo Bay is closed. We are no longer torturing suspected terrorists. Our allies love us more now than ever. Taxes were not raised on the middle class. If there are any problems in America, they are all because of the sequester. Before the sequester, they were all caused by George Bush. Come on, get your facts straight.Yeah........
I know I should just learn to accept the most corrupt administration ever for what it is.Oh absolutely and the problem is they are going to deliberately make sure this is a very very very very painful experience.
Anyone who voted for the regime deserves every bit of pain they get.Yep. You've got.it. I couldn't agree more.
The fact they are going to close a bunch of FAA towers is proof they don not care about the economy.
It's all an effort to keep the same deluded people deluded and hopefully delude a few more into believing they are powerless against a party in the minority.
It's like Professional Wrestling.
Fast and Furious is a scandal now? I mean, I know it was a bad movie, but...
Don't worry, The Rock will lay the smackdown on those Mexican cartels
LOL
I wish it were only a movie. I live in Phoenix, where it took place. Many Arizonans aren't too fond of the government's actions when it comes to Fast and Furious.
I live in Phoenix, where 2,200 illegal aliens were just released because of the sequester. Ten of these people were incarcerated for the highest level of offense(s), aggravated felonies. Arizona wasn't even notified prior to the release of these illegal aliens. Our governor heard about it in the news. This is a prime example of how Obama's administration has willingly tried to make the sequester as painful as possible. I feel that it's also payback for SB1070, Arizona's illegal imigration bill. If you don't believe that, then you should at least admit that there was very, very poor communication that may result in people being hurt or killed. Here we go. . .again.
Is it any wonder Arizona is frustrated when it comes to illegal aliens?Perhaps if Arizona had a governor and a senator who weren't so hell bent on playing politics every chance they get....
The most amazing thing in that statement is how Obama supporters can say things like that without a trace of guile or irony.
So you think that the governor of Arizona is competent to be in her position?
Yes. I live in Arizona. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you do not live in Arizona. You see only what makes the national news. Thus, you only get a one-sided view of our governor.
Claiming omniscience? Are you intimately aware of all the governor's names and qualifications for office? If Jan Brewer is incompetent and the citizens of Arizona disqualified for choosing such a person than the citizens of California must be drooling maniacs for re-electing that miserable failure and feather headed idiot Jerry Brown.
You see, it is hard for liberals, especially Obama zombies, to comprehend the nature of political authority in America.
1) All authority resides in the individual
2) The individual cedes portions of his personal, natural authority to bodies he deems necessary for his survival, prosperity, mobility, etc.
3) Those bodies make up local, state and federal governments
4) The individual retains sovereignty over those inalienable rights with which he has been endowed by Nature or Nature's God
5) The duly constituted states retain sovereignty over those things not specifically delegated to the Federal Government in the Charter whereby the Federal Government was created, not by the individual alone, but by the STATES with the consent of the citizens of each state.
6) Since the day the people of each separate, sovereign and individual state approved the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, liberals have been attempting to ignore or overturn the Federal system, ignore the 10th Amendment and override the inalienable rights with which the individual is the sole possessor.
That is what makes Obama and his willfully ignorant supports so upset with Jan Brewer. She has the Audacity to Hope that the Federal Government will discharge its constitutional duties and defend the borders against illegal incursions. Shame on her.It is all hooey. The place is a mess and we did the best we could under the circumstances. Wake up!
No, it's your ignorance about Arizona politics, just as I am ignorant about your state's politics. You simply do not have access to the entire body of news, because you do not live in Arizona. You only hear about controversial measures that the national news reports. This isn't about the liberal media.
Save the saguaros on Sarah Palin's lot!
Sarah Palin is less than newsworthy in Arizona, but I enjoyed your comment.
It doesn't matter what I think, she is the duly elected representative of the PEOPLE of Arizona, not the Vacationer-in-Chief's lackey.
I'd laugh, but Arizona doesn't have much to laugh about now that we are the target of Obama's politics.
No Cody that's just a fact. The Governor of Arizona didn't toe the line and they were portrayed as animals. That's the tactic of the left. That's this administration that seeks to destroy it's enemies.
The illegals in Arizona were not released because of the sequester. There was no reduction in the 2012 level of funding but rather a reduction in the increased level of spending for 2013. The illegals in Arizona were released as retribution for Arizona's and its governor's disobedience.
You are absolutely right. The sequester will be blamed for everything from the cost of gas to mustard being yellow. Bush was at fault, and now the sequester is the new scapegoat.
"This source indicated that as many as seven Americans have been or are currently being treated at the hospital,” the congressmen wrote. “We would like to visit with the individuals presently at Walter Reed as they have endured much for their country and we owe them a debt of gratitude."
You've got to be kidding me. This idiot wants a horde of republican congressmen descending on a hospital room to express their gratitude?
BS. He doesn't care one whit how badly they are injured or how much they've endured; he wants dirt on Obama.
For God's sake, at least leave them alone until they're healed before using them as political whipping stock in the muck of Washington.I'm not trying to cause folks problems.
I'm trying to find out what happened and if you are holding your breath for the administration it's too late for you.
It's been over six months. There should be some nearly healed individuals.
Had this been the Bush or McCain or whomever administration there would have been a blood lust cry from the left about it.
but...its the left running it so the media and all else plays their game........I'm sure there are healed individuals, or at least nearly healed. That idiot just doesn't want to see them - it doesn't make as good a story and they'll probably be a little more careful about what they say.
I'm also sure as I can be that we will never hear the full story; certainly the survivors have no clue on what was going on in Washington during those hours. They can tell us the results, but not the causes of what happened - something we pretty much already know.I don't remember any "blood lust" cries after any of the eleven times embassies where attacked during Bush's terms. Or partisan calls for investigations or accusations.
Apparently becasue they were known outright to be terrorist attacks.
Instead with Benghazi it was" It was terrorists!"
"No it was a stupid video".
"Uh------no it was terrorists."
Either someone does not know what they are doing....which I will admit is another big possibility, or someone is covering up ignorant leadership.During Bush's terms, I don't think the President of the United States blamed such things on the citizens. The Obama Administration went out of its way TO blame citizens for it. That's his game, his and Hilary's and Susan Rice's and others. And it wasn't the first time at all. Just shows where their priorities are.
Why aren't you hot and heavy to find out why so many soldiers died in Iraq, why trillions were spent there and why it was all done because "weapons of mass destruction" were suspected - but never materialized?
Why was the Bush and big oil connection not investigated? Why was the Cheney and Halliburton connection not investigated?
The sudden intensity of interest in investigating the government misdeeds seems both very late and extremely slanted to me.What's worse 4,400 troops killed in Iraq and countless thousands of civilians all under the false pretense of WMDs or 4 seals and an ambassador killed in Bengahzi? Iraq costs 2.2 trillion unfunded.
Even Bill O'Reilly said in his Talking Points Memo that we should never try anything like Iraq again because when people are not receptive to democracy and an open liberal (in the loose sense of the term) society, it has no chance of succeeding.
Ah.......4 seals and an ambassador are worthless then are they?
It's very very very obvious there is a cover up going on.Yes it is!
And those responsible for the cover-up are no longer in office.
Yes. "Happy" 10th anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War to all.
Oh, and speaking of presidential reactions to attacks on US embassies, you might find
this amusing.
And nope. It's not about Bush (even though Bush Sr. holds the record for most embassy attacks during his terms).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/1 … -of-terrorWe do not blame the POTUS for the attack. We blame the POTUS for not being able to realize that the attack was imminent and thus being better prepared for it. It was 9-11, so there should have been heightened security around all our embasies in areas like this. The pending attack had been reported in local newspapers prior to it happening. The embassy had complained about a lack of security and the fact that their hired security was acting suspicious by taking pictures of the embassy. Anybody could have told you we needed more security.
Then, after the attack, we blame the POTUS for not being honest or at least forthcoming about the attack. Had the POTUS simply stated that we were attacked, mistakes were made, and we weren't going to make those mistakes again, most of us wouldn't be talking about this now. It has nothing to do with the fact that we were attacked. We expect that to happen from time to time. However, we also expect the "most transparent" president to own mistakes that were made under his leadership. Isn't that partially what makes a leader?Let's compare and contrast US presidents admitting mistakes:
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/526/308 … -diplomats
vs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haQzdW7hg4A
And let's also not forget the movement to politicize Benghazi started with Romney holding a press conference on it almost before the event happened.
If I were the conspiracy theorist type, I might read something into that.
Was this attack not only premeditated, but prearranged and funded by outside interests??Democrats never politicize anything. Seriously? Of course both sides play politics. We're talking about a big mistake and no accountability. Both sides need accountability
We don't know much about Benghazi or Fast and Furious. This administration isn't providing much information. It's like Nixon is president.
Everybody who loves the POTUS has to compare him to other presidents, until he starts looking bad. The POTUS isn't being "transparent" about this and other issues. Spin it all you want. If Bush had done this, libs would be demonstrating in the streets, screaming, "He's not my president!"
It wasn't a terrorist attack, if Obama, Hillary and Ambassador Rice are to be believed. It was a protest over a Youtube video. I wonder if George H.W. Bush was at a multimillion dollar party/fund raiser in Las Vegas while one of his ambassadors was being sodomized to death by Libyan film critics? I think not.
Obama said that he gave clear directives on securing our personnel from Libyan Film Critics. Later Panetta chided the American Public for monday morning quarterbacking, saying that you never send forces in when you are dealing with radical Siskel & Ebert types, especially when you don't know what you are doing. It's apparent that claiming you gave directives to secure personnel, sounds a lot better than the horrific truth, or any truth, for that matter.
I'd also like a response to my question about Iraq and WMD.
I'd say those thousands of lives and trillions of dollars deserve a little more attention than they've gotten from the self-righteous folks who've jumped on the Benghazi Accusation Bandwagon with such zeal.
That whole war was a put up deal. America was duped by the very leaders who were supposed to be serving us. Instead, these people had greed, revenge and ego as their motivators. For ten years they have remained both shameless and unpunished for their premeditated and monstrous deeds.
We should, after all, call people to account in historical order. Don't you think?Mistakes were made. The CIA, just yesterday, reiterated the fact that they had poor intelligence about Iraq's weaponry. Bush made decisions based on poor intelligence, as did the rest of Congress. Should Bush have accountability for these decisions? Yes. Have libs been screaming out about this for a decade? Yes. I would like to note that there is an interesting silence among liberals in Congress, the same ones who agreed with Bush at the time. I think we should hold everybody who was in Congress and Bush accountability. What do you think? Of course, that would mean that a lot of liberals would have to be accountable too, as they had the same intelligence Bush was given.
Believing something is true and knowing that it is not is too different things. The neocons wanted to protect Israel from Saddam at any cost. So Bush, Cheny and Rumsfeld had the intelligence the intelligence that indicated modified by the CIA to make it look like they had WMDs. Colin Powell knew they didn't when he sold it to the U.N. The intel pictures they used were drawings. They were not even photos. Anybody knows that drawings are not reliable intelligence. But they bought it anyway because Collin Powell has credibility. Now those people want to re-write history and their legacy.
Well I wonder where this came from?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-575 … ns-attack/
And how did Benghazi turn onto Iraq. Somebody used the term b---s. I think there is a lack thereof
an most of the left can't believe they are backing the administration that is covering up the lack of leadership.Where what came from? Imaginary WMD's? Well, usually they seem to come from the mind's of neocons. Did you even read the article? Or can your mind only handle titles?
"...there was very little evidence to suggest any actual chemical weapons had been deployed."
If you were better educated you might also know that the Syria is considered to have a large and well developed chemical weapons program of their own. So, while Saddam's imaginary weapons may very well have been imaginarily transferred to Syria, they wouldn't really have any need for them.(sigh)
I have a friend whose son was in Iraq ten years ago. As they traveled and stopped in villages tehy were told they were made to load the WMD's on trucks.
That went to Syria.
There is a reality. Get in it.I have a friend whose Aunt's little kitten was run over by this dude who once watched a concert of Elvis (after his alleged death) with this chick who knew a guy who Swears to God that they say Saddam personally stash his WMD's in his codpiece and fly off to the moon. Scout's honor.
Accepting such piss-poor pathetic 'evidence' is partly what got us into this mess. Please have higher standards. Hearsay is not reality.Ah yes....I forgot the Bush led troops lied.
No one said anything about lying. Hearsay is hearsay. The problem with it is being unverifiable. Hence, poor, if not meaningless, as far as evidence goes.
See.....I can tell from these absolutely raving conversations with you that you wouldn't believe me if I actually could show you. It's a thing called indoctrination and you got it bad.
I guess in a way I am indoctrinated, but it is indoctrinated to base my positions on actual evidence and rationality, rather than feelings, opinions, ideology, or rubbish evidence. You've shown nothing, therefore I accept nothing you have said.
I have very serious doubts you have any facts.
Based upon what your notion of a fact seems to be, I'll consider that a compliment.
Actually, it sounds like you are the one rewriting history. Now, we're seeing WMD's being used in Syria. Remember what the CIA said 10 years ago? They said the WMD's were being moved into Syria. Hmmm.
As of yet, there is no evidence of WMDs being used in Syria. Not sure why you'd worry about rewriting past history when you can't even get current history right. Also Syria has their own well developed chemical weapons program, so use of them wouldn't in any way prove they came from Iraq.
Chemical weapons aren't WMD's? We'll wait until the use of chemical weapons is confirmed. Then, will you admit you are wrong? I doubt it. There is no proof that you are right and that these weapons are not from Iraq. By these weapons, I mean the ones Syria has allegedly used but clearly has. The CIA makes many mistakes, but I believe their intelligence over yours.
The use of chemical weapons has not been confirmed. You yourself say so, so how can I be wrong to say the same thing. Makes no sense.
I also did not say that the alleged chemical weapons didn't come from Iraq, just that simply using them wouldn't somehow prove that they did. That'd be like seeing an American driving a car and suggesting that the car came from Korea. It COULD have, doesn't mean that it did, especially considering the domestic capabilities of producing the said product.Saying that the "alleged" chemical weapons didn't come from Iraq makes no sense too. Neither of us know whether they did or didn’t, and that was my point. However, you seem to be basing your statements on opinion; I am basing mine on CIA intelligence. I’ll take CIA intelligence over yours any day of the week. Remember, the CIA, just 3 days ago, restated the claim that chemical weapons were taken from Iraq and into Syria ten years ago. Why would the CIA make this statement now? The answer is obvious. They probably feel that those chemical weapons are from Iraq. What are you basing your statements on? Feelings? Emotions? A hatred of George Bush? Seems YOU can’t get the past right, or perhaps you’re bitter that the present might disprove false statements you made in the past? Syria likely has the WMD’s that Iraq did in fact have ten years ago.
You're absolutely right. That's why I made no such claim. All I said is that we do not know. The exact same thing you yourself have said, so again, what the hell are you even talking about? Yes, my exact point as well.Every single thing I have said has been a factual statement about what we know or don't know. All have been entirely correct, and most of them you seem to agree with, so your claim of me making opinion-based statements is bewildering.I have made no statements disputing any of this.For one who seems so concerned about opinions, feelings, and emotions, you are the only one displaying any of them. I have done nothing but make very clear, very simple, factual statements. How in the world you twist that into your bizarre rant about me hating George Bush and being unable to come to terms with some allegedly incorrect statement I made in the past is pretty bizarre stuff.The statement I have made is simply that we do not know whether weapons were transferred or not. This is purely a Boolean result. We either know or we don't. There are only two results. You, however are making a probabilistic statement about how likely it is that that transfer took place. These are entirely different things.
You believe chemical weapons were transferred and the evidence you use to support your claim are CIA intelligence reports and recent statements. I have no problem with that. It is a perfectly legitimate assertion backed with some level of support, but it is still entirely true that we do not know for certain one way or the other.LOL
If we agree on so much, why the debate? My assumptions about your political inclinations were based on your statements. It seems as if all you are arguing is that the "alleged" attack was merely alleged and that we do not know whether or not the weapons came from Iraq. If this is so, I don't even know how we got here, because that's pretty much what I have been saying. Maybe we're arguing about something for which we both largely agree upon.We do seem to agree, that's why I have been perplexed by the debate as well. How we got here was that you originally made the statement, "Now, we're seeing WMD's being used in Syria," which sounded like you were stating that as a fact and I was disagreeing with that.
Korea and the US do not share a long and unguarded border and there is no lengthy build up to an invasion of the United States by Korea. The BATH party doesn't run both governments. There were several years of 'regime change" talk throughout the Clinton and Bush years, there was a lengthy build up to invasion and there were multiple warnings from the US and the UN prior to the first air sortie initiating Operation Iraqi Freedom. There is evidence of chemical weapons and other banded weapons, like missile capable Mirage fighters, in COALITION seized territory during that OIF. There are numerous sources, out side the US, that have maintained for years that Saddam's weapons were moved to Jordan, Syria or most likely Lebanon.
Which is easier? Build a car or import a car. Occam's Razor.Those are fair points, and I haven't in any way said that weapons moving from Iraq to Syria was an impossibility. Logically, I personally think it makes little sense, but that is hardly any sort of worthwhile evidence.
Still, the point remains that this isn't an either/or situation. It isn't an issue of selecting between making one's own weapons or importing them. Most sources seem pretty confident that Syria has a long and well-developed chemical weapons program. That is the case whether or not weapons have been brought in from other places or not, so the mere use can not by itself prove a source if there are multiple potential sources.Many sources also maintain that it was the Jihadist elements in Syria that may have used chemical weapons causing the US, UN and Russia to insist on an investigation. The connection between Assad's BATH party and Saddam's is irrefutable - Fascists tend to clump together - Franco,Mussolini/Hitler,Mussolini, etc... Syria has also had a serious missile program but when the Israelis blew up that Syrian missile instillation a year or so ago some North Koreans were also killed. Could they have been imported for that job.
Evil is real and has been emboldened by Obama/Clinton ineptitude.The Ba'ath Party split in the 60s into two factions (one in Syria and one in Iraq) that have since been fairly hostile to one another. Doesn't seem correct at all to say there is a connection there.
The enemy of my enemy - who do you think Assad and Saddam both hated?
You mean Bush wanted to protect our allies from our enemy? How horrid!
How dare he want to do the right thing!!!!!
He should go to jail for that!I think Canada is wanting an arrest made.
Wow! Canada!
Serious stuff.
They won't ever do anything with GW because they would lose their favorite whipping boy. the one they can blame for everything. People might actually get the impression the current occupant is incompetent or something....Thats right, Canada. Sure don't want to upset them.
You mean our biggest trading partner in the world? Yeah I agree we shouldn't upset them.
Survive yes, but our economy would suffer tremendously, Canada is our biggest trading partner in the world our second biggest is China and pretty much all they buy is debt and some tech products, we export almost three times more to Canada than China and almost twice as much as to Mexico our second biggest importer of products.
Canada makes up about a third of our total exports to the whole world and at the best margin due to geographical proximity our economy would be utterly crippled (even further) if relations did break down.
Actually he should go to jail for international war crimes that he has confessed to, namely torture by water-boarding which is defined as torture by the international courts and is a very serious crime under the Geneva convention which we are signatory to.
We have certainly aided in the trial of many foreign leaders under the same laws.Its a shame nobody cares about what the international courts think.
Well we certainly have at many points, and should indeed since we are signatory to those conventions, the same ones that were used to execute NAZI war criminals for example, we are just hypocrites who ignore the law when it suits us, or rather in this case conservatives are.
See hypocrisy thanks for illustrating it
I would also mention that as the US ceases to be the predominant and rising economic power in the world good will from other nations becomes increasingly important, particularly from those nations who own our debt.Not hypocrisy if I have never cared what other countries think, and I have not.
Well then you fundamentally fail to understand economics and politics in a globalized world, for example failure to maintain good relationships with the South American continent has led to an estimated 19 trillion dollars in lost exports, you may recognize that as being larger than our total debt.
Ignorance and jingoism aren't virtues they are intellectual failings.Good answer
Good luck, maybe eventually you will learn what globalization is and what it means. You don't care about what the rest of the world thinks yet the US as it exists could not possibly exist without the cooperation of the vast majority of the world's nations have a look at the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act and how it utterly ruined our economy when just a few nations got pissed with us and implemented economic measures. (and that was in a far less globalized economy)Thats wonderful, still don't care therefore no hypocrisy.
Josak, two of the "people" you're replying to are just a couple of trolls who like to stir up trouble. If you look at their profiles, they have only joined a few days ago, and are only putting sarcastic crap on the forums to incite people. The others are some of that very small per cent I mentioned below who still believe GW was anything but destructive and a terrible president. The only reason he was re-elected is that we don't change presidents in the middle of a war if we can help it. Even if they're the dishonest and rotten folks who started it under false circumstances.
Another post worth the paper its written on.
Good thing it wasn't written on paper then
BTW Canada is undefeated against the United States in wars fought head to head
He was re-elected because of John Kerry. Just like he was elected because of Al Gore.
Fortunately, he will be the last conservative president elected until at least 2024 or 2032, so at least there is that.
If it wasn't for Lewinksy, Gore would have won in a landslide.Ah yes. 2004.
The presidential campaign that put SuperPACS on the map and made "Swiftboating" a verb.
W -- Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We won't get fooled again!Bush/Gore basically a statistical tie. Can hardly claim "no one" wanted Gore.
2000 Election Results
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
2004 certainly more decisive Bush win.
Kerry experienced but not much personality.
But good thing Edwards didn't get in as Veep!
Nasty business with his dying wife and mistress and out of wedlock child.
I will say it: I never liked him.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html
Actually, MM, here's the actual "fool me" Bush quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
Bet the comedians sure miss ol' W!!
So put him in jail....
then shut up about him. I don't care if you do.
IF......you put other people in jail who deserve it.
Yawn at this while you're at it.
The Last Letter
A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran
To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
From: Tomas Young
I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.
I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.
I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.
Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.
I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.
I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.
I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.
My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.I read this yesterday on Face Book and it is very moving and powerful to say the least. I didn't have the b**ls to post it because I thought it was too long and conservatives wouldn't read it anyway. Thank you for posting this.
No problem. I think that everyone now, except a very small percentage of people, understands that the Iraq war was a put up deal that cost a lot of lives and put our country in a financial mess. I have both liberal and conservative friends, and have seen both sharing this on Facebook. It says so much that has needed to be said. Too bad this guy and others like him have paid such a high price.
""I think when you look at the whole body of information over the last two years there is mounting evidence that it is probable that the Assad regime has used at least a small quantity of chemical weapons during the course of conflict," Rogers said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico- … html?hp=r2Not sure how Rogers would know something no one else seems to know. Given his position, it's possible, but if he really has "mounting evidence" he should share it with the rest of us. Can't speak for anyone else but a wink and a "trust me" doesn't even begin to cut it.
It is also interesting to note that the Syrian government is the one who has asked the UN to independently investigate the attack. They claim rebels were responsible for it. Coming from Assad that may not mean much, but if it was rebels that would seem to really screw up everyone's calculus.
Related Discussions
- 97
The Benghazi GOP investigation
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
After more than two years and $7 million spent by the Benghazi Committee under taxpayer funds, it had to today report that it had found nothing — nothing — to contradict the conclusions that the independent accountability board, or the conclusions of the prior multiple earlier investigations...
- 386
Was Benghazi "testimony" just political theater?
by Quilligrapher 11 years ago
In an interview with Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa admitted, using more words than was necessary, that his May 8th hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks did not produce any new information.VAN SUSTEREN: "You have gone through all the documents, you have talked to people weeks leading up to...
- 14
When it comes to the White House's attempt to cover up the truth behind the Beng
by Beth Perry 10 years ago
When it comes to the White House's attempt to cover up the truth behind the Benghazi massacre...Do the newly discovered emails, which prove the White House attempted to coverup.the circumstances surrounding the Sept.11, 2012 massacre in Benghazi, warrant impeachment proceedings against President...
- 13
Is this Benghazi issue being used as a smokescreen?
by SEXYLADYDEE 11 years ago
Is this Benghazi issue being used as a smokescreen?I was so proud to hear Secretary of State Hillary Clinton point out emphatically what are the most important issues that need to be resolved in this matter. Is the GOP using this club to mask more important issues that need to be addressed at this...
- 18
Why do you Hate Hillary? Can you tell us? I would guess, most people will say Be
by Shyron E Shenko 8 years ago
Why do you Hate Hillary? Can you tell us? I would guess, most people will say Benghazi & not know whI would bet that most people don't even know that the Republican Congress denied funding for additional security in Benghazi and then blamed Hillary.
- 19
Can Obama provide memos that gave very clear directives securing our personnel i
by Cassie Smith 12 years ago
Can Obama provide memos that gave very clear directives securing our personnel in Benghazi?That shouldn't be hard should it? You don't need an investigation over that. I'm sure someone received a memo saying what he said, right? So why doesn't someone provide proof so that we all...