jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (109 posts)

The Benghazi cover up continues

  1. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … medium=RSS

    Access is denied to the survivors.
    Now why can't they be interviewed?

    1. Seth Winter profile image79
      Seth Winterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Because Hillary wants to run in 2016?

      1. Barefootfae profile image60
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Oh I have no doubt that's in there somewhere.

    2. profile image81
      Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Barefootfae profile image60
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah........

        I know I should just learn to accept the most corrupt administration ever for what it is.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Or spreading your resources so thin it is difficult to keep track of all the moving parts, and when Republicans voted to defund the embassies...well it shows where their true priorities are.

      2. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
        BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        The sequester is the new George Bush.

        1. Barefootfae profile image60
          Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image81
            Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yep.  You've got.it.  I couldn't agree more.

            1. Barefootfae profile image60
              Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

      3. Zelkiiro profile image87
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Fast and Furious is a scandal now? I mean, I know it was a bad movie, but...

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Don't worry, The Rock will lay the smackdown on those Mexican cartels

        2. profile image81
          Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
            Cody Hodge5posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps if Arizona had a governor and a senator who weren't so hell bent on playing politics every chance they get....

            1. profile image60
              retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

              The most amazing thing in that statement is how Obama supporters can say things like that without a trace of guile or irony.

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
                Cody Hodge5posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                So you think that the governor of Arizona is competent to be in her position?

                1. profile image81
                  Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
                    Cody Hodge5posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Oh right, its the media...lol

                2. profile image60
                  retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

            2. profile image81
              Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I'd laugh, but Arizona doesn't have much to laugh about now that we are the target of Obama's politics.

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
                Cody Hodge5posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                More propaganda and fear....?

                1. Barefootfae profile image60
                  Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

          2. profile image60
            retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. profile image81
              Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    "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.

    1. Barefootfae profile image60
      Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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........

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. junkseller profile image88
        junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Barefootfae profile image60
          Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

  3. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
    Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago

    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.

  4. peoplepower73 profile image87
    peoplepower73posted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. Barefootfae profile image60
      Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ah.......4 seals and an ambassador are worthless then are they?
      It's very very very obvious there is a cover up going on.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Yes it is!
        And those responsible for the cover-up are no longer in office.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    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-terror

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Facts mightymom.  Facts get in the way!

    2. profile image81
      Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      We 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?

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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??

        1. profile image81
          Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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!"

    3. profile image60
      retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. PhoenixV profile image81
        PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

  6. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
    Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago

    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?

    1. profile image81
      Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Barefootfae profile image60
          Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. junkseller profile image88
            junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Barefootfae profile image60
              Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              (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.

              1. junkseller profile image88
                junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Barefootfae profile image60
                  Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Ah yes....I forgot the Bush led troops lied.

                  1. junkseller profile image88
                    junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. Barefootfae profile image60
                  Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. junkseller profile image88
                    junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

        2. profile image81
          Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. junkseller profile image88
            junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. profile image81
              Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. junkseller profile image88
                junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. profile image81
                  Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. junkseller profile image88
                    junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. profile image60
                  retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. junkseller profile image88
                    junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

        3. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
          BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          You mean Bush wanted to protect our allies from our enemy? How horrid!

          1. Barefootfae profile image60
            Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            How dare he want to do the right thing!!!!!

            He should go to jail for that!

            1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
              BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I think Canada is wanting an arrest made.

              1. Barefootfae profile image60
                Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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....

                1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                  BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Thats right, Canada. Sure don't want to upset them.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    You mean our biggest trading partner in the world? Yeah I agree we shouldn't upset them.

            2. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Its a shame nobody cares about what the international courts think.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                    BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Boohoo

                  2. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
                    Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. Soul Man Walking profile image61
                Soul Man Walkingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                It was senior lifesaving class.

              3. Barefootfae profile image60
                Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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.

  7. Soul Man Walker profile image60
    Soul Man Walkerposted 4 years ago

    Yawn!

  8. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
    Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image87
      peoplepower73posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
        Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years agoin reply to 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.

  9. profile image81
    Education Answerposted 4 years ago

    ""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=r2

    1. junkseller profile image88
      junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Not 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.

 
working