Draginol Draginol

The 2000 milestone in Iraq

▼

The 2000 milestone in Iraq

Some thoughts

from JoeUser Forums

In the battle of Okinawa, a small island in the Pacific ocean, over 12,000 Americans died and another 38,000 were seriously wounded.

Mind you, this was to take an island that was tiny and had a population less than part of Baghad. And we're still there today.

Luckily, Americans were a little bit tougher of skin back then.  We didn't shirk or slink away from paying a high price to do things that were important in a larger sense. 

2,000 Americans have died in Iraq over the past 3 years.  That's 1/6th as many people who died -- within the span of a few days -- in a single battle on a single island in World War II. 

Those Americans gave their lives in a cause they believed in.  In a cause that serves our country and even the rest of the world even if much of that world (those ironically many of whom were either our enemies or sat on the side-lines back in World War II) doesn't appreciate it. 

Those Americans were not sent there to find "WMD" or for "oil".  They were sent there to topple an evil, corrupt regime that had twice attacked its neighbors, had used whatever weapons it had at hand in war, was violating the cease fire from the previous war with the coaliation, and quite clearly was working its way through the so-called "Sanctions" to the day when it could restart programs to gain for itself horrific weapons to use or distribute to enemies. 

Those Americans were sent to a country that is literally in the middle of a region that is formenting people who want to exterminate not just every single American but the entire western way of life. 

Those Americans gave their lives to help put in its place a country that we hope will become democratic and representative but at the very least won't harbor terrorists who can plan at their leisure further attacks on this country.

Those Americans gave their lives as a part of a broader war on Islamic terror.  And while some don't see the connection between Iraq and Islamic militarism, the same could be said of not seeing the connection between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the US invasion of French North Africa.

Luckily, the greatest generation of Americans were made of sterner stuff than what today's Americans are apparently made of. They rolled up their sleaves and went to work and made possible the world we have today where we have the luxury to hyper-analyse every combat death that occurs in the name of securing freedom and security both there and at home.

The families and friends of those 2,000 men and women can hopefully take comfort that they gave their lives in a cause that was as noble and true as any cause that warriors have fought and died in.  As an American, I want to express appreciation for their sacrifice that has helped make all of us a bit safer and helped make the world a better place.

27,620 views 164 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top
Make that 2026.

Thats a 1% growth of the body count in the short time since the back and forth "debate" on this thread began. In other words for every 5 posts to be read on this thread a US solidier was killed.

The unanswered question of course is.... for what?
Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top
Make that 2026.

Thats a 1% growth of the body count in the short time since the back and forth "debate" on this thread began. In other words for every 5 posts to be read on this thread a US solidier was killed.

The unanswered question of course is.... for what?
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top
for freedom.....so a nation can live in peace someday without a dictator cutting off their hands, and said dictators son raping their daughters.

Why should they NOT be allowed that luxury.....that is a basic human right, right?
Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top
The most likely reason no one was charged with the crime of outing a CIA Agent is because of the complexity of the 1982 CIA Shield law itself. There have been many articles of how almost imposible it is to have anyone do all the things required to be charged with breaking that law.

That does not change the fact, Rove and Libby provided classified information to reporters. They should be removed from their jobs for that action. If they also broke our laws, thay should be punished as the law provides if convicted.
Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top
The most likely reason no one was charged with the crime of outing a CIA Agent is because of the complexity of the 1982 CIA Shield law itself. There have been many articles of how almost imposible it is to have anyone do all the things required to be charged with breaking that law.

That does not change the fact, Rove and Libby provided classified information to reporters. They should be removed from their jobs for that action. If they also broke our laws, thay should be punished as the law provides if convicted.


Both you and kb I guess still don't get it. According to the LAW being used, THERE WAS NO CRIME! This quote says it all. It comes from USA Today.
If they both returned from their assignments in 1997 and the supposed outing took place in 2003....GUESS WHAT? NO CRIME. 5 years is the drop point isn't it? Do the math, let's see....looks like "6 YEARS" to me which would put it "over" the time limit. And in doing so, there should have been NO investigation in the first place! Now if it can be proven in a court of law that "Scooter" messed up, then hang his butt out to dry! But by all rights he shouldn't have been questioned in the first place if no crime was committed.

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. (Related story: Bush waits on Rove)

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.


And just an fyi.....this was taken by USA Today from Wilson's "OWN WORDS"!
Reply #131 from JoeUser Forums Top

The conservatives here on JU seem to be claiming Fitzgerald as a raging leftist out to irresponsibly damage the administration in any way he can.

Not True.  I dont see any politics in his endeavors, just a big ego and a chance to make a big name for himself.  I personally think he would be equally rabid going after Clinton and his crimes as he would Rove or Scooter.

Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top

That does not change the fact, Rove and Libby provided classified information to reporters.

Hey COl Klink, even Fitzgerald does not know those facts.  In FACT, no one knows those facts because they are not facts.  You cant tell fact from fiction, can you?

Reply #133 from JoeUser Forums Top
The conservatives here on JU seem to be claiming Fitzgerald as a raging leftist out to irresponsibly damage the administration in any way he can.


Noone I've read here has said that, Chak. I've only said that he went to great lengths to justify the charges on the basis of national security when he's not charged anyone with violating national security statutes. Fitzgerald himself has otherwise acted responsibly. Whether his version of events, which is the only version we have so far, is the whole story remains to be seen. Here, we at least give lip service to the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" - except for the MSM, Joe Wilson & other Democrats.

i've yet to see any reasonable explanation of why cheney, rove and libby felt their need to reveal information about ms plame trumped their obligation to keep classified information confidential and/or risk the possibility of violating the 1982 law.


I'm still not convinced any of this was intentional or "needed," as so many seem to assume. The motive has problems in my view.

The most likely reason no one was charged with the crime of outing a CIA Agent is because of the complexity of the 1982 CIA Shield law itself. There have been many articles of how almost imposible it is to have anyone do all the things required to be charged with breaking that law.


I'll say it again, Gene - the reason noone was charged with a "the crime" is that no such crime was committed. The law was written the way it was for a reason. "Many articles" doesn't mean shit. Stop calling them guilty of breaking this law when not even Fitzgerald, after two years of trying, could find evidence they did so. If he eventually comes up with evidence they did, let him charge them. Until then, you are just demagoguing.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #134 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wrong Dr Guy

Two reporters said Rove and Lobby were the FIRST to out Mrs Wilson. Fitzgerald knows that. He said the outing was wrong. The issue is the law is so complex it is almost impossible to be charged with a crime under the 1982 law. No one has said Rove and Libby are not responsible for telling the press classified information about Mrs Wilson. They are the ones that did that and should be canned for flapping their gums about our CIA Agents. There is no possible justification for them talking to the press and giving out classified information. Rove told Libby the information about Mrs Wilson was soon to be declassified. Thus he knew it was classified when he told Cooper.
Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again, Gene, Congress didn't say, "Let's make a law that is so complicated noone can be charged, let alone convicted, just so we'll have something on the books we can use to make people look bad." The law determines what constitutes a violation and a violation did not occur, therefore no crime. This "complexity" dodge is comical.

It's also cute how the left and other Bush-haters have fallen so conveniently in love with the CIA. Not long ago, outting a CIA agent would have been cheered as a victory against the dark side.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #136 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wrong Dr Guy

Two reporters said Rove and Lobby were the FIRST to out Mrs Wilson. Fitzgerald knows that. He said the outing was wrong. The issue is the law is so complex it is almost impossible to be charged with a crime under the 1982 law. No one has said Rove and Libby are not responsible for telling the press classified information about Mrs Wilson. They are the ones that did that and should be canned for flapping their gums about our CIA Agents. There is no possible justification for them talking to the press and giving out classified information. Rove told Libby the information about Mrs Wilson was soon to be declassified. Thus he knew it was classified when he told Cooper.


Nope, sorry but "YOU'RE" wrong. Go back and re-read #131. One more time for the thinking impaired people. It was NOT classified info when given. Look at the dates!
Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top
2000 dead American men and women over

WMDs - Edit
Stop Terrorism - Edit
Make AMerica Safer - Edit
Save the world from Sadam - Edit
Save the Iraqi People - Edit
Bring Democracy to Iraq - Edit

Secure an abundant supply of OIL

Did I forget any others?
Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top
2000 dead American men and women over

WMDs - Edit
Stop Terrorism - Edit
Make AMerica Safer - Edit
Save the world from Sadam - Edit
Save the Iraqi People - Edit
Bring Democracy to Iraq - Edit

Secure an abundant supply of OIL

Did I forget any others?
Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top
138 by sushiK
Tuesday, November 01, 2005


Yea,

Number 1: Quit Spamming
Number 2: Quit Spinning
Number 3: Quit lying

That being said, you had one point, since admitted.
Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top
#135 by COL Gene
Tuesday, November 01, 2005


Wrong Dr Guy

You know Col Klink. I am human. I know I am not right all the time. I know I make mistakes. But when I see a sure thing, so rare in life, I take it. And you are a sure thing!

You are always wrong! I dont have to worry about anything but disagreeing with you, and I know I will be right!

BTW: For a col, even klink, how does it feel to revel in your troops deaths? read my Madeline notso bright article. Hate bush all you want. Cut the gore out.
Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top
That being said, you had one point, since admitted.


Says you

Bush changed his mind more times on why we went to war than a whore does panties
Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr Guy You can not tell right from wrong.
Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene is the Jim Garrison of the Plame affair.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #144 from JoeUser Forums Top
That does not change the fact, Rove and Libby provided classified information to reporters. They should be removed from their jobs for that action. If they also broke our laws, thay should be punished as the law provides if convicted.


There is no fact that they provided classified information. Rove simply said that Wilsons wife works for the "agency". Saying that is not a crime. Get over it Col. You have lost on this issue again. Two years of an investigation that you lefties thought it would "bring down" the administration. All you got was a loose indictment of an advisor, and not even for the crime that you keep implying. You lost again.
Reply #145 from JoeUser Forums Top

That does not change the fact, Rove and Libby provided classified information to reporters. They should be removed from their jobs for that action. If they also broke our laws, thay should be punished as the law provides if convicted.


There is no fact that they provided classified information. Rove simply said that Wilsons wife works for the "agency". Saying that is not a crime. Get over it Col. You have lost on this issue again. Two years of an investigation that you lefties thought it would "bring down" the administration. All you got was a loose indictment of an advisor, and not even for the crime that you keep implying. You lost again.


Oh no ID! The col is NEVER wrong! But we are (at least according to him) and even when we're right we're "still" wrong!
Reply #146 from JoeUser Forums Top
Better take another look at what was said:

During an afternoon news conference, Fitzgerald outlined what he called the "very serious" charges. (See video of Fitzgerald outlining charges -- 13:50)

"A CIA officer's name was blown, and there was a leak, and we needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it," he said.

"Given national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts."

The charges against a high-ranking official "show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously," Fitzgerald said.

Everyone that had ANY part in this outing should be fired.
Reply #147 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then why was noone charged with a crime relating to the first two of those statements? In the absence of indictments on those accusations, they amount to nothing more than Fitzgerald's personal opinions. Furthermore, Fitzgerald's original charge was to find out if the 1982 covert agent shield law had been violated, not whether "a CIA officer's name was blown, and there was a leak" - I believe we've known that for awhile.

To paraphrase a cogent statement in another thread whose author's name I regrettably can't recall right now, Libby made it harder for Fitzgerald to find out that noone did anything wrong so he's been charged with being a ninny and a pain in the ass.

Get a grip, Mr. Garrison.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #148 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

Because the statute that was passed in 1982 to stop the very thing that Fitzgerald says took place ( A CIA Officer's name was blown) is too complex to charge the people that outed Mrs Wilson. That does not mean it did not happen just that they can not be charged under that law. It is clear, that Rove and Libby identified Mrs Wilson to reporters and knew those facts were classified. That is clear from the statements made to the Grand jury. There is no valid reason why Rove or Libby should be talking to reporters about our CIA agents!
Reply #149 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are truly dense, Gene. This "too complex" BS is just that, bullshit. You can't & won't go unchallenged when you claim someone is guilty of something when it's nothing more than your demented wet dream.

This is Nazi thinking - "I've decided they are guilty because I'm offended by them." IF you were American, you'd be defending the principal of "innocent until proven guilty," the cornerstone of American jurisprudence, not judging anyone guilty because Gene knows better than a special prosecutor who's spent 2 years investigating the allegations. Furthermore, an indictment does not establish guilt, not that that will bother you & your Gestapo brethren.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #150 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dr Guy You can not tell right from wrong.

Funny, I can tell you are always wrong.  That makes me right.  Now why dont you go try to swing Cordelia's thread on Coffee to a Bush Bash.  She mentions {SHock} Caffeine!