quote:

---

The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain — if bumpy — course toward peaceful democracy.

"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence. ... We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."

...

Several members of the platoon said they were struck by the difference between the way the war was being portrayed in the United States and the reality of their daily lives.

"Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better,' " said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg, Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every day."

Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he thought government officials were reticent to speak candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections. "Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say it," he said. "They can't get into it."

....

But the Marines said their frustrations run deeper. Several said the Iraqi security forces who are supposed to ultimately replace them were nowhere near ready and may never be.

"They can't take care of themselves," said Lance Cpl. Matthew Combs, 19, of Cincinnati, who added that he didn't think the National Guardsmen "can do anything. They just do what we tell them to do."

....

But Perez said he came to think that war in Iraq was unrelated to his anger. "How do I put this?" he said. "First of all, this is a whole different thing. We're supposed to be looking for al Qaeda. They're the ones who are supposedly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This has no connection at all to Sept. 11 because this war started just by telling us about all the nuclear warheads over here."

Snyder, who was listening, added: "Pretty much I think they just diverted the war on terrorism. I agree with the Afghanistan war and all the Sept. 11 stuff, but it feels like they left the bigger war over there to come here. And now, while we're on the ground over here, it seems like we're not even close to catching frigging bin Laden."

Perez said he thought that in some ways he was still fighting terrorists "and I can see how they might attack the United States in the future. It's a link, but it's not really based in the same thing."

Perez added that he now believes the primary reason for the U.S. presence is to help the Iraqis. "But they don't seem like they want to be helped," he said. "I've only been here two months, but every time you go out, people give you bad looks and it just seems like everybody wants to shoot you."

....

When the Marines returned to their truck, Autin and Kelly began to debate the merits of the American presence in Iraq.

"And, by the way, why are we here?" Autin said.

"I'll tell you why we're here," Kelly replied. "We're here to help these people."

Autin agreed and said he supported the mission.

He added later that it was difficult to wage the battle when American commanders were holding them back.

"We feel they care more about Iraqi civilians than they do American soldiers," he said.

Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?"

MSNBC

---

Of course, these Marines do not necessarily represent the general mood of all the fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I think this article is an important read if you are still undecided about the election and you feel you want to know more about the situation in Iraq before you make up your mind.

I don't know if Kerry's plan for Iraq is better than Bush's plan. But I do know this, at least he recognizes there is a mess in Iraq.

Bush will not admit that mistakes were made in Iraq. How can you fix a mess if you won't even acknowledge it?

[ October 10, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
My cousin is in Iraq right now outside of Ramadi. My brother in law just got back about 4 months ago.

I believe them over your article any day.

Try again.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Well, thanks for reading the article anyway. I don't expect everyone to agree with what these Marines are saying, but I do think it is an important article to read.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I believe them over your article any day.
Try again."

Why? You just came out and said that you preferred to believe your two relatives over other evidence. How powerful an article would it have to be in order for you to question their judgement and/or honesty?
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Here's what both my family members serving say:

There is what is really happening in Iraq, and then there's what the Media wants you to see in Iraq.

Both of my family members (the one who went to Afghanistan, then Iraq and is now home and the one who is outside of Ramadi right now) say that the experience in Iraq is overwhelmingly positive.

They are doing more good in the last year than that country has seen in 50 years.

Yes there are some negative aspects, but on the majority the mission is going according to plan. The rebuilding is progressing faster than any country has ever been rebuilt from war in the history of the world. Europe, Japan, etc. couldn't even IMAGINCE the pace of rebuilding that is taking place in Iraq ATM.

There are construction cranes EVERYWHERE.

And something else.

Discussion. The people of Iraq are talking about the world. They have opinions. They can express them. They can complain if they want. They can disagree if they want.

You aren't going to see the schools being built and attended on a massive scale.

The news decides you want to see the bloodshed and death.

You aren't going to see the Iraqi women walking up to the troops and bringing them Iraqi tea, or bringing them water, or any other positive action.

Basically, you are going to get the media spin, which Kerry has adopted, because he has NO idea what is going on over there.

NONE.

I will believe the people who live there and those serving over there.

You are free to believe whatever spin you want.

It's a free country.

But God save us from John Kerry and his ilk. God save the Iraqi's from him as well.

Literally.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
So are the Marines in the article just flat out lying?
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

Why? You just came out and said that you preferred to believe your two relatives over other evidence.

---

I believe those actually involved, not those trying to sell you their "spin".

They're the actual soldiers over there. If you believe John Kerry more than them about what is happening over there, that's YOUR fault.

Trust me, a baker who actually bakes knows more about what he's baking than the person who has only read a cook book.

That was one of the most flawed arguments I had ever seen.

Actually believe the biased NEWS over the people actually living it? No thanks.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

So are the Marines in the article just flat out lying?

---

quote:

---

I'm not stupid enough to see a couple of quotes by one soldier (who may agree or may not agree depending on many factors) and assume that is his rock hard stance on the complete war and that it is represents all troops.

---

quote:

---

Of course, these Marines do not necessarily represent the general mood of all the fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I think this article is an important read if you are still undecided about the election and you feel you want to know more about the situation in Iraq before you make up your mind.

---

quote:

---

Apparently, you are the one who took the word of your two relatives and assume that THEY represent all troops.

---

quote:

---

"I believe them over your article any day.
Try again."

Why?

---

quote:

---

Your relative's view: "Iraqi women walking up to the troops and bringing them Iraqi tea."

Marines interviewed by Washington Post: "I've only been here two months, but every time you go out, people give you bad looks and it just seems like everybody wants to shoot you."

---

quote:

---

You, like President Bush, want to focus on a specific spin of the Iraq war and ignore all other evidence.

---

quote:

---

Or you like Senator Kerry (and I use the term "Senator" loosely)

---

quote:

---

Success in Samarra
It's been a busy two weeks here. For obvious reasons I won't talk directly about the recent operations in Samarra. But I would like to point out some interesting discussions on other blogs. Wretchard at Belmont Club has a great discussion on the Samarra operation and how the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) performed. Jason Van Steenwyck at Countercolumn also has some great observations. Finally Phil Carter exhibits cautious optimism about the future of Iraq after Samarra at Intel-Dump.

All I'll say about Samarra is that, compared to operations in Fallujah and Ramadi in April, the ISF really did a great job. I think that the leadership realized that they were inadequately trained and prepared back in April and the intensive training that they've received since then was apparent in their willingness to engage the enemy in Samarra. There is reason to be optimistic.

Now I just want to mention one thing about the media coverage of the Samarra operation. I just don't understand why the media seems to suggest in every story that US soldiers are, might, maybe, may have shot and killed innocent people. I understand the need to report on the horrors of war and the impact of the fighting on civilians, but it seems like all the stories suggest that US soldiers were intentionally killing civilians.

Reporters flocked to our brigade when word got out about the operation. We had CNN, LA Times, Time, AFP, NPR et al.... CNN's Jane Arraf was embedded with the unit that conducted the raid on the Golden Mosque. They were present during most of the fighting and had a perfect opportunity to report on the fighting between our soldiers and the AIF. I recall reading one of the CNN reports which included comments from family members of people we had killed and all of them insisted that they were innocent people who weren't fighting or involved with terrorists. But of course they're going to say that. No one is going to admit to a reporter that their family members were fighting against us. But I also know that our soldiers are well trained at, and after seven months here they are capable of, distinguishing combatants from civilians. And if an Iraqi male is walking through the streets of a embattled city at 0200 carrying an AK-47 there is a high probability that he is actually an AIF member.

I just wish the media reports I've seen didn't always start from the assumptions that 1) we're losing the fight over here and 2) US soldiers are going to violate the law of war.

Time will tell if our recent efforts are successful. But, like I said earlier, there is reason to be optimistic.

---

quote:

---

A Response
I don't regularly respond to comments but I appreciate the comments AzRez made and feel like they deserve a response. They are questions that many Americans have about what we are doing over here. And I understand AzRez's apprehension about what's going. In light of his (her?) sister's call-up it's natural to be concerned about the risks and benefits of our operations. Hopefully I can explain my perspective a bit better.

Why is the Army putting so much effort into rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure, economy, and government? That is the basic question. It may seem wasteful and somewhat inappropriate to use the most highly trained military in the world to educate village councils on democracy, distribute seeds and fertilizer to farmers, or hand-out school supplies and soccer balls to children. While I've primarily written about our humanitarian efforts you can rest assured that our soldiers still go out and engage the enemy each day. The simple answer is that we put so much effort into humanitarian and civil-military operations because they will help us accomplish our mission and get us home faster.

You see, there's a viscious cycle of violence here in Iraq that, in many cases, feeds off of the poor, unemployed, and disillusioned. The projects we initiate are contracted to Iraqi companies that employ thousands of laborers and provide a much needed infusion of cash into the local economies. (Our soldiers don't actually go out and build all these projects.) We're trying to tackle the economic issues because, as the economy improves, so will security.

We advise local leaders because they really do need some assistance in figuring out how to run a government outside of a dictatorship. Again, it may seem strange that soldiers are advising government officials on democracy, civil society and the rule of law. But I think many Americans would be surprised at the talant and skills that our soldiers and officers have. In addition to being able to "find, fix and destroy the enemy through fire and maneuver" we have engineers, scientists, economists, doctors and, yes...even lawyers whose skills are being used each day. There are undoubtedly other organizations that would be better suited to advise local Iraqi leaders but, for some strange reason, none are willing to come and lend their expertise (at least not outside Baghdad).

AzRez is right. You don't normally go to war to increase the other countries' governmental efficiency. But if we were to stop all our civil-military efforts right now it would likely result in a dramatic increase in violence, a government that is incapable of managing its affairs and, ultimately, the much talked about civil war or "replacement" dictator. If that were to happen, then the efforts of those of us here right now, and those who have died, would truly have been in vain. That is why we can't stop now. Because it's not enough just to kill your enemies. They will only be replaced with new ones. You have to convince them that their future really will be better if they choose to stop fighting.

---

quote:

---

Thursday, September 23, 2004
I feel compelled to apologize each time I take such a long hiatus from posting. It doesn't happen intentionally, I just get wrapped up in what is going on that, by the time I'm done each day, I just go back to my room to sleep.

I haven't had the opportunity to go on any interesting trips lately. My work now is mostly with the Brigade staff helping to plan our the course we will take over the remaining months. The year is slowly moving along and many of us are starting to look forward to the things we will do when we get back to Germany next year. But I can't help but wonder if, when we finally do leave, we will have accomplished all that we set out to do back in February.

Each day there are successes and failures. Most are minor accomplishments that never make the news but are very real to the Iraqis and soldiers that participate. We renovate and build schools, hospitals, courthouses, police and fire stations all across our area of operations. We build water treatment plants for villages that have never had clean, fresh water. We just started job training programs to help the many unemployed Iraqis across our province. And less noticeably but perhaps more importantly, our leaders work each day with the local civic leaders in villages and towns to help them organize and manage their affairs.

These efforts are almost always rewarding. The Iraqis are grateful for our assistance and their joy and happiness is infectious. The soldiers that participate in these projects can feel proud that their efforts are truly worthwhile.

But every day there are also setbacks. Not only continued sporadic attacks but also failures, mostly on the part of local leaders, to accept responsibility and do their jobs. It is somewhat understandable that many local officials are unable to really take charge, make decisions and get results. For most of Iraq's recent history (even before Saddam's era) all decisions of any importance were made in Baghdad. Everything was centralized. So now we have local leaders who are incapable of making decisions without approval from the central authority. Even if they are now empowered to make those decisions.

I am still optimistic (most of the time). Yesterday we had an event in Tikrit that even made the front page of the Washington Post. After eighteen months, and multiple delays, the main bridge in Tikrit across the Tigris river was finally reopened to two way traffic. The bridge is a crucial link between Tikrit, Kirkuk and Tuz. It's reopening will provide a boost to the local economy and help bring the city back to a more normal existence. Despite attacks on it's workers, accidents that destroyed critical parts, flooding river waters and hosts of bureaucratic delays the bridge was finally completed. And so I remain hopeful that Iraq, like the Tikrit bridge, will be able to overcome the attacks, acts of nature, and bureaucratic inefficiencies that plague it and eventually become a functional, if not pretty, democracy.

---

quote:

---

Tuesday, September 07, 2004
The End Is Near!!
Well it's finally happened. The educated elite in Britain and the States are predicting a breakdown in the Iraqi government and civil war. The three scenarios mentioned as possible outcomes in Iraq are certainly the most widely accepted theories: the Iraqi Interim Government is able to maintain it's grasp on power and hold together the three "warring" groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) in one country; the IIG fails to keep a lid on violence and civil war breaks out as the three groups contend for power; or the sectarian violence turns into chaos that spills over into neighboring countries.

Let me propose another possibility based on my own limited observation of what has and hasn't worked over here. The people of Iraq will not put aside their ethnic, tribal or religious differences but will eventually understand that continued violence is only hurting themselves. As they see the benefits (economically and politically) of cooperation and peaceful coexistence with coalition forces they will start pressuring the Iraqis who are attacking coalition and Iraqi Security forces to stop. They will realize that the best and surest way to get the coalition out of Iraq (something almost all Iraqis agree that they want eventually) is to stop those Iraqis in their tribes from attacking us. They will start reporting the foreigners who come into their towns to plan and conduct attacks because they will understand how those attacks personally effect their lives. Once the attacks stop in an area, we can and will start work on many projects to help the people out. They will see the benefits of clean drinking water, new hospitals, schools, roads, radios and television stations. All of these things we have already finished or are working on in many cities and town where the people are allowing us to come in freely without fear of attacks. I think that more and more Iraqis are recognizing the benefits of working with us instead of against us. They may not be overjoyed that we are still here but they realize that cooperation is leading to a better outcome than violent resistence. Allawis' method of negotiating with rebel leaders and groups is starting to work in many parts of Iraq and it is a break from the Iraqi tradition of brutally supressing any form of resistence.

I certainly don't know what Iraq will look like in six months let alone six years. But I do think that the predictions of Chatham house, while still possible, are becoming less and less likely as each month passes.

---

quote:

---

Yeah I got a purple heart. I don't care. No soldier wants a purple heart. I'll tell you that much. No soldier wants it. Awards don't mean nothing to me. I don't need anything to prove I was there. I know I was there. I got a constant reminder.

I mean like all the reasons we went to war, it just seems like they're not legit enough for people to lose their lives for and for me to lose my hand and use of my leg and for my buddies to lose their limbs. Like I just had a big conversation with my buddy the other day and like we want to know. I feel like we deserve to know.
Robert Acosta, Purple Heart

---

quote:

---

Kerry's only source for news of Iraq is the Media and hence, why he doesn't know what is really happening over there.

---

quote:

---

Again, let me point out the difference between us. I recognize there are dissenting opinions in Iraq. I posted the article so that people will see more than the rosy picture painted by George Bush.

---

quote:

---

you hate people who believe other than you don't you Cstroman. Or do you just pray for the souls and hearts of non-bush supporters to be changed?

---

quote:

---

But you have to actually show up in congress to get those reports.

---

quote:

---

umm..ok...and the second part of my "outrageous" assumption?

---

quote:

---

And for the record, John Kerry is not getting debriefed on what happens in Iraq as the president is.

Such a claim is blatantly absurd as is the fact of the Presidents First Intelligence briefing once they take office.

I can't believe someone made that claim...

---

quote:

---

You do realize that presidential candidates get specialized intelligence briefings not available to regular members of Congress right?

---

quote:

---

Such a claim is blatantly absurd as is the fact of the Presidents First Intelligence briefing once they take office.

---

quote:

---

You choose to take opinions as FACTS which is the mistake.

You choose to believe the dissenting opinions and ignore the facts.

---

So the favorable opinions of what's going on in Iraq are all facts, right? And the dissenting ones are opinions?
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
Golly, Chad's such a righteous, God-fearing man that he couldn't possibly bring himself to hate anyone!

But he has no problem with casually throwing loaded insults around. If he judges someone to be an "idiot", a "liar", or a "jackass", then it's his duty as a Christian to let the world know about it!

Edit: Oh, and his prayers are totally bigger than yours.

[ October 10, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
 

---

Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm sure a I pray for alot more people than you do, if you even pray. Please feel free to inform us of your piety though since you feel inclined to question mine.

---

And what religion is it that you consider yourself part of that makes it okay to say things such as this?
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

Is this true, or just your speculation? Please link.

---

quote:

---

Over the past 50 years, challengers have traditionally been given worldwide intelligence briefings in the days or weeks after their nominating conventions.

---

quote:

---

I'm sure a I pray for alot more people than you do, if you even pray.

---

quote:

---

And what religion is it that you consider yourself part of that makes it okay to say things such as this?

---

quote:

---

Soon after the Democratic convention in 1992, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft contacted Washington attorney Samuel Berger to offer intelligence briefings to Governor Clinton. At that time, Berger, who subsequently became Deputy National Security Adviser, was serving as a primary adviser to Governor Clinton on foreign policy matters. Scowcroft and Berger agreed that, as a first step, DCI Robert Gates would travel to Little Rock and provide a worldwide intelligence briefing.

ODCI.gov

---

quote:

---

I think you're proceeding from a conclusion to which you have already leapt, and are forcing all your information into a mold designed to fit those assumptions.

---

Thanks for defining the whole Kerry Platform for us. I knew I had seen that during his campaign.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Chad, I think the phrase you were looking for was "I'm rubber; you're glue." When in doubt, kindergarten rhymes can be a source of inassailable wisdom.
 

---

Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
 
Good job. Even more slamming Kerry instead of actually talking about what Tom had to say.
 

---

Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
 
Oh, I'm not questioning your piety, I'm actually curious as to what religion considers implying "I pray more than you, so obviously I'm better" okay. Or even just the part you actually said, taking out my mayhap misguided interpretation. Rather loaded, wouldn't you say?

I'm sure you're very pious, though.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Well, if you'd READ the factcheck website, you'd see that he was probably missing from the closed door meetings as well.

Read the post.

Oh, and that's overlooking the Ads claiming Kerry was "Chairman" of the intelligence committee, which it was actually BOB Kerry.

Oh and the "Public" meetings do in fact hold more information than the one page summaries in the Newspaper contains (which is Kerry's source for info apparently).

See you can read or watch a 2 minute review of a movie, but those that actually see it, actually know more about it.

But hey, if you think voting for a guy who's briefing on the war is CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS, etc.

Be my guest. I'll vote for the guy that get's military briefing on a daily basis in the Oval Office.

[ October 10, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Does anyone remember that thread Squicky started recently?
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Chad, debating you is like a game of Calvinball.
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
I totally think we need a prayer-measuring contest.


 

---

Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
 
No problem, Beren.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yeah, for those he only has access to the reports of what happened, the minutes (which must be recorded under federal law), and all the paper made available.

Not a single place does that article suggest Kerry's non-attendence lessened his access to the general reports available to members of congress, much less the reports available to members of the intelligence committee (who not only have additional access, but have the authority to request certain information from various sources).
 

---

Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
 
chad, will you be my best friend?

pssst...my prayers are bigger than a breadbox

[ October 10, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
 

---

Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
 
Bob: Yes.

Heh heh heh. This thread amuses me.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
I read that article and had a funny thought.

Kerry wants to get into the White House, but yet the CIA can't get him to come to D.C. for briefings...

That's ironic.
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
Chad, thanks for the link. Not quite what I was looking for, though. Please tell me why you think that Kerry is not informed of the information from those meetings through other means. Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding your position.

Edit: fugu beat me to it.

[ October 10, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
I think we should measure prayers by their success. For example, if you pray for my health and well being because you love me as one of your fellow men and I pray for a Mars bar that I then receive and eat only to get fat, clearly I am more pious.

Or maybe we should make you write your prayers down on a piece of paper and line up a bunch of people and have them guess what the prayers were. Whoever has more people know what they prayed for wins.

Or maybe we should each pray to God to tell us, on a scale of 1 to 10, how pious we are. The people who rate higher are more pious simultaneously with those who are humble enough to report that they ranked lower. Everyone wins!

Or maybe you should have a prayer card. And every time you successfully pray you get a sticker. Every 10 stickers means you get one prayer free!
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

"Vice Chairman?" Oops!

In their eagerness to dismiss the Bush ad's charges, Kerry campaign aides claimed that the senator had been vice chairman of the intelligence committee, which isn't true. In fact, former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska was vice chairman of the panel for several years while Kerry was a more junior member of the panel. John Kerry left the committee in January 2001. He never served as vice chairman, a committee spokesman confirmed to us.

The erroneous claim appeared in several places on the Kerry website, one dating back to January, 2004, and another in a posting Aug. 13 to rebut the Bush ad. It said, "Kerry is an Experienced Leader in the Intelligence Field – John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for eight years and is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee."Kerry senior adviser Tad Devine told Fox News, which first reported the discrepancy, that the campaign would be "happy to correct the record" if needed:

Devine: I'll have to check with the issues people. It was my understanding he was. But if that's, you know -- but if that's not a factual case, I'm sure we will be happy to correct the record.

Two days later the erroneous claim was still appearing on the Kerry website, however. On Aug. 17 The Associated Press quoted campaign spokesman Michael Meehan conceding the error, adding: "John Kerry, Bob Kerrey -- similar names."

---

quote:

---

Or maybe you should have a prayer card. And every time you successfully pray you get a sticker. Every 10 stickers means you get one prayer free!

---

No, no, Bob... Obviously, after 10 prayers, you get a free "Rub it in Some Bastard Heathen's Face" card!
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Sweet! Good call, Poly. The rubbing it some heathen's face is a proud tradition. TRADITION!
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*waits patiently for either a rebuttal or admission of error on at least the presidential candidate briefing issue*
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
TRADITIOOOOON!


 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

Please tell me why you think that Kerry is not informed of the information from those meetings through other means. Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding your position.

Edit: fugu beat me to it.

---

Because he's provided no proof or reason to believe that he is. Everything he says echoes News Articles and nothing he has ever said, ever even hints at information that wasn't known through the media.

I think the guy gets his briefings on the world from the News organizations.

Give me the daily military briefings in the Oval Office by the military personell anyday over Kerry's uninformed...no wait...he did (or is going to get) one multi-hour CIA session. So I guess that will give him all the info right...


 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
OK, thanks for answering.

Edit: and fugu, don't hold your breath.

[ October 10, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
That kinda assumes that, given the same information, he would have made the same observations as the president. In fact, that kinda assumes that, given the same information, anyone would make the same observations, doesn't it?

Tell me, is it possible at all for intelligent people to receive the same report and have different conclusions?
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

*waits patiently for either a rebuttal or admission of error on at least the presidential candidate briefing issue*

---

quote:

---

Though most candidate briefings have been limited to a single, multi-hour session,

---

Well, that's it for me. He's been briefed for a couple of hours so he must know everything there is to know about the War in Iraq. (although this is a CIA briefing...not a commander in chief military briefing).

Some phrases to remember: CIA briefing. Military Briefing. CIA general world intelligence briefing. Military Brass Iraq War specific briefing. One Multi hour briefing session. Daily Military Brass briefing sessions on Iraq alone.

Let's not confuse one CIA debriefing with daily Military Brass briefings specific to the war on Iraq.

No offense, but anyone who thinks Kerry knows a fraction of what is happening Iraq of the Commander in Chief, is...well....let's be nice...
 

---

Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
 
So in order for Kerry to be informed enough to be president he'd need the briefings that Bush gets? And Kerry can't get those because he isn't president. Therefore, only Bush is informed enough to be president?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
First, you're the one asserting you don't get information if you're not present. Its up to you to prove it, and you have offered ( *counts* ) 0 pieces of evidence for that.

Second, how on earth would you know whether or not what he's saying reflects information from other sources? Are you privy to said information? And were Kerry or Bush's statements to reveal direct (or often, any) knowledge of much of what they hear, it would be a major breach of national security, so I'd rather hope much of what Bush says doesn't betray the knowledge gained in his briefings.

Also, one, multi-hour briefing? Did you even read multiple sentences in the article? It uses, among other things, the plural word "briefings" which should clue you in that there are more than one. Heck, the very quote I quoted alludes directly to them extending over several long days.

Oh, and you're the one who childishly suggests Kerry gains his information from newspaper summaries. I suggested he could read the minutes, which are a typed up document relaying the totality of what happened in the meeting, chronologically. So he loses no access to such information.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, and shall we recall (one of) your original, blithely-made assertion? You know, that Kerry had access to no intelligence beyond that available to a member of Congress?
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
fugu, you clearly have no concept of Calvinball.

quote:

---

Chad:

I read that article and had a funny thought.

Kerry wants to get into the White House, but yet the CIA can't get him to come to D.C. for briefings...

Source: Evil News Article

---

quote:

---

So in order for Kerry to be informed enough to be president he'd need the briefings that Bush gets? And Kerry can't get those because he isn't president. Therefore, only Bush is informed enough to be president?

---

On the war in Iraq he would need to be. That's the problem, Kerry talks like he "really" knows whats going on over there better than the president, which is absurd since the President gets DAILY military briefings on Iraq alone.

Kerry has LESS information on Iraq and says it's a mess. Bush has MORE information on Iraq and says it's hard work but that we're making progress.

Why should I believe Kerry? Because he spews the same info the News Organizations do? That doesn't speak well for him, it speaks poorly for him in my opinion.

Also, another reason I think Kerry get's his news from the Media?

Recently he attacked the Bush Administration for "knowing" months ago that there was going to be a shortage of flu vaccines and he BASED his attack of a NEWS ARTICLE from Britain that said they had informed our government of the "Problems". Kerry took his PRESS BRIEFING as fact and spewed it on Saturday after the Debate.

But uh-oh...what's this, the Food and Drug administration has flat out denied there has been any correspondence between them and the British.

Kerry LIED and got "briefed" by the British News....

So there it is. Kerry gets his "briefings" by the Press and here is the story that backs it up.

Ahahahahaha.
 

---

Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
 
Is it that you can't think of a good reply, Chad?

I'll forgive you for that.

[ October 10, 2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: tt&t ]
 

---

Posted by AbeLinclon (Member # 6923) on :
 
I'm new to this forum and I understand what you're talking about. Now you may think I'm just being ignorant and that is your opinion. I am 15 and am not old enough to vote yet. I have a father who is in Iraq as we speak. He is bombarded by mortars everyday. One of his men had to have his head and skull opened up so they could remove shrapnel from it. This is bad. I know that. I've been on the phone with him and I've heard explosions. Of course when this happens he hangs up and runs out but I still know he's in alot of danger.

I'm a Bush suporter (even though I'm not old enough to vote) and I think Kerry is not what this country needs.

I would gladly have my father back any day but I still think that this war is inevitable. If we are fighting a war against terrorism then we fight a war against "all" terrorism. We don't limit ourselves to just one nation (afghanistan).

Some of you may argue, "why not another nation like north Korea?" Well to that I say that NK is another threat and will be taken care of. When we were fighting a war on terrorism we are fighting everyone. If we had gone into Korea would you say "Why not Iraq?" and again we'd be in the same situatuion. Think about that then ask that question. Also Sadam was killing people, innocent people. He was a terrorist and he was practicing that. NK was not doing that to the same extent as Saddam. The invasion of Iraq was a good decision.

Kerry is saying it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time and that is just down right stupid. He cannot lead our armed forces as commander in chief and not believe in the war they are fightiting. At least not publicly. It isn't right.

As for what the Marines think. I know my dad believes in the war and what we're fighting for. We are fighting not for America we're fighting for Iraq and in turn that helps America. Iraq is a war zone and with every war zone chaos runs. Most of the U.S. military believes in the war. It woas probably a bunch of young soldiers who had no life so they joined. the people talked to had no life. they are the people who use to be high school drop-outs and they joined the military. Now they don't want to be in Iraq because they aren't supposed to be there. They are the kids who don't believe in America the non-believers. I've met these kinds of soldiers and they disgust me.

these are the opinions of a fifteen year old. If you disregard them so be it but I believe in them.

[ October 10, 2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: AbeLinclon ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 

quote:

---

Chad:

Everything he says echoes News Articles and nothing he has ever said, ever even hints at information that wasn't known through the media.

---

quote:

---

"We now know the administration knew ahead of time that there wasn't going to be enough vaccine," Kerry asserted as he campaigned in Ohio. The administration has denied it had any warning.

---

quote:

---

"The administration, we've learned today, is playing fast and loose again with the facts and the truth to the American people because they pretended and they've acted surprised that we didn't have the vaccines," Kerry said at a nursing school. "Rather than tell the truth to the American people, they've acted surprised and pretended it just sort of happened on their watch.

Kerry did not elaborate, but a story from London in Saturday's editions of the Washington Post quoted British health officials as saying their American counterparts were told in mid-September that problems at a drug manufacturing plant in northwest England could disrupt vaccine supplies to the United States.

A Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) statement disputed the British account, saying "there had been no communication" between the U.S. and British governments on the matter until the British government acted earlier this week.

---

quote:

---

At least I can feel confident watching the news that I know as much as he does about world events. (what a moron)

---

quote:

---

Did you just call yourself a moron?

---

quote:

---

It woas probably a bunch of young soldiers who had no life so they joined. the people talked to had no life. they are the people who use to be high school drop-outs and they joined the military. Now they don't want to be in Iraq because they aren't supposed to be there. They are the kids who don't believe in America the non-believers. I've met these kinds of soldiers and they disgust me.

---

quote:

---

Sigh. Couldn't we just get ballots with platforms and summarized voting records on them, no names, and eliminate all the political posturing?

---

Uhhh..the Bush Haters will point out that that's censorship.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Actually, I rather think a dated article (its from shortly after the DNC convention) which states there are minor delays in the additional, special briefings for Kerry every single major candidate has gotten access to in the past half century would suggest that Kerry had now received those briefings.

Its certainly a piece of evidence.

If you want, I'll track down a specific reference to him receiving said briefings, but only if you want to insult your own intelligence by doing so (I assumed you could infer from the article that Kerry had since received such briefings, particularly as if he still had not the article would have been reduced in google rankings by the articles on such a huge event as that would have been).
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You know, while we do tolerate extensive bashing on political things, calling Presidential candidates who have long records in the United States Senate, have served their country in war, and have lead successful political movements morons is generally frowned upon around here.

Many even think it reflects on the poster's own intelligence.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

Everything he says echoes News Articles and nothing he has ever said, ever even hints at information that wasn't known through the media

---

quote:

---

You know, while we do tolerate extensive bashing on political things, calling Presidential candidates who have long records in the United States Senate, have served their country in war, and have lead successful political movements morons is generally frowned upon around here.

Many even think it reflects on the poster's own intelligence.

---

You know, while we do tolerate extensive bashing on political things, calling serving Presidents who have long records of serving their country as President in sucessful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Governor and in the Military when younger, "Liar" or "buffon" or, "pick your favorite bush-hater phrase" is generally frowned upon by anyone intelligent.

Many even think it reflects on the poster's own intelligence.



[ October 10, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
 

---

Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
 
Are you saying that fugu did those things? And how does whoever you're referring to saying that make it okay for you to do it to?
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
One more thing fugu. The war in the Iraq continues on a daily basis. Things happen on a daily basis. Progress and failures happen on a daily basis.

The president is militarily briefed on a daily basis.

John Kerry is not....but we see by his statements he watches the news.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
To be fair, so would the Bush lovers. And all those zillions of people who, wisely, are somewhere between the two extremes.

I'd be in the section of people who are sick of the whole mud-slinging, propaganda process -- on both sides.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

Are you saying that fugu did those things? And how does whoever you're referring to saying that make it okay for you to do it to?

---

I'm saying the same thing he's saying. That's what I'm saying. Have a problem with what I said, but not with what he said?
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Anyways, I provided my proof of how Kerry "learns" things.

I'm going to go wrestle/play with my kids.

Sorry, they take priority.

Have a nice evening all.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Luckily I have never said any such. I have asserted, once recently, that the Bush campaign has lied, but I can prove that .

Also, I don't really follow your statement, this President has not served this country in any war in Iraq or Afghanistan (whether he has served in other ways is arguable. He has not served in any war while being President, as that rather requires being in the military. Being commander in Chief is not being in the military).

By no reasonable measure of political careers has his record of service been long. Heck, by no reasonalemeasure of military careers has his service been long, he got out before a minimal stint in the guard was even finished.

You, however, have said Kerry is a moron. I, conversely, have several times defended Bush's intelligence.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Chad, you used the term "moron" to describe Kerry. Fugu did not use "liar" or "buffoon" to describe Bush. That is why there is more of a problem with what you said than with what he said. If fugu *had* used those terms, I don't think anyone would have taken issues with what you said.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
So basically, what you're saying, is that if something is not included in Mr. Bush's briefings than he is completely unaware of it? That's the impression I had anyway, good to have it confirmed. If something is embarrassing to someone in his cabinet, or a hindrance to an agreed-upon course, or inconvenient to previous public statements, it simply doesn't get in there and therefore doesn't exist. Wow! Easy!

I don't think the president should make his decisions based on popular opinion, or get his facts solely or even mostly from the media. But sometimes the media is the only avenue for truth to get out.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Care to provide one place where I'm sayin' what you're saying?

Furthermore, if you consider your own witty assumptions to be proof, I highly suggest you never go into any field requiring logical reasoning.
 

---

Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm saying the same thing he's saying. That's what I'm saying. Have a problem with what I said, but not with what he said?

---

quote:

---

Is this your idea of supporting the troops?

BTW, you need a high school diploma to join the Marines.Marines.com

---

quote:

---

"Kerry is saying it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time and that is just down right stupid."

Abe, I'm interested in hearing your reason for this. If it IS the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, why is that stupid? I'm going to assume that you believe that it is NOT the wrong war, or the wrong place, or the wrong time -- but I'm still curious why you feel it is "stupid" for anyone to hold that opinion. What about this war makes it self-evidently right in all its particulars?

---

quote:

---

It's like if you go to the world s biggest mall and ask a question. Yes or NO? Then you only record the yes's. That iws what this information is. It isn't accurate.

---

quote:

---

These kids are losers that the press talked too. I have worked with these type of marines in my volunteer service.

---

quote:

---

These select few (like 1%) hate that they're over in the bvattle zone.

---

quote:

---

It boils down to him claiming that Kerry will be a bad president because Kerry doesn't lie enough.

---

No it boils down to putting a commander in chief over troops fighting a war he doesn't believe in.

"I'm against what you're doing, it's wrong, but go and do it well"

No thanks for me. I care more about the troops than to punish them with Kerry as Commander in Chief.

What I do find funny is that Bush is the encumbent president...But Kerry is the BEST they have to offer. He is their best option for commander in chief.

The "Cream of the Crop".

I look at that and shudder.

Unfortunately we have Bush as the encumbent or I'd vote for McCain (would've voted for him last election as well) or if he ran Colin Powell.

My opinion of course.

I await the response of the Kerry Disciples.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
If Kerry is my Messiah then we are ALL DOOMED.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You can still vote for McCain or Powell Nothing stopping you .
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
I might just do that...
 

---

Posted by AbeLinclon (Member # 6923) on :
 
I thought I might bumb this thread back up onto the chart's causeit's such a heated topic...

OKay I understand that i'm dealling with people who probably have a much higher understanding of politics and have actually voted but I will clarify.

quote:

---

So, you'd rather our president lie to the American people and troops, and send them a feel-good positive message that is false?

Because if you know it is the wrong war at the wrong place but then say it is not, then you are lying - and doing so intentionally. That's one of big problem with Bush's argument there: It boils down to him claiming that Kerry will be a bad president because Kerry doesn't lie enough.

---

quote:

---

But does it mean the yeses aren't true? I didn't see anywhere in the article where the author claimed that all troops feel that way.

---

quote:

---

pc. Colby Buzzell and a handful of others write unvarnished war reporting. But many of these blogs have been shut down.

---

quote:

---

Buzzell says he was banned from missions for five days because of the blog and has stopped adding new narrative entries.

---

quote:

---

Jason Hartley called his blog "Just Another Soldier" and wrote unflinchingly about everything from his buddies' families to the conditions on base.

"I think I've been duped," he wrote from a base in October 2003, while his unit was preparing to go to Iraq. "I'm not actually at a modern US military installation, but Sing Sing, circa 1940."

"My commander had a meltdown when he discovered it," Hartley, a sergeant in the New York National Guard, said of his blog in an instant message. "He demanded I take it down."

---

quote:

---

No it boils down to putting a commander in chief over troops fighting a war he doesn't believe in.

"I'm against what you're doing, it's wrong, but go and do it well"

---

quote:

---

Abe, I still don't understand: is it "stupid" for someone running for president to believe that we shouldn't be in a given war, or is it stupid for him to say it? In other words, is it better in that case for the candidate to appear to support a war effort that he and his constituency believe has been conducted badly?

---

quote:

---

While I'm definitely not pro-Kerry, I am decidedly anti-Bush, and significant part of my opposition is exactly because I don't feel he gives a damn about supporting the troops. "Supporting the troops" has taken on the connotation of agreeing with whatever the Bush Administration does and not criticizing at all. For me, that is the opposite of supporting the acutal troops as living breaving individuals with hopes, dreams, and fears. I feel that the Bush Administration has (to state it pretty strongly) used the military like their own set of toy soldiers without respect for them as human beings.

---

quote:

---

Going to war should always be a last resort, not just because of the crudity and negative effects this violence on the people we are using it against, but also (perhaps more importantly) because of the responsibilty our leaders bear towards the men and women in our armed forces.

---

quote:

---

If you're going to send them into harm's way, you must fulfill certain requirements. First, you better have a damn good reason. I can see how opinions on this may vary, but the fact remains, the Bush Administration was extremely deceptive on their reasons for going into Iraq. Perhaps they had an overall reason or set of reasons that made this a near necessity, but with all the poor planning, half-truths, and outright lies, it's sure hard to figure out what this is.

---

quote:

---

Second, you have to make sure that our soldiers have the best training and equipment that you can afford them. This was obviously not the case. Our troops still don't have the best we can offer in terms of body armor and armored vehicles. Also, they are being called on to performed jobs that they aren't trained for and weren't prepared for. My local paper profiled a guy from here who was in charge of I think it was 1/16th of Bagdad. Prior to this, he was the commander of a calvary division. To put it simply, he drove tanks. He wasn't trained to administer an occupied city. He had a severe lack of people who could speak Arabic. He said that he was getting by largely by applying lessons he learned on the job. That's unacceptable. Also unnacceptable is the fact that many people are coming forward saying that while the attack on Iraq had enough men, the mission to secure it after the attack was obviously undermanned.

---

quote:

---

Third, you need to acknowledge that things are going to go wrong, that you are going to make mistakes, and have an open channel that will help you identify and rectify these mistakes. I honestly believe that this is lacking.

---

quote:

---

Fourth, you need a clear mission and most importantly a clear exit strategy. There is no exit strategy for Iraq. The troops are there. The times that many of them have been told that they would be going home have come and gone. There has been a policy of stop-loss orders that make it so they are unable to leave the service even when their agreed upon term of service is up. There is an on-going masssive reshuffling of military personel to get some of those numbers of people who were needed but weren't included in the original plans in Iraq from other stations and into Iraq. I'll repeat, there is no exit strategy for Iraq.

---

As I stated earlier there is no way you can have a clear exit strategy. We are fighting more then one opponent. They are fightinig us and e can't plan. There are too many un known variables and factors.

This is my opinion. I support the troops and the war, the president and not only this country but Iraq. I support a world free of terrorists. A world free of hate and contempt. Obviously no hate or contempt is a impossibel goal but it can be downsized. I believe in that and I support everything. well almost everything that the president and this admministration has done.


 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

No it isn't "stupid" for a given president to believe that we shouldn't be in a given war. It is stupid for him to say it. What is sayong it going to solve?

---

quote:

---

I think we did use war as a last resort. From what I know the UN wasn't working.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the thought, Abe, that any president should feel free to get us involved in any war he wants, because it's unpatriotic and unfair to the troops for us to speak out against it, no matter what.

---

quote:

---

Well, this is an election isn't it? How are the people going to know how Kerry would handle wars like this in the future if he doesn't give his true position? You're saying he should misinform the voters just so the troops can get a feel-good positive message?

---