COL Gene

America has LIED to its Military

▼

America has LIED to its Military

from JoeUser Forums


I served 30 years as a member of first the Regular Army and then the Army Reserve. I met some of the most dedicated people in my life in the military. Almost to a person they accepted the tasks given them even when those tasks caused great hardship to them and their families. From everything I have read and scene on TV today, our military has never been more committed to protecting our great country.

That is what makes what we have done to them so hard to accept. We sent them into combat believing that their sacrifice was to:



Protect us from what they were told was a danger to our homeland from Iraq.



They were told their service in fighting the Iraq War would make America safer.



We told them we would take care of them if they were injured.

The horrible truth is we LIED. Anyone that supports Bush and Cheney has lied to them just like our two top leaders have done. Saddam was no danger to America and Bush had the intelligence and Pentagon estimate that showed he WAS NO DANGER to our country in 2002. The bottom line is that after over four years of fighting the efforts of our military has not made America safer but less safe. That is not because they did not perform admirably but because the mission they were sent on by Bush was one that was WRONG from the beginning and Bush was warned that attacking Iraq would create the horrible situation we see today. Bush failed to listen to the military planners as to the troop levels needed to secure Iraq and most of our dead and wounded are because Bush did not send the required manpower to secure Iraq and prevent the needless bloodshed we see every day in that Hell Hole! When our wounded return we fail to provide decent medical facilities like we say at Walter Reed and a VA system that is NOT capable of providing the long term services needed by our veterans.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have a lot on nerve appearing before the brave members of our military after the way they LIED to them as to WHY we attacked Iraq. They should be ashamed after the way they BOTH failed to serve their country during Vietnam.
politics
26,422 views 122 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
you know those troops are in harms way voluntarily so that you can condemn them and so i can misspell

Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
Congress has the right to impose restrictions on how money is spent. They have EVERY Right to say after a date no more money can be spent to support combat operations in Iraq.


On this point you are correct, where you miss it is the silly thing called the constitution. Congress can pass any law they want, the President is the one that approves or disapproves the law. If the Congress and the President both agree on the law and the people don’t like the law they have one last course of action which is the court system. If the law is unconstitutional it can be struck down. If the law is constitutional then the only way to get rid of the law is for congress to repeal the law. That is the way it works. You don’t like the way it works because you did not get your way. How about respecting the majority as you have said on many occasions after the corrupt democrats re-took power. Now that your side is proven to be impotent by just a few people standing in their way you try to make excuses for their failure.
The democrats have always said that they will fund the troops and that the date certain idea that you supported was a political ploy to hurt the President and the republicans. All this crap YOU supported has now been exposed as a ploy and they had no desire to advance a date to withdraw from Iraq. Don’t you feel the least bit used? Humiliated? Duped? You were used by your party, they had no intention of following through on the bill you supported and now you scream that it is the presidents fault even though they freely admit that wanted the President to veto the bill.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
“you know those troops are in harms way voluntarily so that you can condemn them and so i can misspell”

If you believe placing our military into harms way when there was NO valid reason is OK because they volunteered to serve in the military, you are pathetic!!!!!

Now the senior British diplomat at the UN during the period leading up to the Iraq war has come forward saying the British like the Bush Administration lied about the danger presented by Saddam. So much for the foreign intelligence was wrong.
Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paladin77


"The democrats have always said that they will fund the troops" The Congress DID fund the troops. It is the Commander-in-Chief that prevented those funds from being available!
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

WRONG!!! I sight facts you do not like so you make believe they are not facts! That just makes you look foolish!


THE VERY SAME THING IS SAID ABOUT YOU! We site facts that disprove what you're saying and most of the time you just ignore them. That makes you a "CLOWN".
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Congress DID fund the troops. It is the Commander-in-Chief that prevented those funds from being available!


No, they put in the poison pill of a withdrawal date, that the president said he would not allow. It was also unconstitutional so your guys were breaking the law, should we remove them from office?

and once again you failed to answer my questions.
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you believe placing our military into harms way when there was NO valid reason is OK because they volunteered to serve in the military, you are pathetic!!!!!


i never said it was ok or not ok with that post

they are there so you can call them baby killers as the rest of the demos and liberals are doing or haven't you been hearing this


and no i am not really saying you said that but then i don't know what everything you have said is
Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, they put in the poison pill of a withdrawal date, that the president said he would not allow. It was also unconstitutional so your guys were breaking the law, should we remove them from office?

SHOW me the Supreme court Ruling that says what Congress included in the Iraq funding bill is unconstitutional?
Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is responsible for over 3,300 dead American Troops and 25,000 injuries. They would not be dead or injured if Bush had not started this war!
Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is responsible for over 3,300 dead American Troops and 25,000 injuries. They would not be dead or injured if Bush had not started this war!


how do you know what would have happened if
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top
SHOW me the Supreme court Ruling that says what Congress included in the Iraq funding bill is unconstitutional?


it has to get by the president before it goes to the supreme court. what an idiot
Reply #113 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielost Posted: Sunday, May 06, 2007
Bush is responsible for over 3,300 dead American Troops and 25,000 injuries. They would not be dead or injured if Bush had not started this war!


How do you know what would have happened if
If we had not invaded Iraq we would not have had the dead and injured in a war that did not take place. YES Bush is responsible for the dead and injured. Congress did not insist we invade Iraq that was BUSH!
Reply #114 from JoeUser Forums Top
congress pays

president commands

Bush could NOT command his way out of a paper bag!
Reply #115 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we had not invaded Iraq we would not have had the dead and injured in a war that did not take place. YES Bush is responsible for the dead and injured. Congress did not insist we invade Iraq that was BUSH!


if we had not invaded iraq then al quida would have attacked the usa again

if we had not invaded iraq nothing would have happened

if we had not invaded iraq the whole world which has hated us for at least 30 years would now love us

if al gore had been elected president we would now be a muslim nation

if this then that

if that then this


and i didn't say anything about bush's ability to command

i said that the congress pays

and the president commands

ie congress cannot set a date for the withdraw of the troops from anywhere

but they can cut funding for a war

oh and the military on it's own is lowering the wages of non-combatants not in iraq to pay those in iraq
Reply #116 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If we had not invaded Iraq then al Qaeda would have attacked the us again" al Qaeda and the attack on 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq. We had invaded Afghanistan but we NEVER committed the troop level needed to deal with ALL the al Qaeda in Afghanistan because Bush sent then into Iraq. The only reason al Qaeda is operating in IRAQ TODAY IS BECAUSE WE INVEDED Iraq AND COULD NOT PREVENT THEM FROM SETTING UO SHOP ON Iraq!

"If we had not invaded Iraq the whole world which has hated us for at least 30 years would now love us" Our invasion and occupation of Iraq had made the Hate that existed before our invasion much worse. That is what our own intelligence agencies have said in the NIE.

If al gore had been elected president we would now be a Muslim nation YOU do not know what you are talking. YOU ARE AN a*s.

oh and the military on it's own is lowering the wages of non-combatants not in Iraq to pay those in Iraq"

With the leadership, or lack of it, from Bush they were sent into a war that was not justified, without the needed equipment and without the numbers needed to accomplish the mission. When they come home injured Bush has not requested enough funding to properly deal with the number that needs care. Both facilities like Walter Reed and the VA are very much under funded by the Commander-in-Chief. Bush is the militaries WORST enemy. Bush has all but destroyed the Army, Marines, Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Reply #117 from JoeUser Forums Top
Walter Reed


is a 50 year old hosiptal and your going to blame the whole thing on bush

when did bush have any direct control of walter reed

it was clinton that cut funding to the military every year he was in office

and it was clinton that sent the troops on missions unarmed

and it was clinton that used missiles and didn't replace them

and i heard one of the lead democrats say last week that if the president vetoed that bill. he would not vote for any replacement equipment for the military in iraq
Reply #118 from JoeUser Forums Top
SHOW me the Supreme court Ruling that says what Congress included in the Iraq funding bill is unconstitutional?


Nice try, and it would work if I was as ignorant of the constitution as you seem to be. Wars are the responsibility of the President. Only the President can send troops to war, and only the President can order them into battle or bring them home. Congress can cut funding, impeach the President, and make recommendations but that is it, unless they make an amendment to the constitution changing the laws we use to govern. Show me in the constitution where the congress fights a war.
Reply #119 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only reason al Qaeda is operating in IRAQ TODAY IS BECAUSE WE INVEDED Iraq AND COULD NOT PREVENT THEM FROM SETTING UO SHOP ON Iraq!


You don't lie well enough to pull this one off. First, AQ was in Iraq before we invaded Afghanistan and they tried to set up a base of operations when we invaded Afghanistan. One of the reasons given for the invasion Iraq, I and others have told you this for months in your blogs but you refuse to even acknowledge those statements and once again you lie to give you the cover to ignore the facts and push your lies.

Reply #120 from JoeUser Forums Top
col gene and sean are just following the democrat book keep saying the same lies until everyone believes you


and col gene what about that redistribution of wealth you know the 300,000
Reply #121 from JoeUser Forums Top
and col gene what about that redistribution of wealth you know the 300,000 I answered that question on another post.

I have completed about 1/2 of the Book by Tenet. There is NO DOUBT, Bush and Cheney LIED about Saddam. It is not just the fact that the claim they made about WMD especially the nuclear weapons were NOT supported by the Intelligence. It is that there was so much data and so many warnings that we were about to be attacked by bin laden. There was NOTHING before or after 9/11 that showed we were in danger from Saddam. The CIA advised Bush that Saddam would only use any WMD he did have against an invading force. They said there was NO evidence of his ability or intent to use any WMD against others countries including Israel. The case Bush and Cheney made that Saddam was a danger to the United States was NOT from the intelligence. That comes through very clearly in Tenet's book. We were LIED to by our two top leaders and taken into a war that should NEVER have happened! Now there is top British Diplomat that said his government did the very same thing as Bush—they LIED about the danger from Saddam and he flatly said British intelligence DID NOT support the claims that the Prime Minister said about the danger from Saddam.
Reply #122 from JoeUser Forums Top
The CIA advised Bush that Saddam would only use any WMD he did have against an invading force.


Based on your lies then we would have been attacked with WMD because we invaded Iraq. Instead we find that, according to you, there were not WMD's at all. Funny how they all disappeared. We knew they had them, Saddam admitted he had them and the quantities we used were based off of what Saddam said he had and what the UN said they destroyed. The difference is what he still had and what we could not find. Where did it all go?

Fact: Saddam publicaly stated that he would sell or give what WMD he had to terrorist to use on Isreal and the U.S. That my poorly educated supposed col is a threat. He does not have to do the act, or even have the ability to do the act. The threat is saying he would do the act. Actually doing the act is not a threat it is an attack. I am sure that war college would have covered that minor fact. Were you awake during that class?

Now there is top British Diplomat that said his government did the very same thing as Bush—they LIED about the danger from Saddam and he flatly said British intelligence DID NOT support the claims that the Prime Minister said about the danger from Saddam.



You say you have read half the book so far, yet if anyone watched the interview on Fox News Channel he was asked directly if the President lied and the answer was no. Why would he contradict what was in his book? Or are you making leaps of logic to come to your conclusions again? What makes what you write so hard to believe is the fact that Mr. Tenet was an appointee of Mr. Clinton, and Mr. Tenet has stated publicly that he gave the same talks about Bin laden to both presidents only one was doing something about him.

The lie from that Brit has been proven wrong several times plus a full investigation was completed and no evidence was found to even hint that what he said was correct. Oh yeah, and that Brit was found to have been taking money from Saddam prior to the run up to the war. Funny how all the people you bring up have received bribe money from Saddam.