Things that make you think a little........

[Blitz]

Sen John Glenn
WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:
Things that make you think a little........

1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January.... In the
fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn
country of Iraq.

2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war,remember
the following:a. FDR...led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were
lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never
attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy. .started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us.

e. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives
were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia
never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear
inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and,
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. The
Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took
less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation. We've been looking for
evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary
Clinton to
find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard, than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police
after his Oldsmobile sank at Chapaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!! The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts. But wait,
there's more......................


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13 Some people
still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a
living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard
Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu
speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and
women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This is a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served
think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): "How can you run for Senate
when you've never held a real job?" Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): "I
served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two
wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12
different occasions.

I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life
on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take
the daily cash receipts
to the bank."

"I ask you to go with me . as I went the other day... to a veteran's
hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye,and
tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the
widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you
look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery,
where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and
you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of
your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held
REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of
country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself.
And
their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible. I HAVE held a job,
Howard! What about you?"

For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an
attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he's a
Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English
thank a Veteran. It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating....

 

[gardenweasel]

blitz.....whew.......that was a load.....a great read....

this probably belongs in the aclu thread,but,being that you posted this, i`ll join in...

we`re in a cultural war in this country,like it or not...politics are more important than country...

those long haired pot smoking hippies and peaceniks from the 60`s are now teaching in our universities and interpreting our laws....

what was traditional is becoming fringe....and what was fringe is becoming mainstream...

i believe that our parents and their parents were born into very special generations...

we don`t have the same "stuff".....at least,not most of us...

if we had to fight ww2 today,i suspect we`d lose....we don`t have the resolve...the national will to even look out for our own best interests....if what needs to be done is politically incorrect.....or doesn`t have the blessing of the u.n or europe...or hollywood...lol....who we now know do not give a whit about the best interests of our country.....

imo....thankfully....the best and brightest aren`t all these book smart,self hating,philosophers who,like europe,think they can philosophize their problems to death....

it`s the good ole` average joe.....that made our country what it is today...that fought the wars....that built this country with their bare hands....worked in the shipyards....

you can have the philosophers...i`ll take some good old common sense and commitment any day of the week.......

i think there`s plenty of blame to go around...from both sides of the political fence..


i believe that that glenn is a democrat that opposed the war...of course,he`s not one of those ideologues that rooted for us to fail once the decision was made....as i believe many have......

that`s a major difference that i believe has taken place since the viet nam war era...

i agree with much of what i read...interesting thread...thanks for posting...

 

[Englishman]

Great post, Blitz.

Thanks.

Smurphy, what say you?

 

[IntenseOperator]

Bueno

 

[kosar]

Great post, Blitz.

Thanks.

Smurphy, what say you?

I'm not Smurphy, but i'd imagine he's too busy yawning to respond to yet another silly chain email(the first part of the post).

Any nonsense that tries to compare Hitler raging through Europe to Saddam, ummm, i'm not sure what, loses credibility immediately.

Or comparing this to the Korean War, where one of our allies who we pledged to defend, would have been no more if we didn't fight?

Yeah, that's the same.

And the Vietnam bit, mentioning Kennedy and Johnson (of course not Nixon)? What is that? Some sort of evidence that Democrats can screw up wars just like Dubya? I agree with that one, but it seems out of place and kind of making a point opposite of that which was intended.

Nuclear inspectors in Iran and North Korea? Huh? Really? Jeez, it was my impression that inspectors *were* in North korea until macho man rattled his sabre.

Clinton halted a genocide without a single loss of American life. Just terrible.

Clinton offered Bin Laden 'on a platter' 3 times? Seems that the 'author' of this email used the same fact-checking methods on this as he did with the rest of it. It's funny, if enough people repeat something long enough, the urban legend becomes 'fact'.

Looking for Law firm records? Florida vote counting? Kennedy calling police? No mention of the Elian Gonzalez situation and how long that took to get resolved? Surprising.

It doesn't take much, and certainly facts aren't necessary, to get the jingoistic, rah-rah crowds blood pumping.

 

[StevieD]

Great post Kosar!

 

[dawgball]

I agree with kosar on this one. These are just statements that are spun the correct way to instantly fire up a crowd.

I don't get inspired by strings like these just as I don't get worried when there is one spun to the left in the same manner.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I'll say this on matter--I hold McNamera more resposible for f-ups than anyone over viet Nam issue.

Now Matt I can't let you off the hook on letting some think Clinton wasn't offered Bin Laden and let him slide. # times might be questionable but here is 1st hand account on one incident and NO ONE person named including Clinton disputed any of it.
P.S. You might note there are no "un named sources" you see in some journalism or vague terminalogy--He flats tell who-when and where
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.


By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

 

[djv]

Ike sends 400 military advisor's's to Nam 1958, very quietly. By 60 we had over a 1000. Kennedy Had not been sworn in yet.
We should not have been there any year from 58 to 73. Anyone remember the excuse used for us to be there. Almost sounded like the one used to go to Iraq. Oh that nasty Iraq trying to take over the middle east. That country with a broken down army with obsolete military equipment. And those WMD. We were fed a bunch of chit. And we now know how bad our intelligence really was and maybe still is. Or maybe no one wish to isten to the truth.

 

[kosar]

Wayne,

Yes, i'm quite familiar with that situation, as i'm sure most are. Clinton didn't think they had enough to indict him, so he chose not to bring him to the states. It might sound lame in the post 9/11 era, but in 1996 you still had to have evidence to hold and/or convict somebody. As your article mentions, the Saudis wanted no part of him. However, the admin insists that they pressured the Saudis into taking him with the hope that he would be beheaded. They realized that Arab justice wasn't so bound by a constitution.

Now look at the below article, particularly the part in bold, and notice the excuse that the Bush admin had for letting go terrorist # 27 on the list.

Bush Administration Let Terror Suspect Go
What happened here?

Nabil al-Marabh was No. 27 on the FBI's list of terror suspects after Sept. 11. He trained in Afghanistan's militant camps, sent money to a roommate convicted in a foiled plot to bomb a hotel and boasted to an informant about plans to blow up a fuel truck inside a New York tunnel, FBI documents allege. The Bush administration set him free - to Syria - even though prosecutors had sought to bring criminal cases against him and judges openly expressed concerns about possible terrorist ties.

....Even the judge who accepted al-Marabh's plea agreement on minor immigration charges in 2002 balked. "Something about this case just makes me feel uncomfortable," Judge Richard Arcara said in court. The Justice Department assured the judge that al-Marabh did not have terrorist ties.

Here's the Administration's explanation:

Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra said the government has concerns about many people with suspected terror ties but cannot effectively try them in court without giving away intelligence sources and methods. "If the government cannot prosecute terrorism charges, another option is to remove the individual from the United States via deportation. After careful review, this was determined to be the best option available under the law to protect our national security," he said.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Familiar with that also my friend---on a different tangent have you seen this Masoor fellow that wrote article? I spoke of him at start of war about.He got some ties somewhere and pulls no punches on either side of political field.It it amzing the # of things he hits on the nose. I remember they had the generals discussing tactics as war started and were speaking of coming from the south and the north (Turkey) blah blah blah. After them Orelly had interview with Moonsor and in discussion asked him what he thought of the tactics--this fellow said all well and good then paused and said IF Turkey complies.Oreilly looked stunned and told him our troops (as generals stated) were already on the way to Turkey--and Moonsor justed smiled. He's quite a feaky little fellow and knows whats going down in that area---also remember him saying when after we took Bagdad the the tougest part was yet to come.

 

[bjfinste]

on a different tangent have you seen this Masoor fellow that wrote article? I spoke of him at start of war about.He got some ties somewhere and pulls no punches on either side of political field.

I've been avoiding posting in this forum for a while, but come on.... You're referring to Mansoor Ijaz of Fox News, I assume? If so, the bolded quote is hardly the case.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

He appears on many news networks as guest speaker--in addition all his interviews I've seen on all networks has been on foreign affairs with little to do on politics--and 90% of them are concerning mistakes current administration is making.
Now you will get no argument that Foxs news slants conservative but not say their audiance does no necessarily. In recent poll on Delay (spl) on his family receiving payment on political jobs the vote was 60% against delay. Terry Mc the then democratic chairman was on the factor no less than 15 times during pres campaighn. Oreilly invited Kerry during campaighn--he refused--has open invitation to Clintons and Jessie and they refuse.Why?/ They don't like the questions he will ask--you don't get the Larry King canned pitch. Might be why each's viewing #s have went in opposite directions.
Two days ago Oreilly had another all out assualt on against current adminstration and border control.Rarliy does he have interview where there is not represenative from both sides.
Last night he was on prosecutor (republican) from Fla who let the 3 from Jessica Lunsford case that housed killer slide--and raked the Reb attorney general from Fla over the coals in interview for allowing it. Isn't anyone from any party safe if they F-up in his interviews.

 

[smurphy]

either i'm more drunk than i think or you are clearly drunk^

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

At this time of morning Iam at work so drinking out of question
I do not write too well granted--yet me do a cut and paste on similiar issue---

Setting the Record Straight

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

By David Asman



Fox News has a lot of enemies, some of whom won't hesitate to flat out lie in order to criticize what we do.

One of those lies circulating on the Internet is about an Observer I wrote about the New York Times. The day after the pope died, the Times ran a bio of the pope by Ian Fisher (fee required to view story).

The piece made a dig at the pope by mentioning his physical decline, saying: "Some critics said it was a symbol of a papacy in need of rejuvenation." When reading the Observer on TV, I put up the quote; with the author's name highlighted right underneath. But the anti-Fox web site implies that I made up the quote. Well, you can check it out for yourself. Ian Fisher wrote the 2,200-word bio, which appeared on April 3. It's really not hard to find. You just plug in a key phrase with the author's name in any search engine, and up it comes. The anti-Fox website could easily have done the same. If they did, they're liars. If they didn't, they're just plain lazy. Either way, I wasn't about to let this sleeping dog lie.

This same group posted another hack-job attack on an Observer last week. The Observer focused on a dubious award given to a Democrat congressman for political pork. The anti-Fox website asked: ?? let's see if Asman will gleefully report this award the next time it goes to a GOP.?

I wrote to the site, explaining that I had, in fact, written about Republicans getting that same ?Porker of the Month? award. I included an Observer from October. Here?s that October Observer:

?When confronted by a huge increase in federal spending under his watch, President Bush (search) and his supporters quickly roll out the war on terrorism as an excuse. But national security can also be a great cover for local pork ? that is, using federal tax dollars to fund local projects that have nothing to do with the national defense. In fact, about half of the $33 billion Homeland Security bill signed into law last week has little if anything to do with protecting us from terrorists. For example, the two senators from Montana inserted a $3 billion payout to local farmers in the Homeland Security bill. Democrat Max Baucus (search) and Republican Conrad Burns (search) claim that their drought relief package helps us preserve our resources in case of attack. But the spending watchdog group called Citizens Against Government Waste (search) sees this as just another example of pork masquerading as national security. Says the group: ?Drought relief has nothing to do with homeland security and should not get wrapped up in the essential task of defending the homeland from terrorists. For elevating home state politics above homeland security and ignoring the deficit, Senators Baucus and Burns are Porkers of the Month for October 2004.?
And that?s the Observer.?

In light of this Observer, I asked the Web site if they?d like to correct their record. Of course, they did NOT correct the record. These anti-Fox sites are not interested in the truth; they?re interested in bending the truth to suit their attacks.

As for the Observer, we will continue to point out transgressions by public servants and public figures, whether they?re Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives or just plain hound dogs.

And that?s the Asman Observer.

 

[bjfinste]

Dogs,

I actually wasn't implying that he swings right just because he works/worked for Fox, although after re-reading my post, I can certainly see how it could be interpreted that way. I was just mentioning Fox to make sure we were thinking of the same guy.

I'm not all that familiar with him, but what little I remembered of him when I saw you mention him was some of his pre-election columns/articles, which relentlessly attacked Kerry and, to a lesser extent, Clinton. His writing just seemed to reflect a very conservative mindset. That's all I was referring to.

 

[Marco]

"Things that make you think a little..."

Most of that initial list made me think of how many times our government fawked up and decided to spill American blood in worthless foreign civil wars...

The part about 35 murders in Detroit while during the same period in Iraq 39 American troops were killed.......Am I supposed to feel better that more Americans are dying just for the fact that they are dying outside the US? 39 more die and that's ok because 35 died in Detroit? Some way to justify military deaths.

"The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize all the facts..."

Perhaps the fact that Bush has buried the grandkids with his unchecked use of the national credit card, while at the same time not even bothering to mention OBL's name, if they even have a clue as to which side of the planet he is on?

Way to go guys, I guess they'll remember OBL when the next major terrorist attack happens....