Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Some thoughts
Published on October 26, 2005 By Draginol In Current Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Comments (Page 11)
11 PagesFirst 9 10 11 
on Nov 02, 2005

Everyone that had ANY part in this outing should be fired.

Joe wilson is not working.  How are you going to fire him?

on Nov 03, 2005
Dr Guy You can not tell right from wrong.

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


How can you tell when col gene is lying? His keyboard is working!
on Nov 03, 2005
Because the statute that was passed in 1982 to stop the very thing that Fitzgerald says took place ( A CIA Officer's name was blown) is too complex to charge the people that outed Mrs Wilson. That does not mean it did not happen just that they can not be charged under that law. It is clear, that Rove and Libby identified Mrs Wilson to reporters and knew those facts were classified. That is clear from the statements made to the Grand jury. There is no valid reason why Rove or Libby should be talking to reporters about our CIA agents!


The reason there have been no indictments is simple! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the law being to complex. The 1982 statute has a 5 year limit to it. Plame came off covert status in 1997 and she was mentioned in 2003. That's 6 years. That's "why" they are not being charged under the law!
on Nov 06, 2005

I can see why that poster didn't register what with the advertising of the loss of all articles due to a database crash, the half dozen or so null reference exceptions, not to mention the outofmemory exceptions i have experienced in the last 15minutes alone, I'd say its a good job he didn't. It might well be free but as they say...you get what you pay for.

First off no articles were lost.  Secondly, feel free to leave any time you'd like. 

on Nov 06, 2005

I have little patience for dumb people so I won't waste too much time answering them (It was about OOOIIILLL!). Sheesh.

Anyway, speaking of dumb people, the question is who was the idiot? Wilson, his wife, or the CIA in general?

Let's see who can pass a basic common sense excercise:

Wilson, a civilian, is sent over to African to find out about the yellow cake claims.

He comes back and not only reports that that the story was unfounded but writes op-eds to the New York Times blasting the Bush administration.

Either:

a) Wilson was stupid for not thinking that people would want to find out how the hell he got the job to go to Africa.

His wife was stupid for pulling strings to get him the assignment since inevitably, questions would be raised as to how in the world this guy got this assignment.

c) The CIA was stupid for sending a Bush critic over to Africa on this assignment without thinking that people would ask how he got the job in the first place.

As soon as he started slamming Bush publicly, his wife's career was over.  Not as some sort of revenge but basic investigative reporting -- HOW did a Bush critic get such an important assignment in the first place? Answer: His wife, who works at the CIA, set it up.

on Nov 07, 2005
The statements from the CIA sources have said, it was not Mrs Wilson that pushed her husband but her superiors that were talkig about sending Amb. Wilson. They ASKED Mrs Wilsion about her husband AFTER they considered sending Amb. Wilson on that mission. That is very different then Mrs. Wilson setting out to get her spouse a job.

Second, even of Mrs Wilsom had some part in getting Amb Wilson that assignment, it does not justify Rove and Libby talking to reporters about Mrs Wilson as a CIA agent. Both reporters have said Rove and Libby are the FIRST people to give that classified information to them.
on Nov 07, 2005
The statements from the CIA sources have said, it was not Mrs Wilson that pushed her husband but her superiors that were talkig about sending Amb. Wilson. They ASKED Mrs Wilsion about her husband AFTER they considered sending Amb. Wilson on that mission. That is very different then Mrs. Wilson setting out to get her spouse a job.


What statements from what sources col?

it does not justify Rove and Libby talking to reporters about Mrs Wilson as a CIA agent. Both reporters have said Rove and Libby are the FIRST people to give that classified information to them.


They didn't give classified information col.
on Nov 08, 2005
I wonder. It seems that the people who hate Bush so much say he lied. What about all the others that agreed with him? What about all the members of Congress and the House that wanted to take out Iraq? How about these:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Now why do they forget about all these things and focus on one person who like those above had the very same information, and was supported by the above people? Hmmm Guess its becasue they will say anything, even disagreeeing with themselves before they admit they agreed with Bush.

The question is always raised "Bush lied." I ask for the proof of this, and if you find one, check the validity before posting it. And then find out if anyone else also had this information and said they agreed with him. A lot of people were misled, including it appears, our entire government. Does that change the fact we are there and things are getting better for the Iraqi people? No. So stop crying about being lied too, and start looking at who had what information and did they make the best decision they could with what they were provided. If not then shame on them and they should be held accoutnable, if they did, then lay off.
on Nov 11, 2005
What about all the others that agreed with him?
THEY were all wrong because they did not bother to think--par for politicians.
but 32 million people getting a chance to vote on a Constitution is priceless.
Oh, please!
on Nov 14, 2005
but 32 million people getting a chance to vote on a Constitution is priceless.Oh, please!


I'll take that as simply the mediocre response of an average American who takes his own right to vote for granted, forgets all those who died securing and maintainng that right: and resents that right for anyone else.... and to think you said it on Veteran's Day even.
on Nov 14, 2005
What about all the others that agreed with him?
THEY were all wrong because they did not bother to think--par for politicians.


So then "all" the intel agencies of the world were just as wrong?
on Nov 14, 2005
I'll take that as simply the mediocre response of an average American who takes his own right to vote for granted, forgets all those who died securing and maintainng that right: and resents that right for anyone else.... and to think you said it on Veteran's Day even.


steven's a WWII combat vet.
on Nov 14, 2005
Yup, Tex, he is, and for that I do have a lot of respect for him. However, you are a military wife, you know as well as I do that not every vet appreciates their right to vote, or even those who sacrificed to secure that right.

If Steven thinks that 32 million people getting to vote on a new Constitution isn't priceless, then yes, I will question his appreciation of his own right to vote... as I question most Americans' appreciation.

When I see that a great voter turnout is a pathetic 30 or 40 percent, and I hear the completely innane excuses many people give for not voting... then I compare that to the Iraqis facing death threats, but voting anyway... yes, I wonder how much we (as Americans) really appreciate our voting rights.

btw, Steven, I don't for a minute question your patriotism, service or integrity. In those I have a high respect for you... and for that matter, you too Texas!
on Nov 15, 2005
then I compare that to the Iraqis facing death threats, but voting anyway


The person receiving death threats has much more to gain by voting than the person who's life is very stable. I'm not trying to excuse lack of caring, but it is pretty easily explained. A solution to it, however, is something I've yet to see, and am doubtful that anything short of crisis could dramatically affect it.
11 PagesFirst 9 10 11