Yes, it's true.

Fort Bliss is our backyard where I live at (at Texas), and we have many army personnel living in town.

This morning as I was getting into Starbucks two guys in uniform walked in too, and they were talking about a soldier that was killed at Iraq yesterday.

One of them was saying:

“But…is not like any body forced us to enlist man. We knew that being a soldier means going to war, which is exactly the work description you dumb ass, going to WAR

Now here you are bitching about going to be deployed and saying that Bush is a mother f… because he wants you to do your work.

Why don’t you cry when you are paid your nice check, and when you enjoy all the benefits that come with the territory? What did you think this was going to be like? You want to get paid to sit on your ass. No, now you are really going to earn your money, you mamma’s boy.

The other guy was very quiet, just looking at the floor. I felt sorry for him.:mad:

Anyway, you can only imagine. Personally, I felt very uncomfortable and I could tell that I was not the only one listening to the conversation, because the whole place was quiet.:phanvan

Other 3-army girls walked in and this guy told them what they were talking about.

Their answer:

“Yep, you don’t see the policeman or the firefighters crying because they do their work”.:huytsao

They called my name. I got my drink and ran out.

These guys were between the ages of 25 and 30. I felt heartbroken to think that maybe one of them was not going to come back home after Iraq.

I am still thinking if what they are doing is just their job.

May God bless all the man and women on both sides of this war, because at the end, both of them feel that they are doing just that…their work. If we were to ask both sides who is the enemy ..both of them will answer “They are!!!!!!:cry

http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024

From the Linked article:

America won't simply be paying with its dead. The Pentagon is trying to silence economists who predict that several decades of care for the wounded will amount to an unbelievable $2.5 trillion...

...It is sobering to think how the money going down the drain in Iraq could otherwise have been spent. "For this amount of money, we could have provided health insurance for the uninsured of this country," Bilmes tells me. "We could have made social security solvent for the next three generations, and implemented all the 9/11 Commission's recommendations [to tighten domestic security]."

That kind of list goes on: the annual cost of treating all heart disease and diabetes in the United States would amount to a quarter of what the Iraq war is costing. Pre-school for every child in America would take just $35bn a year.

__________________

Questions that need to be asked:

Will the "Support Our Troops" crowd be there with the money for the mentally ill Vets?

Will the "Support Our Troops" crowd still support the Iraq Vets who commit crimes like murder at 5 or 6 times the national level?

Will the "Support Our Troops" crowd still support the Iraq Vets who are involved with spousal abuse at many times the national average?

Will the "Support Our Troops" crowd still support the Iraq Vets when they are homeless and try to pan-handle money from the public?

Will the "Support Our Troops" crowd still support the Iraq Vets with tax-funded alcohol and drug rehab centers?

Will the "Support Our Troops" crowd still support the Iraq Vets with tax-funded prisons to incarcerate them and then preach about "Personal Responsibility"?

These are Questions that need to be asked, even though we know the answers.

We know the answers because we have seen the support for Vietnam vets.

"Born on the 4th of July" should be required viewing for the "Support our Troops" crowd.

I support our troops; by trying to bring them home where they belong.

The "Support Our Troops" crowd in reality are the "Support our Stupid Wars" crowd, who never saw a war they couldn't support. They might also be called the "Let the mighty USA beat up small countries" crowd, because as cowards, they like to watch the blood and gore as the civilians of small nations are bombed, killed and maimed. It is the "Support Our Troops" crowd's version of wrestling.

Our ability to save the wounded means exactly what this article is saying and the impact on the wounded and their families, as well as society, is a horrendous legacy of the Bush administration.

This war is about economics and greed. The greedy folks who support this war, who don't want to help anyone with tax money, could never equate the money spent in Iraq with helping anyone. They think that the weak and infirm should help themselves. Or at least beg for it in a private way instead of through any government programs. Says a lot about the kind of people they are, doesn't it?

Have you heard about the BuSh scandal de jour?

The BuSh administration is accused of having United States Attorneys (USA's) target Democrats for indictment and to turn a blind eye toward Republican law-breakers. 8 USA's were fired though they had good records (including bringing down California Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham for taking bribes). And there was a scheme to fire all 93 USA's and then replace them with people who would do the BuSh administration's bidding. In on the scheme were Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Myers (supreme court nominee) and the usual gang of idiots.

Somebody forgot to tell BuSh that he is a President, not an Emperor.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8285957

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592698/

The American public should raise hell about this. This should be the proverbial straw.

Have you heard about the BuSh scandal de jour?

The BuSh administration is accused of having United States Attorneys (USA's) target Democrats for indictment and to turn a blind eye toward Republican law-breakers. 8 USA's were fired though they had good records (including bringing down California Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham for taking bribes). And there was a scheme to fire all 93 USA's and then replace them with people who would do the BuSh administration's bidding. In on the scheme were Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Myers (supreme court nominee) and the usual gang of idiots.

Somebody forgot to tell BuSh that he is a President, not an Emperor.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8285957

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592698/

Interesting that no where in either of these left-leaning articles or in your post is it mentioned that Bill Clinton fired all 93 lawyers when he came into office, instead of letting them go when their tenure ended like most other presidents. Also, at least a couple of the lawyers fired recently were involved in not pursuing what appears to be openly fraudent election hijinks done by Democrats. Please see this link to a Wall Street Journal Editorial for another side to this story....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

When a new president takes office, so does a new Attorney General, usually. Under Bush, the place has been full of Republicans anyway, so there was not much need for a house cleaning. I could be wrong on this because I do not have the stats, like I should, but I've been around long enough to know how this has always worked in the past.

Does it make anyone take pause to note that the Wall Street Journel endorses everything Bush does? Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Interesting that no where in either of these left-leaning articles or in your post is it mentioned that Bill Clinton fired all 93 lawyers when he came into office, instead of letting them go when their tenure ended like most other presidents. Also, at least a couple of the lawyers fired recently were involved in not pursuing what appears to be openly fraudent election hijinks done by Democrats. Please see this link to a Wall Street Journal Editorial for another side to this story....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

How can you compare an editorial with the MSNBC news article?

The editorial spends as much time talking about Hillary Clinton who held no office at the time as it does on President Bill Clinton. And if Bill Clinton did something wrong, does that make George W. BuSh right for doing the same or worse? But there are important differences.

Some differences are that Clinton then nominated new attorney's which had to be ratified by the Senate and he cleaned house. Presidents commonly clean house and put in people of their own choosing. Cabinet members are replaced when a new president comes to power. In theses cases, there was a check on president Clinton (by the Senate) to make sure the new appointees were not political hacks hired to do political hit jobs.

BuSh wants to use a new clause of the Patriot act to bypass ratification by the Senate to eliminate any checks on his power and therefor there will be nothing to stop him from appointing people who's goal it is to indict Democratic candidates prior to the 2008 elections (for example). When the Democratic candidate is acquitted after the election is over but the Republican is elected (because he was running against a candidate under indictment), it is too late to redo the election.

The other difference is that the attorney's weren't being singled out for doing their job by Clinton. BuSh's administration is using the firings to make a point that BuSh's bidding must be done or goodbye job. It is coercion, pure and simple. The trail of e-mails make it obvious. BuSh and Gonzales have already admitted that Mistakes were made (after they were caught).

How can you compare an editorial with the MSNBC news article?.

I have no problem comparing them. I believe The WSJ is a respected news source, while almost anything political reported on by the NBC group has become, in my estimation, an anti-Bush piece. I am not saying that the firings were exactly the same between Clinton and Bush, but if Clinton can fire lawyers working on cases like Whitewater and replace them with lawyers friendly to him, then you have to call it what it is. These firings go on with all Presidents and they most certainly ARE "political". To not comment on it being done by one president while making a huge case of of it being done by another one is wrong, in my opinion.

Does it make anyone take pause to note that the Wall Street Journel endorses everything Bush does? Hmmmm, I wonder why?

hmmmmm, I was going to ask if anyone has noticed that every article, story and tv report from NBC, MSNBC, and NPR is always a critical article against President Bush! At least you don't have to see your tax $$ being spent to support a tv network you can't stand. I hate it that NPR gets federal funding!

When I want a good stiff breath of liberal air, I turn on NPR. (And I love NPR and the independent radio stations that play original music some that includes musician friends of mine).

**What works for me is a balance of all of the sources. I am fond of bloggers who tend to hit the topic first followed by mainstream media the next day. They blow their trumpet to their reader politics (like FOX). If you read several sources, including overseas sources like BBC and Asia Times, you can read through the muck and hopefully find that balance.

When I want a good stiff breath of liberal air, I turn on NPR. (And I love NPR and the independent radio stations that play original music some that includes musician friends of mine).

**What works for me is a balance of all of the sources. I am fond of bloggers who tend to hit the topic first followed by mainstream media the next day. They blow their trumpet to their reader politics (like FOX). If you read several sources, including overseas sources like BBC and Asia Times, you can read through the muck and hopefully find that balance.

I agree! I read EVERYTHING I have the time for. I am a Conservative, but I want to know all sides to each issue, so I read the liberal blogs and the liberal news. But I do like Fox News for one main reason: They debate almost every issue, and the debates have an equal number of liberals and conservatives on each side. Oh, and they are the only news channel that lets the conservatives finish their sentences! :biggrin1:

It's all in the political eye of the reader and TV viewer. I've read just as many comments about how biased Fox and WSJ are.

What is so scary about Bush is his constant chipping away at and causing the erosion of some of the most basic and guaranteed freedoms in this country. If you're a person who agrees with his politics, that is surely not frightening to you. But if you do not agree with his politics, it is as scary as having someone like Hitler at the helm.

It's all in the political eye of the reader and TV viewer. I've read just as many comments about how biased Fox and WSJ are.

What is so scary about Bush is his constant chipping away at and causing the erosion of some of the most basic and guaranteed freedoms in this country. If you're a person who agrees with his politics, that is surely not frightening to you. But if you do not agree with his politics, it is as scary as having someone like Hitler at the helm.

I agree that it is a bit scary if someone is in power that you don't trust, especially if you feel changes are being made that you don't know about. But I honestly do not know what freedoms President Bush has "chipped away at", although this is not the first time I have heard that charge. I just don't see that any of my freedoms have eroded, or anyone else's for that matter. I don't see that anything has really changed. I would naturally expect a little tightening up of a few things after 9/11, but I don't even see those things in my daily life or in anyone else's. I do admit that the concept is a bit worrisome. Have you had anything change in your life? I am asking seriously since I would like to understand where the concern is coming from.

Are you familiar with the Patriot Act? What about what he's done to the prisoners in Guantanamo? He has appointed a couple of people to the Supreme Court who are so far right that it has very scary implications for some of the freedoms that I hold dear. I was around when his dad pulled the Iran Contra thing and believe me if George Herbert Walker is capable of doing illegal things because he decided it was right for the country, then Dubya is capable of them and more. He has had the power of a Republican Congress behind him all the way. That's the main reason he was able to pull off this war. There haven't been any checks and balances and he has more power than any president that I've been aware of. It is frightening!

I am sure there are several people (like TOM) who can pull stuff off the 'net and prove my point. I don't use that resource to back up my opinions because I figure that my opinoins are just that... opinions. I suppose if you were to challenge me I might care enough to go find sources, but I am not that invested here. I enjoy this forum a whole lot. I learn a lot every day here. From all sides. But I don't want to get into any p$$$ing contests. I participated in one of those earlier and although I learned a lot there, it was too frustrating. Made my port bulge.