OT (?) The Ones Coming Home

Americans from coast to coast are beginning to see some of the results of
this war in Iraq..We're not seeing much being broadcast.. There isn't much
fanfare to welcome home these members of our military forces..

You see.. these are the ones that are virtually invisible.. They are the
ones coming from the military hospital facilities in Germany and other
countries, where they've been housed ..

There will be more than 7,000 men and women transferred stateside during the
next few weeks and months.. They have to make room for the casualties which
are occurring daily..

Some of these wounded are coming home without limbs.. Some are horribly
burned .. Some have been torn open and will never be whole again.. Some are
blinded and some are suffering from mental incapacitation.. A few have
commenced arriving in VA hospiatals and military hospitals across the
country.. These hospitals are ill equipped to receive these courageous men
and women.. Their budgets have been promised and never funded..

General Myers has announced a massive call-up, shortly after the election in
November.. The administration, of course is denying any knowledge of such a
call-up..Army Reserve Units and the National Guard are reporting shortages
in their recruiting efforts.. Enlistment in the Regular military branches
are experiencing shortfalls in their recruiting efforts..Selective Services
boards across the country are gearing up to re-institute the conscription
policies that make deferrments for normal reasons, all but impossible..
Draft is no longer a "possibility", but a "probability"..

The "madness" of our world is spreading .. We can no longer feel safe and
protected on our own soil.. We DO NOT have to live this way.. We do not have
to tolerate the madness amongst leaders who institute policies that have
brought us to this crisis.. WE are a free nation that has the ability to
choose and elect.. That is OUR responsibility and duty.. Our vote is the
only tool that we have, to make the changes that are necessary, to take back
our government ..

Visit the military hospitals that are near to you.. Visit the VA hospitals
in your area.. Listen to those veterans who are patients in those
facilities.. Listen to them with your minds as well as your hearts.. After
you've seen the horrible wounds of their bodies, your blood will run cold,
when you consider their lives, forever after..

Each of us, have nieces, nephews, grandchildren and cousins who will be
affected by the policies of our government.. Our sons and daughters can
expect to put aside all our hopes and dreams for those policies... The
options that justify deferrment, are being eliminated .. Our young ones will
surely serve.. Fear... Terror...Panic and Hysteria are becoming the diet of
America .. We are sacrificing our freedoms and liberties for the sake of
non-existent security.. We are sacrificing our economic futures for
security.. We are sacrificing the very lives of our young ones for that same
non-existent security..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

LOL.. I'm sure that if he is one of your sons that I met in Elgin, he
doesn't have too much of a problem..

why.

Sorry.. can't answer that one.. I don't watch CBS and I am not relying on a
news broadcast to come to conclusions..

LOL.. when all else fails, use your common sense..

Add

The news media is playing games with America, right now.. Imagine the losses
they would suffer, should meaningful changes in the campaign and election
process, eliminated the money in our system..

What is on the ground is the only place you can make conclusions that do not
contradict.. Comparing what the news is reporting to us and what you
actually see, is like night and day..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

It's surprising that after all the scandals and acts this
administration has done over the past 4 years that the only thing
people seem to want to talk about is about Dan Rather and CBS news.
What about Fox News and their reporting all the WMDs that were being
found in Iraq? What about Fox News and their many many inaccurate
reporting efforts which would lean to the sympathy of Bush and his
administration? What about Bill O'Reilly? What about Rumsfeld, Powell
(who, in his own defense, is not much more than a sacrificial lamb)
Rice, Cheney...and BUSH? What about Baker defending off the many legal
actions against the Saudis?

The list goes on and on. And here we are discussing whether Kerry
looks good windsurfing, whether Kerry was a hero in Vietnam, and
whether Dan Rather is partisan.

HELLO!!! Did I miss something?

 

The polls should read alot higher for an incumbent. Be that as it may,
you're not paying a bit of attention to what is being said by Kerry.
You're listening to second hand (or even third) information. Kerry's
convention was quite a bit about the economy. Even after the debates
last night, I noticed quite a few republican spin doctors saying Kerry
was "flip flopping" on the issues of Iraq. The man has never been more
precise on the subject in his life. He stated very clearly what his
position was and how he would handle matters. It even caught Bush off
guard (which isn't too difficult for an idiot like him).

And speaking of "majority", the "majority" didn't vote for Bush the
last time. The entire election was made with electoral votes...and it
hinged on 537 votes toward Bush in Florida. That's what the final
tally was in that state...even with the much anticipated "military
votes". I doubt you'll be able to scrap enough people together to vote
for Bush this time since many who voted for Bush last time are saying
they'll vote for anyone just to get Bush gone.

For a chuckle, I watched Rudolph Guiliani being interviewed after the
debates. His comment about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was "he
was a weapon of mass destruction...Saddam Hussein...he was sitting on
tens of millions of dollars which made him a weapon of mass
destruction".

 

Some say (the polls mostly...about 70%) that Kerry won the debate
hands down. Some people say that Kerry made concise and well thought
out answers and was plenty prepared while Bush stood there unable to
come up with answers, wording and would stutter and muttle through his
answers while trying to attack Kerry.

As far as Michael Moore, he's not running for President. He makes
movies based on news stories that can be confirmed by CNN and other
news sources. He makes alot of money at those movies and has been very
successful. Everything he portrayed in his latest movie, Fahrenheit
9/11, I recall and have heard from reputable news sources. Most of the
information has been skirted because it made this administration look
bad.

Some people would say that people should be more upset at the "Bill
O'Reilly's" who attack, threaten and intimidate guests and others like
Jeremy Glick...who lost his father in the 9/11 attacks and chose to
not have his name used for a reason to go to war with Iraq. When you
have people like Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera attacking Americans
in such a vile way as they do on a daily basis, there's a problem.
Michael Moore has never been interviewed or interviewed anyone where
he became violent and began spewing threats and insults. Some people
would say that it's the Bill O'Reilly's who are hi-jacking this
countries news sources. They take what is happening on a daily basis
and twist it so far until they find the "right" juice to come out of
it...then they report *that* as being "news".

The difference between Michael Moore and Fox News Channel (FNC) is
that Michael Moore will listen to a conservative point of view and
allow the viewer to decide what to take from it. FNC will only allow
their "liberal" counterparts on the programs as long as those
counterparts agree or compromise with FNC's views. If FNC has a
liberal won't follow those guidelines, their microphone is abruptly
cut, their lights are turned off and the interviewer becomes noticably
upset (violent is more like it) by spewing their conservative
commentary. Bill O'Reilly will go one step further and scream (SHUT
UP!) at the person and try his intimidation techniques. According to
one source, Al Franken, many to most attorneys who represent people
appearing on a Bill O'Reilly program will inform their clients that
there's little success to suiing O'Reilly for the lies he can come up
with, because (as the attorney's say) "O'Reilly would have to *know*
he's lying and when you're dealing with someone who's such a
pathological liar, it's harder to prove".

The people who attack Michael Moore, are generally the one's who get
their news from FNC.

What some people would consider "treason" is an administration who
attacks American citizens for no other reason than they disagree. What
some would consider "treason" would be an administration who distorts
the truth and when caught, uses plausible(sp?) deniability as their
defense. Some would say this administration's slogan should be "if
we're evil, that's news to us".

I'm more frightened of an "ex-mayor" (who was never a good mayor) who
goes on TV in support of Bush and says "Saddam Hussein was a weapon of
mass destruction because he was sitting on two or three billion
dollars".

Back to the debates, the reason for the format used was very carefully
calculated. The first one is the one the "challenger" has to have a
good showing, otherwise it's all over. Bush's team (Team Bush) decided
on National Security because that's what Kerry is the weakest on in
the polls. When you have 70% saying Kerry did better than Bush and won
the debate, that leaves Bush in serious trouble for the remaining two.
Their best hope is to discourage as many people as they can to keep
from watching. Make no mistake about it, Bush is in serious trouble.
It looks as if (by the way they spin it) Bush is tied up with Kerry,
but Bush should be far ahead being a war-time incumbent. Bush should
be causing Kerry to have to fight and scrap to keep up, but that's not
happening. Thus far, until the debates, in this election you've only
seen one side or another of these two. To see them side by side and
hear them speak in their entirety and responding to questions which
are the same questions...that's where it makes the difference.

 

Here's something to think about for you. Who would be considered more
"dangerous", a single movie maker named Michael Moore who has to
struggle to find financing for every piece of work he puts out...or
Rupert Murdoch who owns well over 300 pieces of media (cable channels,
TV stations, radio, newspapers, and even a movie studio) and dictates
through the channels what will be reported and how they'll spin it?

Think about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

And as far as "conspiracist", as President Bill Clinton would say
"that's not correct, a conspiracy is something done in secret and
covered up to keep the truth from coming out...these things are being
done right out in the open and they don't care who knows about it" --
speech during the screening of "Hunting of the President". Since the
subject of movies have come up, might I recommend this movie to
everyone as being a good one to watch. Another good one is Outfoxed.

 

LOL.. We must not have watched the same debate.. Kerry exhibited a
tremendous contrast in "style".. Most importantly, Bush could not defend the
record of his presidency.. The substance was evident when Bush failed to
meet the challenges of opposition..

Essentially Kerry said he

You should have been paying more attention.. The "right war" was in
Afghanistan.. The enemy was bin Laden and his Al Queda (sp)

Consider that he was

countries.

Kerry never voted against the first Gulf War.. that I am aware of..

iraq?

The members of the UN and Bush's own advisors, including Colin Powell were
opposed to the invasion of Iraq.. The reason for the opposition was that
Bush was lying when he attempted to persuade them to join the US in that
attack and invasion.. The UN is not an entity unto itself, it is made up of
members from around the world.. representing individual countries.. Bush
could not have secured their support for this war because his claims were
false, forged and unbelievable..

Not on the basis of forged documents, staged photos and the outright lies
that this administration was using to justify the attack on Iraq..

When the UN did authorize & help us (gulf war 1) Kerry voted against

Bush again failed to point that out during the debate, didn't he ? I don't
remember that vote, but I'll sure be asking and looking into it.. I suspect
that this claim is as false as some of the comments Bush made during the
debate..

The election will be on November 2.. That election is still a month away and
Bush has to engage in two more face to face debates with John Kerry...

The election of 2000 is history.. This election for 2004 is still in the
future.. A lot of things have convinced a lot of people that by allowing
Bush the presidency was a fatal error on the part of the United States..
Many are committed to ensuring that history will not repeat itself ..

He isn't running for president, this year.. Some of his comments since 911,
have created many questions concerning his own credibility...

 

I don't know, but what I saw Kerry had plenty of "substance"...it
might've been just my TV though. I hear these 62" Philips have a
problem about showing too much "substance". I remember a recall some
time ago on that, but figured it might fix itself...guess not.

You need to stop listening to Rupert Murdoch and start watching and
listening a little closer.

Really? That would've been good for Bush to have brought up, don't you
think? Instead, Bush spent alot of time looking into the camera like a
deer caught in headlights saying "uh...uh...uh..."

I doubt it. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Bush led this country in
there to "disarm" Iraq. It would seem Iraq WAS disarmed since we still
haven't found these "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and
nuclear and biological weapons".

Again, stop listening to Rupert Murdoch. You'll do better to at least
expand your visibility and tune into Michael Moore every now and then.

Nope. If the only support we get for invading Iraq is England and
Poland...there's a problem. Listing Poland as the "second" in our
"coalition of the willing" is a problem in itself. Costa Rica has
pulled out and doesn't want anything else to do with their name on the
list of "coalition of the willing".

Under completely different circumstances.

Really? Why didn't Bush bring it up? The debates would've been a good
time to bring it up, but it never came up.

You said it.

How many people do you think vote late in the evening when the polls
are closing? That was a common argument submitted by Baker and Hughes
was that they called Florida for Gore before the polls closed in the
panhandle. It didn't happen that way. The call was made for Gore late
in the evening here. I remember because Florida was an important state
and I was working from 10pm into the morning. I was walking into the
office early that night and they called Florida when I was going into
the Infomart building. They called California shortly after.

Yes, I mis-spoke the figure. I watched the interview again and he said
2 to 3 billion dollars.

Really? You know how Saddam Hussein spent his money? Are you like the
book keeper?

Okay, let's think about this one for a second. Here's a man who's a
dictator in Iraq where he's sitting in the middle east region of the
world. He's sitting there with US dollars? Where's he going to spend
it? It's not like Abu Muhammad working in Camel Sales on the corner of
Market and Tigris will take US dollars for a couple camels and maybe a
few cigars.

That's another good example of the Rupert Murdoch effect.

Term limits? Only in the Presidency.

Guiliani was about to be run out of New York tied to a rail before
September 11, 2001.

More like the city was in shock and he cut his losses to leave before
the people of that city woke back up and remembered all the sleazy
crap he'd been into.

Now he's into the wonderful business of using scare tactics to drum up
business, since he's in the business of security tactics.

 

Right. I would think this is more of the "Rupert Murdoch" you're
listening to. Notes about what? Supposedly they didn't know the
questions before they were asked. He said the same things he's been
saying for months now. What I heard was what I've been hearing him
say.

Again, it might've been just my TV though...

 

It's now being reported on CNN that Bush had a back shot taken and it
showed a large square in his back with cables/wires run from his belt
line to his shoulders. I wonder why Bush was so obsessed with not
having any back shots during the debates?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.rumor.ap/index.html

Can anyone say "unethical"?