The recent Bush "bombshell" can't be explained much better than this...

Dragoon68:

No, young troops are not worth more than older troops. It just seems that most of those who have died in Iraq from my state (South Dakota) have been young men.

Yes, I am a born again Christain. Bush's actions and decisions just don't seem consistent with the character of a born-again Christian. I would have expected honesty, humility, and compassion from a Christian president. I have seen none of these qualities in Bush. God will judge him....not me.

 

Thanks, Priscilla Ann, for answering.

I like to remind people that bombs and bullets don't discriminate by age, sex, race, or religion and casualty statistics - raw numbers, changes, percentages, etc. - can be viewed from many angles. There always seem to be more young casualties since the military is a pyramid with those at the lower grades and ranks being of greater number and often more exposed to combat risks. They all sure look young! But it can, and it does, happen to all ages and we need to remember that those at the higher ranks and thereby older started at the bottom perhaps having their greater exposure in a previous war.

In the Iraq war the casualties have included ranks from PVT to CSM and 1LT to COL and ages from 18 to 60. A whole lot of them are middle aged sargents. One LTC, I'm thinking of at the moment, was a leader who believed in being out with his troops. He was only a 1LT in the Gulf war struggling with the initial realities of that war but leading his troops just as he should. I still have several letters we exchanged back then and they have a visible place in my office right above my computer.

I'm sorry that you view President Bush's actions and decisions as not being consistent with the character of a born-again Christian. From my perspective, he does display honesty, humility, and compassion as well as courage and determination. No, he's not perfect but he's not the personification of evil that some seem bent to make him.

I agree that God will judge him as well as you, me, and all the rest of us. In fact, He's already made his choices for salvation and will call those whom He has chosen. We can judge - even to finding them guilty of a crime - the actions of others against what we perceive from the evidence but we can never judge the soul of another human being. No personal offense to you is intended, but I just don't think it's right to question the salvation of our President by suggesting he "answers to a different God" than we do. That borders more on the later than the former.

 

Dragoon68:

Thanks for your response. Your answer was kind and honest, and I take no personal offense.

Thankfully, in this country we can disagree, but do so respectfully.

Have a good evening!

PA

 

Amen to that, Priscilla Ann, and you have a good evening and great week as well!

 

Exactly when and why was Plame's identity released to the public, Phillip? What was the motive for doing it? What public good could come of doing this?

Was a damage assessment performed by the CIA?

As for the claim that Wilson dropped her at parties, who and when?

Regards,
BiR </font>[/QUOTE]As with all classified things, we will never know the motives behind this unless we work in that area. But, I can certainly tell you one thing. As an employee that has a security clearance and works up to secret level. (You know the three main levels I speak of: confidential, secret, topsecret-comparmentalized)
I can tell you one thing. I have never seen an abuse of power by any government official. I cannot say that it doesn't occur, but in general most of our government leaders are doing what they think is best for the safety of our citizens.

I have never seen any sign of abuse of power coming from the Presidential office. Now, is Bush perfect? No...but, I think he has acted to be best of his ability with the knowledge he was given. I truly believe that he is a born-again Christian and tries to use those ethics.

Orders came straight from our commander and chief when it was thought there were ethical issues among workers in the whitehouse that every single person in a security position HAD to take a certain amount of training on the ethical responsibilities we had to the public for their best interest. I respect our commander and chief better than anybody who would play with cigars and loose women in the oval office. </font>[/QUOTE]Why do you believe that Bush is a born-again Christian given his actions in office and the statement he made that Christians and Moslems pray to the same god and Moslems have their own way to heaven?

 

First of all, I have not heard him make that statement, but if I did I would have judged it as a mistake on his part. That certainly would not prevent him from accepting Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.

If your response about him lying to us is concerning weapons of mass destruction I think he was as suprised as the Army was that we haven't found any yet. But, Iraq is a huge country where lots of things are buried. Was Saddam building WMD's? I don't know, but the evidence certainly points to the fact that he was trying to. If you look at the countries supplying him with arms for the oil.

As far as killing goes, it is a horrible thing. It was necessary to prevent the spread of the take-over of the world by pure evil in WWII. It was necessary for us to have a free country in the 1700's. It was even worth holding this country together in the civil war.

Today, it is worth giving the majority of the population of Iraq their own free government where they can walk the streets without having to worry about a husband or wife disappearing to a torture chamber in the middle of the night. Or whole city of Muslims destroyed by horrific poisonous gas--against all rules of military use--because of their beliefs. Or that they might have wanted to see a different government rather than a cruel one.

Is it hard? Yes, it is. We are having to deal with insergents and IEDS, but considering the size of the country, there is less risk than you realize. Do the Iraqis want us there? Yes, most do, in fact we are training their own policemen and military militia to keep the peace and help get rid of those who try to murder them. It is the Iraqi government that the terrorists want to destroy. They cannot stand freedom of religion in a country so close. Most come from Syria and Iran.

At least suicide bombing is a self limiting factor. When the bomber dies, they don't get to repeat their terror.

How about the horrors that occurred in Iraq, people who would lie in bed and disappear before morning only to be seen later missing fingers and toes and whipped into submission? ...and the ones who did not return at all? Do you think they would be grateful to the Americans?

You have to remember that the media can only get people to watch if they show something contraversial. So, in doing this they show much of the negative and very little of the people who are so happy that they will even give their lives being policemen in a state where terrorists are attempting to kill them.

President Bush has also done an excellent job of breaking up the terrorist organizations and keeping them on the run. It amazes me that we haven't had another attack. This means that the military is doing their job. If another attack comes it will not suprise me because it is amazing they have stopped it from occurring again anyway.

You don't think that the terrorists will quit simply if Bush is out of office?

Believe me, the fringe group of hyper-muslims will stop at nothing to destroy our freedom of religion and attack Christianity.

If you will notice, it is Christianity that is under attack from everywhere. But, why should this surprise us, the Bible tells us this will happen.

These fringe muslims have a history of destroying civilizations that do not follow their ways. What a way to convert people. Mandate it and kill them if they don't change.

We are hated for our freedoms. Americans have forgotten the sacrifices of the past for those freedoms. The soldiers have done their duty and joined up voluntarily without the draft. We must be PROUD of them. They have put themselves in harms way.

Are there some that have gone awol and gone to Canada? Yeah, a few, but not nearly anything close to a percentage that puts a black-eye on those who follow orders. The news media would rather talk about those few in Canada for days on end than the ones who have voluntarily joined up to go and help with Iraqi Freedom.

I am PROUD of our Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and other services that have given their lives, limbs or just hard-hard work. When you bad-mouth their commander-n-chief, you bad-mouth them and most don't like it. I for one respect him and his troops.

 

One, I certainly hope not, but none the less as a tax payer and one who is in harms way often enough, I object to my tax dollars being abused and commander in chief acting in such a discrediting way.

Two, there is only one God and we all will answer to Him.

 

"In the filing, Fitzgerald wrote that Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, told a grand jury that Bush authorized him, through Cheney, to leak information from a classified document that detailed intelligence agencies' conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

A lawyer knowledgeable about the case said Saturday that Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized it to be publicly disclosed to rebut Iraq war critics. But the lawyer said Bush did not specifically direct Libby to disseminate information about prewar intelligence to reporters.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sent a letter to Bush on Monday asking him for details about how the document was declassified. ``There are many questions that the president must answer so that the American people can understand that this declassification was done for national security purposes, not for immediate political gain.''

Bush's decision in July 2003 to disclose sensitive prewar intelligence assessments came amid a growing public realization that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The failure to find such weapons undermined a chief rationale Bush and Cheney used for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5746942,00.html

 

Did you answer any of my questions?

Regards,
BiR