The U.S. military is reporting the highest suicide rate among active-duty enlistees since it began keeping records in 1980 — and critics say the higher rate is due in part to soldiers’ multiple and longer deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, according to McClatchy Newspapers. The Army report found that soldiers were more likely to commit suicide if they had served more than one tour of duty. Many troops have now served multiple tours since 2001. But it said post-traumatic stress disorder related to combat stress wasn’t accounted for a relatively small percentage of the suicides — a conclusion challenged by some experts and veterans’ families.
April Somdahl, of Trenton, N.C., said her brother, Sgt. Brian Rand, shot himself after serving three deployments to Iraq. After his second tour, he had sought help for depression at a Veterans Affairs clinic and was told he’d receive an honorable discharge. Instead, he was sent to Iraq for a third deployment. He killed himself after returning. Somdahl said he never received proper mental health care.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
65 Comments
Is anyone surprised by this? “Support the troops” has never meant anything but “George Bush is right and you better go along with what he says if you know what’s good for you.”
The Republican “leadership” in the White House could give a good goddamn about veterans, or, for that matter, for active duty personnel.
CF2K,
It is common sense that war is going to cause stress. Yeah, the suicide rates are up.
Hardly an indicator that Republicans don’t care.
But very typical to start right off with the same ol’ Democrat crap of blaming Bush and the Republicans.
I have a relative who came back from Iraq with a TBI and it has thrown him out of whack. He had been over two times and was about to go on his third.
Proper mental health is an odd term as the movement of military in and out of theater makes it difficult.
All military are trained on psychological episodes to a certain extent – certainly NCO’s on up to recognize signs and symptoms.
Most of the suicides that occurred in the military when I was in was due to drug abuse (alcohol), strained relationships and financial situations.
I’m sure there is a mix of that in the statistics of returning Iraqi and Afghanistan U.S. vets.
By the way, my young relative had been subjected to IED’s, I think he said about seven of them. So his problems are directly related to traumatic brain injury (TBI).
He has received some professional care from Walter Reed and the VA. He’s still on active duty awaiting disposition of his status by the Army. I imagine he will be discharged as his TBI is rather severe.
This is bad news.
I read recently though that the incidence of PTSD amongst these veterans was the lowest it has been since this diagnosis was established.
Thus, I do wonder if the military is under-reporting the PTSD problem.
Nathan,
Quite typical of you to start the usual apologetics whenever King Bush’s “performance” is impugned.
If Bush wants care to improve, he can make it happen. Simple as that. He is, after all, the PRESIDENT.
Steven Davis,
You think?
Yes, CF, I do. I don’t know what the problem might be, though. It could be that it is not deliberate mischaracterization of facts. Hopefully, we will find out.
CF2K, you lead the way with your remarks and you comment on Nathan’s remarks?
hahaha!
blind and oblivious…
Our good Senators no doubt are in strong opposition to giving troops more time between hazardous duty deployments. Anyone know their voting record on this issue?I bet the rate is highest among those that have been in actual combat Nathan, or had their tracks blown out beneath them, or held their dying friends, or seen or partaken in civilian atrocities. Any bets?
No, No.
My fault. I apologize. I don’t even know why I bothered.
I should have realized that everything is going to be Bush’s fault or the Republicans fault regardless of fact or reason and that actually trying to say otherwise to some here on this blog is a matter of futility.
Once again, my apologies.
Nathan,
Comes with the territory when a President asserts that he’s “The Decider.” If he wants all the credit, he should be man enough to take all the blame.
If Clinton had not cut 8 divisions from the military when he was president we’d have a few more boys to deploy.
But that’s water under the bridge.
What we need now is a draft. Bring back the draft. Make sure there are NO exceptions for rich kids. Make sure there are No exceptions for poor kids.
Additionally, anyone applying or receiving welfare benefits of any kind, should be evaluated for military service. If they cannot find a job (snort, laugh), and apply for UNemployment handouts, then they should be referred straight to the Recruiting Office.
Only if they are found UNFIT for service would they be allowed to collect welfare/unemployment.
This would have two immediate effects:
1. 80% of posters on this blog would be drafted.2. 78% of the posters would be found UNFIT.
Another option would be get out of this stupid ass war.
I think they should bring back the draft and raise the age to 40 for eligibility.
Would get rid of a lot of these whining liberals as they would flee to Canada or actually have to perform service for the country.
How many troops = 8 divisions?
Clinton cut how many troops in the 90’s?
Would get rid of a lot of these whining liberals as they would flee to Canada or actually have to perform service for the country.
Posted by: Kansas
Well they might enjoy the FREE healthcare up north. That’s where those money trees grow.
The Army consists of four corps and 18 divisions. In the active Army, there are ten divisions: two forward deployed in Europe, one in Korea, one in Hawaii, and six in the continental United States. The remaining eight are Army National Guard Divisions. The U.S. Army had 28 Divisions – 18 active and 10 National Guard — in 1991.
The Reagan administration boosted the Army from 14 to 16 divisions during the mid-1980s.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/division.htm
• Year:Active Duty• 1971:2,626,785• 1972:2,356,301• 1988:2,138,213• 1989:2,130,229• 1990:2,046,144• 1991:1,986,259• 1992:1,807,177• 1993:1,705,103• 1994:1,610,490• 1995:1,518,224• 1996:1,471,722• 1997:1,438,562• 1998:1,406,830• 1998:1,385,703• 2000:1,384,338• 2001:1,385,116• 2002:1,411,634• 2003:1,434,377• 2004:1,426,836• 2005:1,426,836
Using 1990 numbers, the Gulf War military was 2,046,144 members. At the end of President Clinton’s two terms, the military was 1,384,338. This means Clinton cut the military to almost exactly 2/3rds the Gulf War numbers. Right off the bat, there is no way to legitimately claim President Clinton cut the military to less than half its Gulf War size. Just by note, here, if you use the 1991 numbers instead, the figures go from a 33% cut to just a 30% cut. Not big, but worth noting.
You forgot to include the cuts for the Air Force and Navy inquired.
Nice information though, although very incomplete on what the actual cuts into the military was which included bases, equipment, budgets and personnel.
Problem is few want to stay in and fight a stupid ass war. You’d have to have the draft to keep fresh IED fodder.
very incomplete on what the actual cuts into the military was which included bases, equipment, budgets and personnel.
Posted by: Kansas
I’ll admit it Kansas.
What do you want me to do – write a book? It can all be googled.
Geez Kansas, beat up a republican why don’tcha.
Wasn’t beating you up Inquired, just noticed the emphasis on one service which is only part of the total picture.
I did compliment you though. :)(see below)”Nice information though…”
Well I admire you for your diligence and tenacity in this liberal dominated blog. You sticktoitness is noteworthy. I guess you have to be factual all the time.
Too bad conservatives are too busy working to support the libs blogging all day and night!
You can see the regulars at all hours of the day.
No one wanted to serve in the military under commander in chief Clinton, that’s why many left.
And the gays who told, also left.
Not big on facts, are you guys. What is the rate THIS year so far?The numbers from year to year can and do fluctuate a great deal, wartime or peacetime. Takes a special brand of idiot to make a determination based on such limited data.Playing with numbers is fun. The suicide rate for Canadian men aged 25-29 is HIGHER that the rate in this article. You know what that means, right? NOTHING. It means nothing. There isn’t enough data in the sentence, much like this entire flap, to make a determination.
flap, to make a determination.
Posted by: buzz
You must have been for the legal marijuana yesterday, heh?
The total numbers are available at the official US DoD website. They support the Clinton draw down and reduction in end strength.
I’m not from the government, so I will not hold your hand.
Clinton cut troop levels because the Soviet Union had been swept into the dust-bin of history and the only world power big enough to challenge us was gone.
It’s called “the Peace Dividend.” Cut the military and you can balance the budget without raising taxes on the middle class.
That’s exactly what Clinton did and what Clinton SHOULD HAVE DONE.
Now that Bush sent our military into war without end in the powder-keg of Iraq, don’t blame Clinton for cutting the military.
Our military will always be strong enough for DEFENSE. But it will NEVER be big enough for EMPIRE.
And empire is what Bush wanted and what he got . . .
Buzz–
What seems idiotic is looking at a 4 and one-half year war–no end in sight–and arguing that the highest number of suicides in almost thirty years has nothing to do with that.
Pure coincidence.
2005, they counted 88 suicides. Last year, it was 99. That’s a 12 and one-half percent increase in a single year.
To say that the on-going war has nothing to do with it is idiotic.
Clinton didn’t balance shit…the Republican controled congress did that.. and he also increased the taxes on ther middle class.. Twice.. aome of the largest ever in peace time..
If Bush truly wanted more volunteers for Iraq than the military could take, he’s simply have to raise their pay to that of their hooch maid!
Bush has increased the Pay to the military by 28%… Bush donates all his pay to charity..
Clinton’s budgets were virtually the same as the Congress’ budgets.
And when they weren’t, he shut the government down until Congress came around.
Guess you didn’t remember that.
And you know what else, we’ve had a Republican pres and a Republican Cong pretty much from ‘01 to ‘06, and the budgets never balanced.
Kinda shows your argument to be what it is, doesn’t it, BG: full of sh*t.
“Clinton didn’t balance shit…”
And Bush didn’t cut taxes.
And one more thing, President Fiscal Responsibility is spending 2 BILLION a week in Iraq.
Defend that, dipswitch.
And empire is what Bush wanted and what he got . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica
EMPIRE BUILDERS:
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AMRequired For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution PassedMeasure Number: H.J.Res. 114Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), NayAllard (R-CO), YeaAllen (R-VA), YeaBaucus (D-MT), YeaBayh (D-IN), YeaBennett (R-UT), YeaBiden (D-DE), YeaBingaman (D-NM), NayBond (R-MO), YeaBoxer (D-CA), NayBreaux (D-LA), YeaBrownback (R-KS), YeaBunning (R-KY), YeaBurns (R-MT), YeaByrd (D-WV), NayCampbell (R-CO), YeaCantwell (D-WA), YeaCarnahan (D-MO), YeaCarper (D-DE), YeaChafee (R-RI), NayCleland (D-GA), YeaClinton (D-NY), YeaCochran (R-MS), YeaCollins (R-ME), YeaConrad (D-ND), NayCorzine (D-NJ), NayCraig (R-ID), YeaCrapo (R-ID), YeaDaschle (D-SD), YeaDayton (D-MN), NayDeWine (R-OH), YeaDodd (D-CT), YeaDomenici (R-NM), YeaDorgan (D-ND), YeaDurbin (D-IL), NayEdwards (D-NC), YeaEnsign (R-NV), YeaEnzi (R-WY), YeaFeingold (D-WI), NayFeinstein (D-CA), YeaFitzgerald (R-IL), YeaFrist (R-TN), YeaGraham (D-FL), NayGramm (R-TX), YeaGrassley (R-IA), YeaGregg (R-NH), YeaHagel (R-NE), YeaHarkin (D-IA), YeaHatch (R-UT), YeaHelms (R-NC), YeaHollings (D-SC), YeaHutchinson (R-AR), YeaHutchison (R-TX), YeaInhofe (R-OK), YeaInouye (D-HI), NayJeffords (I-VT), NayJohnson (D-SD), YeaKennedy (D-MA), NayKerry (D-MA), YeaKohl (D-WI), YeaKyl (R-AZ), YeaLandrieu (D-LA), YeaLeahy (D-VT), NayLevin (D-MI), NayLieberman (D-CT), YeaLincoln (D-AR), YeaLott (R-MS), YeaLugar (R-IN), YeaMcCain (R-AZ), YeaMcConnell (R-KY), YeaMikulski (D-MD), NayMiller (D-GA), YeaMurkowski (R-AK), YeaMurray (D-WA), NayNelson (D-FL), YeaNelson (D-NE), YeaNickles (R-OK), YeaReed (D-RI), NayReid (D-NV), YeaRoberts (R-KS), YeaRockefeller (D-WV), YeaSantorum (R-PA), YeaSarbanes (D-MD), NaySchumer (D-NY), YeaSessions (R-AL), YeaShelby (R-AL), YeaSmith (R-NH), YeaSmith (R-OR), YeaSnowe (R-ME), YeaSpecter (R-PA), YeaStabenow (D-MI), NayStevens (R-AK), YeaThomas (R-WY), YeaThompson (R-TN), YeaThurmond (R-SC), YeaTorricelli (D-NJ), YeaVoinovich (R-OH), YeaWarner (R-VA), YeaWellstone (D-MN), NayWyden (D-OR), Nay—–
Capn,,
remember the pact with America.. that is what happened,, Republicans did welfare reform Balanced the budget.
“No one wanted to serve in the military under commander in chief Clinton, that’s why many left.”
Now you accuse our soldiers of putting their political party above service to the country?
Why don’t you support the troops?
greatest economic recovery …..
lie about that one socialist..
And empire is what Bush wanted and what he got . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica
EMPIRE BUILDER:
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonon S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use ofUnited States Armed Forces Against IraqAs Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980’s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated “sovereign sites” including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Republicans balanced the budget? What universe have you been in for the past 6 years?
after the worst attack on American soil.. we are doing pretty damn good.. after the most costly natural disaster ever we are doing pretty damn good.. after a war lasting 4 1/2 years we are doing pretty well.. defit being reduced pretty every month..
Agree completely BG. America is stronger than ever.
The blue people however, are not doing so good.
They need new ways to plunder from the successful Americans amongst us.
Most of the Blue people have not sacrificed a thing for the Iraq war.
Yet they are the first to complain about it.
Why? Political attack only.
Proof? Wait till President Shillary get’s into office, has the same casualty rates (for the WAR she so strongly pushed for!) and there will be ZERO negative press.
One always knows the wealthy people.
They’re the ones that don’t need to brag about “how well they’re doing.”
Wealthy people don’t watch “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”
It’s only the pathetic wanna-be-s that have to talk about it.
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonon S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use ofUnited States Armed Forces Against IraqAs Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980’s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated “sovereign sites” including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Posted by: You caid it Capn | August 17, 2007 at 03:16 PM
NOW THAT’S WORTH REPEATING
Future President Hillary and her rubberstamp Congress
(for the WAR she so strongly pushed for!)”
Posted by: LeRoy | August 17, 2007 at 05:36 PM
“My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.”Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
With all this brave talk about how great Bush is doing and how great his war effort is going, then why am I not surprised that these same posters are sitting in Wichita Kansas and don’t have their butts in Iraq?
If they can’t fight in the military, then they could go to work for those contactors in Iraq to rebuild that country’s infrastructure.
Or better yet, go volunteer to help with all the war-ravaged areas. Why are all these posters still in Kansas?
Why are all these posters still in Kansas?
Posted by: maidmarion | August 17, 2007 at 06:02 PM
Uhhh, because they are lying hypocrites!?!
Draft Young Republicans!
Perhaps when President Clinton assumes office, she can declare all rightwingnut Republicans “enemy combatants” and put them in third world prisons.
How many more days is America held hostage by the right wing?
Day 2400
Only 522 days left
Hang in there, folks. The reign of tERROR is almost over.
wow, it not only talks to itself, but it ANSWERS too!@
How many more days is America held hostage by the right wing?
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 17, 2007 at 06:13 PM
Day 2400
Only 522 days left
Hang in there, folks. The reign of tERROR is almost over.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 17, 2007 at 06:14 PM
And I’m a foolish asswipe!
Hey@!
That’s NIC stealing!
That’s like a federal crime or sumfin around these parts mister.
But I’m guessing it’s just the real Capt America, being the typical hypocrit.
People think that they support the troops just by saying so or by putting stupid magnet ribbons on their gas eating monster SUVs which is the real reason the troops are there. But I wonder how many of these so-called “support the troops” people have actually did anything for the troops on a personal level. Me and my family were eating lunch at the Varsity in Athens GA a few Sundays ago and I saw 3 troops in line behind us. I sent the family to the table and I waited at the cashier to have the HONOUR of paying for their meals. And it was an HONOUR for me to do so. That is what supporting the troops is all about.
First time huh Kev? It was good of you to do that.
However, those of us who support the troops, put together care packages, pray for them, write to them and many many other things…
…don’t toot our own horn.
We just do it, because they need our support.
That is what supporting the troops is all about.
Posted by: Kev |
My wife and I were returning from vacation on a crowded flight. We noticed a crew cut young man, his wife, and baby girl sitting across from us. When the baby started to play the grandparents in us came out and we helped entertain the girl. Conversation followed and revealed he was moving his family to a Kansas fort, before his deployment to Afghanistan. Their seats were all the way in the back. Our seats were in Row 2A and 2B.
We went to the counter, and after some screwed up rules, we finally got our seats exchanged without the family knowing it.
The flight attendant then delivered OUR seats to the couple and we took theirs on the back of the plane.
As we boarded I said loud enough for everyone to hear it, “Thank-you for your service. God bless you and your family.”
We boarded first to get to our very cramped and crowded rear seats.
It is good to see a few posters remembered the real subject of this thread. It’s sad that for hours everyone posted about this being the result of a BAD president and policy.
Instead of thinking that at no other time in American History since WWII, have we put such strain on the American men and women in uniform. Their families are enduring impossible problems. The warriors are being called upon to fulfill unimagineable separations and dangers.
God Bless them and whenever you see a person in uniform do NOT be afraid to shake their hand and publicly THANK them for their service.
This simple act can be worth it’s weight in gold.
On the other hand — Repubs are not without guilt
Senate Rejects Bid to Cut Troop FundingBy Brian KnowltonPublished: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1995WASHINGTON: In a partial victory for President Bill Clinton, the Senate on Wednesday rejected a proposal to cut off financing for the troop deployment to Bosnia.
But Mr. Clinton, who was to leave hours later for the signing in Paris of the Bosnia peace agreement,appeared unlikely to get the clear endorsement of the U.S. mission he had sought.
Chances for House backing of the Bosnia operation appeared slight. Although the full House is not expected to vote on a similar financing bill before Thursday, the Republican caucus Wednesday voted, 108 to 64, to endorse themeasure to cut off money for the operation.
Speaking of the legislative debate, Mr. Clinton said Wednesday morning,”I just can’t believe Congress won’t support our troops in this mission.” Mr. Clinton appeared at the White House with the Nobel Peace laureate Elie Wiesel, who backed his call for support, saying American troops could help save lives in Bosnia.
But some in Congress weretaking issue with the president’s comment, saying that they do support the troops, though not their presence in Bosnia.
Clinton did not cut back the armed forces. Congress has the constitutional duty to determine troop levels. The cut backs were started during Bush I’s term and continued on the same plan under Clinton and the Republican congress. Want to place blame for military reductions? Guess who oversaw the planning of troop reductions? None other than Dick Cheney, Bush I’s Secretary of Defense.
Also, the VA hospitals were a national disgrace right up until Clinton appointed Herschel Gomer to head the VA. He turned everything around and by 1994, the VA offered the best health care in the nation. Under Bush II, thousands of veteran’s have been booted from the system, it has been consistently under-funded by a Republican congress and it is being swamped by ever more vets in need of health care.
Oh, so the commander in chief has no power to control the size of the US Military?
That’s too bad.
Instead of thinking that at no other time in American History since WWII, have we put such strain on the American men and women in uniform. Their families are enduring impossible problems. The warriors are being called upon to fulfill unimagineable separations and dangers.
God Bless them and whenever you see a person in uniform do NOT be afraid to shake their hand and publicly THANK them for their service.
This simple act can be worth it’s weight in gold.
Posted by: Eagle Beak | August 17, 2007 at 07:02 PM Excuse me EB but they are all VOLUNTEERS getting PAID to do what they do.
They should be thanking us for employing them.
U R some sick shit.
CF2K,
It is common sense that war is going to cause stress. Yeah, the suicide rates are up.
But very typical to start right off with the same ol’ Democrat crap of blaming Bush and the Republicans.
Posted by: Nathan
Everything is wonderful in it’s own way.Come on Nathan, you know the words.
“If Clinton had not cut 8 divisions from the military when he was president we’d have a few more boys to deploy.”
funny how evrything boy george has screwed up is blamed on President Clinton.
mine safetykatrinahousing slowdownhousing loansiraniraqsocial securityhealth careimmigrationgas costsglobal warmingthe big three slowdowncubarussiachina
did i miss any??
congrats, you are in the 8% who thinks bush is doing a hell of a job.
When troops can see that their mission is wrongful, it weights heavily on their sense of right and wrong and fighting for their country, and really fighting for some other purpose.
It’s not fair to do that to the Marines.