Woman and baby lose husband/father in Iraq for nothing!
Wouldn't it piss you off if Bush killed a member of your family? I guess Bush lost 2 votes - the soldier who would have voted for him - the the widow left behind. Here's her story.
CENTER POINT, Texas (Reuters) - At a ceremony on Tuesday marking the one-year anniversary of the Iraqi attack on Pvt. Jessica Lynch's Army unit, the widow of a soldier who died in the fight blasted President Bush (news - web sites) for "lying to America" to justify the Iraq (news - web sites) war.
In bitter comments beside the grave of Army Specialist James Kiehl, widow Jill Kiehl accused Bush of fabricating reasons to launch the invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"The evidence that's starting to come out now feels like he (Bush) was misleading us," Kiehl said, holding the couple's 10-month-old son Nathaniel, born seven weeks after his father died.
"It's almost as though he had things fixed so it would look like he needed to go to war," she said.
James Kiehl, a 22-year-old computer engineer, was one of 11 members of the 507th Maintenance Company killed when their convoy took a wrong turn at Nassiriya in southern Iraq on March 23, 2003 and were attacked by Iraqi fighters.
Seven others were captured, including Lynch, who was held for nine days before U.S. troops rescued her from a hospital.
Several members of the unit, not including Lynch, attended the ceremony in Center Point, 35 miles northwest of San Antonio.
Jill Kiehl described herself as "bitter" about Bush's decision to declare war on Iraq.
"It's upsetting that he (Bush) would have lied to America to get what he wanted," Kiehl said.
"In a way, it's like he used people. That's how I feel. I think the reasons for going over there were bogus and misleading."
Bush justified the invasion on grounds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Al Qaeda, the Islamic extremist group blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. So far, no such weapons have been found and little evidence of Al Qaeda connections has turned up.
Posted by marc at March 23, 2004 04:41 PM | TrackBackHey, its me again. Dont mean to be pest, and this is a bit offtopic, but I just read your Church of Reality website and came to a revealing conclusion that I had to share with you before I forgot: The idea that a fundamentalist who believes in the Apocolypse could use nuclear weapons to wipe out the Earth's population due to his beliefs about the Apocolypse, which would turn this planet to another lifeless speck of dust, made me think of Mars...think about it.
Posted by: Chris at March 23, 2004 11:02 PMFunny ... I seem to remember Clinton getting our troops into some kind of a mell of a hess in Bosnia, and the entire country wasn't up in arms calling for his head. Nice double standard we have going on here.
"Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened." And Clinton knew about the World Trade Center bombings before they happened. The CIA and NSA are presented with hundreds of pieces of evidence of potential terrorist activity every month. Can you honestly sit here and tell me with a straight face that some government operative had any real reason to act upon information regarding airplane terrorists more so than on data related to other threatened violence -- especially given that nothing as gravely serious as 9/11 had ever happened to our nation since the British burned the White House?
"There are no weapons of mass destruction." Care to explain how dozens of politicians, including Mr. Clinton, arrived at the opposite conclusion in the late 1990s and beyond? Clinton even indirectly defended Bush last year by telling Larry King that he knew there were WMDs while he was in office, and that he still believes that they exist and can be found! Expanding this train of thought, is it not possible that they were destroyed or, worse yet, hidden from us shortly before Shock and Awe? Two words: Yousef Ramsey. If you don't know why this man's name pertains to this discussion, you need to find out.
Bottom line: Bush did NOT lie to us because a lie implies knowledge of the truth. If he provided us with untrue information, that doesn't constitute a lie in and of itself. No one yet has presented a solid case arguing an unambiguous and wholly deliberate "disinformation" campaign on Bush's part. Besides, not even my most die-hard liberal friends can state with a straight face that Al Gore would have been a better man to combat terror than George W. Bush.
Now if Bush would quit letting illegal Mexicans off the hook, rein in federal spending *coughmedicarecough* and make some earnest strides towards removing the friggin' government from our lives entirely, we might just have a halfway decent President on our hands.
Posted by: Dave at March 25, 2004 08:23 PMDave, in light of recent events, tell me two things.
A) The PDB from August 6, 2001 did not say, "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States" and
B) That the same PDB had mention of al Queda cells that were already developed in the United States.
bush knew damned well that an attack was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it. The FBI and CIA had constantly told the retard that they believed al Queda operatives had infiltrated flight schools and were planning on using planes for weapons. Did bush raise security levels at airports? Only after the attacks, kinda hindsight I would say. Did bush add additional financing for more detailed investigations or any other type of covert operations? NO. What it comes down to is this, Retardicans can say what they want about Clinton and his foreign policy. But how quickly they forget that he did respond to the world trade bombing with military force that did not cost- almost in the thousands range- American lives.
Don't kid yourself, Bush had the intelligence all along, he was just to dumb to know what to do with it. Ironically, a quote from another retardican reagan, "Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided upon is being carried out." When your IQ is lower than what your BAC has been at in the past, do you think you should really delegate responsibilities?
Posted by: Michael at April 18, 2004 07:44 AMTypical DEMACOWARD thinking. Why don't you just let the U.N. come in and run things like they do in Bosnia? Somalia? Rhuanda? oops, those are all disasters, run by the appeasment minded, Neville Chamberlin wanna-bes like you. The only way to peace is through superior firepower, not a more "sensitive" war on terror. Go back to your lefty group of friends, get in a circle, and have one big group hug. Or hug a tree, like always. Maybe that would clear out those brains of yours, you cheese eating surrender monkey.
Posted by: steve at September 3, 2004 11:26 PM