| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mark K. Bilbo" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2003 10:36:47 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Still more support for those troops! |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-5.html
Q Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were
tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge
has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What
is the administration's position on that? Is it the view of this White
House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than
going to these former POWs?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I view it in those terms, David. I think
that the United States -- first of all, the United States condemns in the
strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were
subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made
sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of
money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the
suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal
regime. That's what our view is.
Q But, so -- but isn't it true that this White House --
Q They think they're is an --
Q Excuse me, Helen -- that this White House is standing in the way of them
getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that
money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's simply no amount of money that can truly
compensate these brave men and women for the suffering --
Q Why won't you spell out what your position is?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me
finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly
compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went
through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam
Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the
administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they
were resources required for the urgent national security needs of
rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that
could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.
Q Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them
get some of that money?
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.
Q But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen
assets of the former regime, then why isn't that money, per a judge's
order, available to these victims?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out that that was an issue that was
addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in
the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went
through --
Q -- you don't think they should get money?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no
amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who
heroically served --
Q That's not the issue --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.
Q Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?
MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed
earlier this year.
Q No, but it hasn't been addressed. They're entitled to the money under
the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to
access some of that money, and why?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't view it that way at all. I view it the way that I
stated it, that this issue was --
Q But you are opposed to them getting the money.
MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe
that there's simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these
brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that
they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein --
Q So no money.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's my answer.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
11 Nov 2003 02:45:14 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
<Sigh> And we all what "rebuilding Iraq" really means: funnelling money
to Haliburton and other corporate cronies of the Bush administration.
"All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems, in every age of
the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -
Adam Smith
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
11 Nov 2003 04:41:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:36:47 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> in news message
<pan.2003.11.11.04.36.43.274713@eac.org> wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-5.html
Q Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were
tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge
has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What
is the administration's position on that? Is it the view of this White
House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than
going to these former POWs?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I view it in those terms, David. I think
that the United States -- first of all, the United States condemns in the
strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were
subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made
sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of
money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the
suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal
regime. That's what our view is.
Q But, so -- but isn't it true that this White House --
Q They think they're is an --
Q Excuse me, Helen -- that this White House is standing in the way of them
getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that
money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's simply no amount of money that can truly
compensate these brave men and women for the suffering --
Q Why won't you spell out what your position is?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me
finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly
compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went
through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam
Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the
administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they
were resources required for the urgent national security needs of
rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that
could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.
Q Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them
get some of that money?
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.
Q But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen
assets of the former regime, then why isn't that money, per a judge's
order, available to these victims?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out that that was an issue that was
addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in
the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went
through --
Q -- you don't think they should get money?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no
amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who
heroically served --
Q That's not the issue --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.
Q Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?
MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed
earlier this year.
Q No, but it hasn't been addressed. They're entitled to the money under
the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to
access some of that money, and why?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't view it that way at all. I view it the way that I
stated it, that this issue was --
Q But you are opposed to them getting the money.
MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe
that there's simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these
brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that
they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein --
Q So no money.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's my answer.
Wow. He said several times that there is "no amount of money" and
that is exactly what he meant. It seems that unless the veteran has
propaganda value ala Jessica Lynch, the common soldier is totally
forgotten by this administration.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
11 Nov 2003 09:09:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:41:52 +0000, Liz wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:36:47 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> in news message
<pan.2003.11.11.04.36.43.274713@eac.org> wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-5.html
Q Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were
tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge
has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What
is the administration's position on that? Is it the view of this White
House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than
going to these former POWs?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I view it in those terms, David. I think
that the United States -- first of all, the United States condemns in the
strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were
subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made
sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of
money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the
suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal
regime. That's what our view is.
Q But, so -- but isn't it true that this White House --
Q They think they're is an --
Q Excuse me, Helen -- that this White House is standing in the way of them
getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that
money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's simply no amount of money that can truly
compensate these brave men and women for the suffering --
Q Why won't you spell out what your position is?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me
finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly
compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went
through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam
Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the
administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they
were resources required for the urgent national security needs of
rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that
could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.
Q Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them
get some of that money?
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.
Q But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen
assets of the former regime, then why isn't that money, per a judge's
order, available to these victims?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out that that was an issue that was
addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in
the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went
through --
Q -- you don't think they should get money?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no
amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who
heroically served --
Q That's not the issue --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.
Q Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?
MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed
earlier this year.
Q No, but it hasn't been addressed. They're entitled to the money under
the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to
access some of that money, and why?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't view it that way at all. I view it the way that I
stated it, that this issue was --
Q But you are opposed to them getting the money.
MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe
that there's simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these
brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that
they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein --
Q So no money.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's my answer.
Wow. He said several times that there is "no amount of money" and
that is exactly what he meant. It seems that unless the veteran has
propaganda value ala Jessica Lynch, the common soldier is totally
forgotten by this administration.
Ayup.
"No amount of money." Over and over.
I see it's a *compliment that they stiff the troops...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
11 Nov 2003 09:37:13 AM |
|
|
"No amount of money." Over and over.
I see it's a *compliment that they stiff the troops...
And then give all the money to Halliburton. Cheney can better use the money
than the GIs who were tortured.
This is a topic (the continual shafting of US servicemen and veterans by this
administration) that really needs to be attacked hard in the campaign. Sounds
like a job for Wesley Clark.
If this is what the GOP calls "supporting the troops" then they have supported
them worse than any administration in our history.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fear gan dia" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
18 Nov 2003 03:25:07 PM |
|
|
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
in <20031111103713.28583.00000014@mb-m11.aol.com>:
# >"No amount of money." Over and over.
# >
# >I see it's a *compliment that they stiff the troops...
# >
#
# And then give all the money to Halliburton. Cheney can better use the money
# than the GIs who were tortured.
#
# This is a topic (the continual shafting of US servicemen and veterans by this
# administration) that really needs to be attacked hard in the campaign. Sounds
# like a job for Wesley Clark.
#
# If this is what the GOP calls "supporting the troops" then they have supported
# them worse than any administration in our history.
And yet the GOP will be able to rile up the military with
foaming-at-athe-mouth hatred of Bill and Hilary, and get
every last grunt of them to vote for Junior.
--
Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com # U5 and proud of it!
WORK HARDER - millionaires on corporate welfare depend on you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Firelock" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
18 Nov 2003 05:01:08 PM |
|
|
forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20031111103713.28583.00000014@mb-m11.aol.com>...
If this is what the GOP calls "supporting the troops" then they have supported
them worse than any administration in our history.
Have any US administrations supported US POW's in their
efforts to get monetary damages from their ex-captors? I can't
recall this ever being an issue with Japan, N. Korea, Germany
or Vietnam.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
13 Nov 2003 11:32:24 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:41:52 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com>, Message
ID: <5me1rv4p4fbm3hjtgo3piee1c0439u6vdd@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:36:47 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> in news message
<pan.2003.11.11.04.36.43.274713@eac.org> wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-5.html
Q Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were
tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge
has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What
is the administration's position on that? Is it the view of this White
House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than
going to these former POWs?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I view it in those terms, David. I think
that the United States -- first of all, the United States condemns in the
strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were
subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made
sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of
money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the
suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal
regime. That's what our view is.
Q But, so -- but isn't it true that this White House --
Q They think they're is an --
Q Excuse me, Helen -- that this White House is standing in the way of them
getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that
money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's simply no amount of money that can truly
compensate these brave men and women for the suffering --
Q Why won't you spell out what your position is?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me
finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly
compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went
through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam
Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the
administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they
were resources required for the urgent national security needs of
rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that
could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.
Q Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them
get some of that money?
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.
Q But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen
assets of the former regime, then why isn't that money, per a judge's
order, available to these victims?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out that that was an issue that was
addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in
the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went
through --
Q -- you don't think they should get money?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no
amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who
heroically served --
Q That's not the issue --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.
Q Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?
MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed
earlier this year.
Q No, but it hasn't been addressed. They're entitled to the money under
the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to
access some of that money, and why?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't view it that way at all. I view it the way that I
stated it, that this issue was --
Q But you are opposed to them getting the money.
MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe
that there's simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these
brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that
they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein --
Q So no money.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's my answer.
Wow. He said several times that there is "no amount of money" and
that is exactly what he meant. It seems that unless the veteran has
propaganda value ala Jessica Lynch, the common soldier is totally
forgotten by this administration.
That's been apparent for at least a year.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
15 Nov 2003 06:31:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:32:24 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:41:52 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com>, Message
ID: <5me1rv4p4fbm3hjtgo3piee1c0439u6vdd@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Wow. He said several times that there is "no amount of money" and
that is exactly what he meant. It seems that unless the veteran has
propaganda value ala Jessica Lynch, the common soldier is totally
forgotten by this administration.
That's been apparent for at least a year.
No, you're both reading it wrong.
There's no reason that money that can go to Halliburton, et al, should
go to some lousy grunt, who never did anything to deserve a penny.
After all, they're not of the class that deserves money, they're of
the class that deserves to be used by the class that deserves to get
money TO get money. They're cannon fodder.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
18 Nov 2003 09:56:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:31:59 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>,
Message ID: <r7hdrvocst4qdef91459fsfc1vdl7asg3v@Pern.rk> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:32:24 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:41:52 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com>, Message
ID: <5me1rv4p4fbm3hjtgo3piee1c0439u6vdd@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Wow. He said several times that there is "no amount of money" and
that is exactly what he meant. It seems that unless the veteran has
propaganda value ala Jessica Lynch, the common soldier is totally
forgotten by this administration.
That's been apparent for at least a year.
No, you're both reading it wrong.
There's no reason that money that can go to Halliburton, et al, should
go to some lousy grunt, who never did anything to deserve a penny.
After all, they're not of the class that deserves money, they're of
the class that deserves to be used by the class that deserves to get
money TO get money. They're cannon fodder.
That too.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "santa" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
18 Nov 2003 03:07:53 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:94gkrv03l3gtjilvpkqarmcqlrv8eg587q@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:31:59 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>,
Message ID: <r7hdrvocst4qdef91459fsfc1vdl7asg3v@Pern.rk> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:32:24 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:41:52 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com>, Message
ID: <5me1rv4p4fbm3hjtgo3piee1c0439u6vdd@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Wow. He said several times that there is "no amount of money" and
that is exactly what he meant. It seems that unless the veteran has
propaganda value ala Jessica Lynch, the common soldier is totally
forgotten by this administration.
That's been apparent for at least a year.
No, you're both reading it wrong.
There's no reason that money that can go to Halliburton, et al, should
go to some lousy grunt, who never did anything to deserve a penny.
After all, they're not of the class that deserves money, they're of
the class that deserves to be used by the class that deserves to get
money TO get money. They're cannon fodder.
That too.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
I'll bet the body crate makers go for grunts. How many of the casualties
are officers? Also the artificial limb makers are up-in-arms or would it
be legs and ... supporting the un-war in Iraq.
claus
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Still more support for those troops! |
20 Nov 2003 02:08:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:07:53 -0500, "santa" <Satin@sheets.com>, Message
ID: <LSvub.11$ld3.161@newscontent-01.sprint.ca> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:94gkrv03l3gtjilvpkqarmcqlrv8eg587q@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:31:59 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>,
Message ID: <r7hdrvocst4qdef91459fsfc1vdl7asg3v@Pern.rk> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:32:24 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:41:52 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com>, Message
ID: <5me1rv4p4fbm3hjtgo3piee1c0439u6vdd@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Wow. He said several times that there is "no amount of money" and
that is exactly what he meant. It seems that unless the veteran has
propaganda value ala Jessica Lynch, the common soldier is totally
forgotten by this administration.
That's been apparent for at least a year.
No, you're both reading it wrong.
There's no reason that money that can go to Halliburton, et al, should
go to some lousy grunt, who never did anything to deserve a penny.
After all, they're not of the class that deserves money, they're of
the class that deserves to be used by the class that deserves to get
money TO get money. They're cannon fodder.
That too.
I'll bet the body crate makers go for grunts. How many of the casualties
are officers? Also the artificial limb makers are up-in-arms or would it
be legs and ... supporting the un-war in Iraq.
Don't forget the Un-war College.....
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
