I go to Church with the Joepeks, they are in my congregation, I knew Ryan, personally, I watched him grow up, and I know his mother and father and sister and Obama's, inability to even remember Sergeant Jopek's name during the debate with out reading the name off the bracelet, meant the bracelet was just a political prop, for political points. And I talked with Ryans Mother and that is not what she ask of Obama, she did not ask him to make sure that another mother wouldn't have to go through the same ordeal that she did. I was at Church Sunday, and the Jopeks were not happy about any of this, the News Media be Dammed, Obama be Dammed. Obama want to know if we are making good judgements, well he sure the hell isn't making good judgements by continuing to wear Ryan's Bracelet on the Campaign trail, and use his Name to further his political career. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAOFTAd9mPU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a63v0GF8Fs4&feature=related NewsBusters is reporting in their article Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media? that the family of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek whose name is on the bracelet Senator Obama wears does not want him speaking about their son in public. The father Brian Jopek stated in a radio interview that the family even asked Senator Obama to stop wearing his son's bracelet. Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail. Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.
Aren't you glad you support a party that has an administration in power, that prefers to cover up GI casualty numbers? How they don't use the deaths of soldiers for political purposes? You must feel so proud.
It is wrong for any politician to use the death of others for political point scoring. And especially after the family have told him to stop wearing the bracelet because they didn't want their son's death to become a political issue.. It's wrong. He should publically apologise to them. The war is a campaign issue. But singling out the casualties of said war and using them to score political points, especially after the family have asked him not to, is an insult to that deceased individual and to his family. That something so personal could become so public is appalling in my opinion. A grieving mother gives him a bracelet with her son's name on it.. He should have respected her and the son and not used it for political gain. Wearing it is one thing.. it still remains personal. But he shouldn't discuss it without having consulted the family first and he should have respected their wishes in keeping their son's name out of the political debacle that is the Presidential election race. Obama should act like a bigger person and publically apologise to the family and adhere to their wishes.
Aren't you proud that you support the party who played with his life and lost it, by holding up the supples and equipment necessary for his safety, for political one up's man ship. Wanting to force a withdrawal time table, before they would release the money for body armor, up armor HUMV's, and Cougar Patrol Vehicles. Obama voted to with hold those funds, and stretched out the funding, slowing the delivery of that equipment. That is what Tracy told Obama, to remember that when they screw with he Funding, they end up killing soldiers.
Yes, obviously the wishes of a single family that their son's memory stays out of politics, far outweighs the deaths of thousands of soldiers the Republican administration has used for their own selfish political purposes.
Hey hey.. settle petals. Calm down a bit. Lets try to discuss this like adults. I know this is something important to you Buffalo, especially since you know the family, but calm down. It is hard to not be emotional when you lose someone you have known for so long and especially in such horrible circumstances. It is easy to become emotional and angry about it. And it is easy to lash out at others as a result. Just try to calm down a bit. Vkothii, this could have been approached in a manner that was not so insensitive.
For that family, yes it does. He shouldn't have used it as a political point and he should have respected their wishes. There's no two ways about it. It's not as if they gave him the bracelet and said 'hope this helps you win'. It was a personal thing between the boy's mother and Obama and he should not have used it for political gain. No matter how this can be twisted to point out any hypocrisy on either side, he should have respected their wishes and not brought up their son in the political arena when they specifically asked him not to.
IIRC Obama specified that it was the mother who gave him the bracelet. I notice that we haven't actually heard from her, although she would be easy to find by the media folks involved. I'm not sure I'm willing to take an ex-husband's word on such matters. That said, It looked like a cheap - but effective - political ploy by Obama, and just because McCain started it and has made it such a standard part of his schtick that Obama prepared for it in advance, does not mean that Obama should lower himself to McCain's level. It counts more heavily against him, because he is presenting himself as having higher standards. He should apologize, and leave such ploys to McCain, where they fit in better with the general approach anyway. No Democrat in the Senate could possibly have done that, Buffalo. And I recall at the time that bad contracting and budgeting decisions were at fault, not lack of money - any idea who was behind that ?
Thank you Bells, but this is typical of liberals, Vkothii, has all the .................................. It still goes back to Clinton, his failure to do anything constructive in two terms to clean up Iraq and Saddam, and his leaving the Country in such a pearl when he left office, if he had taken care of Business instead of trolling for blow jobs, maybe this never would have happened. He also cut the readiness and safety of the military in his end of the cold war surplus, Clintons saving in military cuts, was why we didn't have the, Up Armor Kits, Armored Patrol Vehicles, or the Body Armor necessary.
So that's why GW was compelled to commit all those soldiers; why the administration had to hide the bodies coming back home. Well, I spose someone had to do it. Good thing there are people of George's calibre, prepared to risk American lives, and not for political point-scoring but some other thing.
It matches them both. They're politicians. It's what they do.. try and score political points, regardless of who it might hurt. It doesn't absolve either of their behaviour. Just because one does it does not mean it is suddenly right for the other to do the same. I find it shameful, to be honest. The wishes of the family should be respected and in this case, it was not. He should apologise to them and adhere by their wishes. As a "liberal" myself, if something bad happened to either of my children and a politician used it to score a political point, I'd rip his/her eyes out with my bare hands and suffer the consequences of my actions. But that's just me.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why? I am thinking like a parent who would find it offensive for anyone to use something bad happening to my child as a tool to further their own career, political or otherwise. It could spur me to acts of violence.
I'm not sure of the actual wishes of the person who gave Obama the bracelet. She hasn't been quoted, in context. But I do agree that regardless of what the mother said when she gave Obama the bracelet, Obama should not lower himself to McCain's level in this fashion. Especially because he has made a point of not doing that in other aspects. As we see, it is a much bigger deal when someone like Obama does it, than when someone like McCain does it.
UNSR 687, 1991, Clinton came into office, and did squat to bring Iraq into compliance. He also failed to take Osmam Bin Laden, and his al Queda organization as a serious threat, and tried to deal with the threat as a Legal Matter, which cut off intelligence and information being shared because of the laws of this Nation, Obama and His Cohorts were given Constitutional Protections about the sharing of materials gathered in Grand Juries, and Police Investigations, thanks to Clintons Jamie Gorelick, now famous wall of Separation.
No. The capacity for violence when it comes to someone harming my children is quite terrifying. Any notion of calm and dignity goes out the window and I know I would not have the self control to not do something that violent. I look at them and I know, without a moment of doubt, that I would die to protect them and I would harm anyone who harms them or attempts to benefit from their being harmed in any way. Hard to explain really. I never understood it myself until I had them.:shrug: Probably makes me insane and you know what? I don't really care what people think of it.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes they could, and they did, the Senate has to be part and parcel of any approval of money being spent, and if they don't approve the spending in a timely manner, things come to a halt as far a equipment and munitions and armor for the troops, been there and saw that, first hand, and it left a mark. Yes Clinton and the reduction in the military size and readiness, all because he wanted a Peace dividend, and more money to spend on social welfare spending. Jack Spencer is Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade. Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel. In spite of these drastic force reductions, military missions and operations tempo increased. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness. FACT #2. Military deployments have increased dramatically throughout the 1990s. The pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. Between 1960 and 1991, the Army conducted 10 operations outside of normal training and alliance commitments, but between 1992 and 1998, the Army conducted 26 such operations. Similarly, the Marines conducted 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, and 62 since 1989. During the 1990s, U.S. forces of 20,000 or more troops were engaged in non-warfighting missions in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1996), and Iraq and Kuwait (1998). This dramatic increase in the use of America's armed forces has had a detrimental effect on overall combat readiness. Both people and equipment wear out faster with frequent use. Frequent deployments also take funding away from ongoing expenses such as training, fuel, and supplies. Moreover, the stress of frequent and often unexpected deployments can be detrimental to troop morale and jeopardize the armed forces' ability to retain high-quality people. FACT #3. America's military is aging rapidly. Most of the equipment that the U.S. military uses today, such as Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, surface ships, submarines, bombers, and tactical aircraft, are aging much faster than they are being replaced. Due to a shortsighted modernization strategy, some systems are not even being replaced. Lack of funding coupled with increased tempo and reduced forces strains the U.S. military's ability to defend vital national interests. As weapons age, they become less reliable and more expensive to maintain. The services have attempted to provide for their higher maintenance costs by reallocating funds, but they often take the funds from procurement accounts, effectively removing the money from modernization programs. Shortages of parts and aging equipment are already affecting readiness, and the effects are expected to worsen. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon recently reported that spare parts are so scarce that the Air Force is made to "cannibalize" perfectly good aircraft for spare parts. FACT #4. Morale is on the decline in the U.S. armed forces. According to an August 1999 U.S. General Accounting Office review, more than half of the officers and enlisted personnel surveyed "were dissatisfied and intended to leave the military after their current obligation or term of enlistment was up." Because U.S. servicemen are the military's greatest asset, a ready U.S. military requires bright, well-trained, and highly motivated active and reserve personnel. Unfortunately, due largely to low morale, the services are finding it difficult to recruit and retain servicemen. Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form. To deny that the United States military has readiness problems is to deny the men and women in uniform the respect they deserve. America's military prowess can be restored, but policymakers must first admit there is a problem. Only then can the President and Congress work together to reestablish America's top readiness capabilities.
i have heard that a few times but you are right. i dont even know where any of my relative are and dont remember my parents. By the time i was four they had passed away.
