Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, July 19, 2008

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supported US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq. "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," Maliki said. "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

YAV

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."

Obama planted the idea on Maliki's mind and emboldened him.... now they are on the same page.... sleeping with the enemy, huh?

The timing of this statement couldn't be better for Obama, considering his overseas trip. Evidently Maliki doesn't like the idea of a 100-year peacetime presence for U.S. troops in his country.

"sleeping with the enemy, huh?"

Maliki's the enemy?
Better break the news to Chimpy.
Leave your comment at 202-456-1111.
But he'll probably want you to bypass the "Comment" line.
So hit 202-456-1414.
What am I saying?
You've probably got a direct line, right?

And I bet Al Qaida endorses that time table too...

"And I bet Al Qaida endorses that time table too...

Posted by boaz

You mean the Al Qaeda in Iraq that wasn't in Iraq before the U.S. invaded Iraq, or the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan where Obama is committed to sending 10,000 more troops to get the bastards that blew up the Twin Towers and Pentagon?

Some of the posts here are interesting. They emphasize what is already known, that George Bush now sees the elected Shia government of Iraq as the real enemy.

Makes you wonder why he spent five years fighting our good buddies the Sunni, doesn't it?

So, if we leave Iraq because the government we recognized and support finanically asks us to, we lose the war?

Thanks, George. A Hollywood screenwriter wouldn't have done better.

This reminds me of what a former neo-con stated. He said he always waited for the hidden, ingenious twist to every stupid thing Bush did. After a few years, he said he realized he could stop waiting.

You mean the Al Qaeda in Iraq that wasn't in Iraq before the U.S. invaded Iraq

We are at war with them, they are going to go wherever they think they can win or hurt us.

"Jo, my balls are in your moms mouth.

Posted by retnluvnit "

Necrophiliac. Figures.

Necrophiliac. Figures.

Posted by Jomama

FF+ (but sorry about your mom)

Shrub has lost two wars, tanked our economy and lost any shred of human decency. Another important consequence of his hair brained schemes is to send gas prices through the fucking roof. Simply saying he would finally talk to Iran instead of threatening to blow them off the face of the earth dropped prices immediately 7%.

Bush talking to Iran and North Korea is Bush admitting he has said and done the wrong things for 7 years. Bush invading Iraq and stealing their oil is a high crime. Bush torture is a war crime. Bush is an idiot imposed on the American people by 5 members of SCOTUS. What kind of crooked partisan idealogues run that fucking Court?

Now Bush is trying to take the wind out of Obama's sails. Obama has troubling ties to Wall Street, which permits the ruling elites to continue their scams. But McCain loves Gramm and reek far more havoc on our faltering economy. Once a Maverick, maybe, but his ties to S&L fraud suggest he is for sale to the highest bidder.

Nutcase,

Go get your meds....

Picturing Shrub pitching a temper tantrum - laying on the floor of the Oval Office, kicking and screaming at the top of his lungs.

We are at war with them, they are going to go wherever they think they can win or hurt us.

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 12:40 PM | Reply

How do we know where they are? How do we know who they are? Who can surrender to us? How do we know who to shoot? Who is their leader? How many are there?

Maybe they are here in America--maybe we should start attacking Kansas City.

You are a dUmMy. There is no war. No army in the field to fight. No nation stands against us. No leader opposes us. No one can surrender to us to end the war.

You should STFU until you know what war is.

"Go get your meds....

Posted by boaz "

What a witty and original retort.

Go get your meds....

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 12:54

I wonder what kind of meds the military puts in Boaz's food.

You should STFU until you know what war is.

OH, and you do? I have been in wars on two continents. I do know what war is, but most of you liberal assholes on this site dont really know what war is. Once it comes to your door step, you will look for someone like me to save you. I only pray that person is there.

Boaz

I was in Nam numbnuts. There was an army called the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). There was a country that opposed us. There was a leader who could have surrendered to us. They had tanks and aircraft against us. That's a war.

Now tell us about how Iraq is a war. What nation opposes us? What army stands against us? Who can surrender to us? Who is their leader? How do we know who to shoot.

Enlighten us liberal assholes Brainiac.

;-)

Sounds like Mcsame is ending up an isolated, delusional war monger.

In other words, Bush's third term.

Except now even Bush is agreeing to the Obama Plan.

BOAZ says "Once it comes to your door step, you will look for someone like me to save you"

wow, BOAZ is Jack Nicholson!
wasn't Jack Nicholson the Joker?

"You will look to someone like me to save you...."

Well, that's a conceit.

Tell me, in your opinion, was George Bush one of those we should have "looked to" to protect us, because poor widdle us have no clue about life?

If you think so, then why, exactly?

Let me guess, Maliki is UNAMERICAN! I am going to enjoy the pathetic and shameless RIGHT WING SPIN ON THIS.

"I do know what war is...."

This is interesting. More correctly, you know what the wars you've been to are like.

Now, trench warfare, ala WWI? Know what that's like? Oh, the days when war was war. The youngsters just don't get it.

For the last five years, what used to be conservatism has sustained war on two fronts by simply ignoring vital, simple questions.

The one I'm curious about today---Is al-Maliki more our enemy now than the Sunnis are?

Anyone?

Mow Maliki starts agreeing with Obama right after Georgie Porgie decides not to bomb Iran because the gas prices are out of control and poor little old John McBush, he did everything Dumbya told him to, he carried water for Bush about Iraq, he even said he'd make the tax cuts permanent and what happens....they go and end his favorite occupation????
It's not fair!!!
John sold his soul and now this is the thanks he gets???
Lesson learned, never trust a Bush. They will screw you every time John cuz I think deep down they are just mean and you are so gullible.

Phrased a different way, if McCain is president and Iraq insists we go away, does he depose that government?

"sleeping with the enemy" is only possible if election that the US enabled led to the election of al-Queda aligned Shites, basically an oxymoron in itself. If that is the case, American policy in Iraq was a failure upon inception.

I think El Jefe wakened one day and realized he was handing Iraq to Iran.

That's why a certain school of thought wants that long-term US presence in Iraq. That school has never seen the new Iraq as a sovereign state.

Very, very weirdly-given over 4,000 American dead- Bush decided he was killing off his natural allies in Iraq, the Sunni Militia.

It's sort of what both Patton and Rommel wished for---Stop fighting each other and turn the guns on the Russians.

It's sort of what both Patton and Rommel wished for---Stop fighting each other and turn the guns on the Russians.

Posted by Zed

Clearly, Rommel was a committed anti-semite, but Patton too? This I did not know. Thanks

For anyone wishing to call Maliki a "Defeatocrat", "Surrendercrat", "Traitor" or any of the other names attached to those who've suggested a timetable for withdrawal (or "Time Horizon" LOL!!) you can write him at:

NouriAlMaliki@Iraq.com

And I bet Al Qaida endorses that time table too...

Posted by boaz

...and we should always base our decisions on what Al Qaeda thinks.

From Husseins website:

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.

Doesn't sound like an end to the war to me! Doesn't sound like a 16 month timetable to remove all our troops!

and we should always base our decisions on what Al Qaeda thinks.

Well, you certainly dont base it on what people on the ground are telling you...

I was in Nam

If so, Buffalo, then you know the type of war we are fighting and wouldnt be asking stupid ass questions. You know this is an unconventional war, unless you were in garrison most of the time like your hero kerry. Dont insult my intelligence and I wont insult yours...

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq

Sounds like enough of a force for us to get our asses kicked! Who is going to back us up? Obviously, thought up by someone who hasnt been there and doesnt understand events on the ground.

Boaz

Can you read? There is a vast amount of difference between Viet Nam and Iraq. Let's try again.

There was an army called the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). There was a country that opposed us. There was a leader who could have surrendered to us. They had tanks and aircraft against us. That's a war.


Now tell us about how Iraq is a war. What nation opposes us? What army stands against us? Who can surrender to us? Who is their leader? How do we know who to shoot.


Enlighten us liberal assholes Brainiac.


;-)

of course they agree - they speak the same language.

When Bushes approach 2 years ago wasn't working he had a choice, pull out or send in reinforcements. He chose the later and it was the correct decision. Pulling out would have been a disaster at the time. But what was a bad idea 2 years ago with changing circumstances can become a good idea now. Getting our troops out now over the next 2 years shouldn't have a negative impact on Iraq. The Iraq military should improve enough over the next 2 years to maintain order. I don't see this as an issue anymore thanks to the "surge".

Right BBob. Iraq has no Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force.
Who would be the ones fighting against us in Iraq who could even raise a white flag to surrender and have all the fighting against us in Iraq come to a halt? No one.

We are fighting tribes, clans, street gangs and every other motley crew in Iraq
and none of them are an organized fighting unit.

Laj

If Iraqis want to kill each other, I say that is their problem. I don't want to sacrifice one American for Iraq. How about you. Would you give up your life for what has been accomplished so far?

Buffalo_Bob,

What I know is this, I wouldn't have given up 1 American life to prevent Afghans from killing each other on 9/10/2008 but on 9/12/2008 I changed my mind. Allowing the nuts a safe place to operate will kill Americans in the long run. So the answer is yes if I think it is in my nations best interest.

Opps, wrong dates - 9/10/2001 but on 9/12/2001.

Who would be the ones fighting against us

Alright you liberal bitches, here it is...

This is all a part of the broader war on terror, I dont have to tell you that, buffalo. Your two brain cells understand that. I said, this is an unconventional war. Really, the Iraq war was more conventional, as we did invade and someone did raise the white flag much to you american-hating liberals. Now we are just holding in place until that country can defend itself against the idiots in the radical islamic movement.

If you assholes are too stupid to understand what an unconventional war is, you deserve to have radical islam come here and fuck you in the ass...

idiots..

I don't want to sacrifice one American for Iraq.

Answer this then, Buffalo..

What would have happened if the french had said that during the revolutionary war?

of course they agree - they speak the same language.

Posted by nanc

What the hell are you talking about? Do you think Maliki is the enemy?
You know who speaks your language, Nanc?
Why don't you run down a list of your favorite conservative issues and ask yourself where your ultra-conservative brethren in Al Qaeda stand on those issues? I think you'll find that you have a lot in common.

Boaz, this is not a war. Never has been. It is an "unconventional" police action aimed at suppressing terrorism. That is why enemies captured are treated as criminals as opposed to POWs. But GWB, with the support of a bunch right wing idiots messed everything up by unilaterally invading a very marginally involved country.

If you assholes are too stupid to understand what an unconventional war is, you deserve to have radical islam come here and fuck you in the ass...

idiots..

Posted by boaz

Pat Robertson's already here.

Pat Robertson's already here.

Touche...FF

Obama won't be defeated by the racist republicans

Laj

The question was:

Would you give up your life for what has been accomplished so far?

Try answering the questions asked, not questions you make up for yourself.


As to 911, Bin Laden would be found not guilty by an impartial jury. His "confession" is worthless, and there is nothing tying him to the attacks that couldn't be handled by a first year law student.

There is more evidence against Bush. Bush didn't want any investigation into 911. Bush wouldn't testify under oath to the 911 commission, and wouldn't testify at all unless Cheney was present. What's up with that? Bush sat on his ass for ten minutes while the country was under attack when he should have been moved to a safer, unknown location. He was endangering the children by remaining there, and himself if the attackers wanted to kill him. He didn't move--he knew he was in no danger. Where's the pics of the plane that hit the Pentagon? Where's the wreckage of the plane that hit the field in PA? Bush looks more guilty than bin Laden. Bin Laden may have planned it, and the attackers may have been his men--but Bush knew of the attack, and helped it along so it would happen. When Andy Card told Bush America was under attack--he wasn't giving Bush any news--he was giving him an update. Card never waited for a response from Bush--he knew none would be coming. Bush said he saw the first plane hit the WTC before he went into that classroom, and he said it twice. That was probably the only true thing Bush has said to America in 8 years.

It is an "unconventional" police action aimed at suppressing terrorism.

An accurate description to what is happening after the invasion of iraq.

That is why enemies captured are treated as criminals as opposed to POWs.

But I dont agree they get american rights as if they are on american soil.

BOAZ-
You beg the question. What, if any, rights are they guaranteed, and by what authority?

But I dont agree they get american rights as if they are on american soil.

Posted by boaz

Because giving people American rights is a bad thing.

Boazo you have a bloated sense of self importance. Much like the commander in chief. Your ideals cause more harm than good. What is worse... you do it voluntarily... not because you were part of a conscripted military service. Optional soldiers fighting and optional war. Surges offer temporary successes as they did in Nam.

Interestingly there was once the argument that the reason Vietnam was not successful was that the soldiers were drafted. Now... here we are all these years later... with an all volunteer military and the results are the same... worse even... because there are more terrorists.

You are too stupid to to understand that since the nuke the face of war is very different. Get over yourself.

I sometimes wonder how effective our country could be if it was united in our war efforts.

We will never be united, OOHRAH, there will always be two points of view. If we were united, who's view would we choose, as the two views cannot exist together? If liberalism rules, then radical islam spreads through the guise of multiculturalism and appeasement. If conservatism wins, the forces are kept at bay.

The lens of history will ultimately determine the wisdom of our efforts to fight terrorism.

It depends who writes history. And if we fail, islam will write it...What do you think they will say?

What would have happened if the french had said that during the revolutionary war?

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 03:26 PM | Reply

WTF are you talking about? Americans weren't killing Americans, and there was a fucking war going on. The French joined in because they had a vision of the future with America as allies against their English arch enemies. The French had something to gain by being our ally.

Now--how many times are you going to dodge the question? Come on Brainiac.

There was an army called the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). There was a country that opposed us. There was a leader who could have surrendered to us. They had tanks and aircraft against us. That's a war.


Now tell us about how Iraq is a war. What nation opposes us? What army stands against us? Who can surrender to us? Who is their leader? How do we know who to shoot.

Enlighten us liberal assholes Brainiac.

;-)

Here is a clue--a war with no opposing country--a war with no opposing army--a war with no opposing leader--a war where no one can surrender to us--IS NOT A WAR

There will always be terrorism and terrorists. There is no way to win a war on terrorism any more than you can win a war on crime, or a war on poverty. We are wasting time. money, and precious lives for absolutely nothing. This isn't an uncoventional war any more than the Symbionese Liberation Army was an army.

You beg the question. What, if any, rights are they guaranteed, and by what authority?

Being an american has to mean something. They are given basic rights. But nothing to make it easy to supplant justice..

Because giving people American rights is a bad thing.

I tend to believe americans are special and should be treated as such.

We will never be united, OOHRAH, there will always be two points of view. If we were united, who's view would we choose, as the two views cannot exist together? If liberalism rules, then radical islam spreads through the guise of multiculturalism and appeasement. If conservatism wins, the forces are kept at bay.

Posted by boaz

Uhhhhh, "liberalism" has been fighting to keep religion and political power separate for hundreds of years. Please, stay off the bandwagon.

BOAZ-
re: "They are given basic rights."

Which ones, and by what authority?

"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."

Posted by YAV at 2008-07-19 11:53 AM | Reply |


Sorry to point out the obvious, but you guys lost on the first day of the invasion. Everything else is partisan posturing.


It depends who writes history. And if we fail, islam will write it...What do you think they will say?

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 03:41 PM | Reply |


Probably something as one sided and biased as what is presently being broadcast in the u.s.

I answered your question, buffalo...

This is a difference of ideals..just because you dont think this war on terror is a war, doesnt mean it isnt. IT IS. Choosing to put your head in the sand and hoping the ragheads stay on their side of the planet will NOT do.

Excellent. Boaz believes that giving people American rights will make it easier for them to supplant justice.
Why do you hate America?

Which ones, and by what authority?

Look to your beloved U.N..I am sure they can come up with some giveaways...

liberalism" has been fighting to keep religion and political power separate for hundreds of years.

I wasnt talking about keeping political powers separate, I was talking about the broader influence of an evil religion...

BOAZ-
You said they were given "basic rights", or was that just gas?

What are the "basic rights"?

I see Boass is still as dumb as a sack of hair. Good to see some things don't change.

Sorry to point out the obvious, but you guys lost on the first day of the invasion.

Posted by panchovilla

Wait a minute. I thought we liberated them?

Probably something as one sided and biased as what is presently being broadcast in the u.s.

I dont think so. Our brand of history would probably be more accurate than theirs and deep in your heart, you know it would.

In America we have been fighting crime our entire history. We spend tens of billions of dollars on the effort every year. And yet crime continues and has gotten more violent and destructive with the passage of time. What makes anyone believe that our police action to stop terrorist crime will result in the eradication of terrorism?

Good to see some things don't change.

Hello, briwo,

I see you are still man hating as usual :)

Conservatism doesnt change with the wind, unlike liberalism...

I wasnt talking about keeping political powers separate, I was talking about the broader influence of an evil religion...

Posted by boaz

I wasn't either. I was talking about keeping religion out of political power. A notion that you conservatives detest unless it's someone else's twisted fairy tale.

Conservatism doesnt change with the wind, unlike liberalism...

Posted by boaz

Yeah, sure.

Why does Malaki hate Iraq so much?

Excuse me, but seeing conservative and "wind" in the same senence is amusingly ironic considering that when ever a conservative opens his mouth, it's hard to distinguish from breaking wind.

And yet crime continues and has gotten more violent and destructive with the passage of time.

This is not true. Violent crime has been falling steadily in America for the last 10 years or so.

A notion that you conservatives detest unless it's someone else's twisted fairy tale.

To that, I would agree.

Would you then agree, that islam and christianity, or for that matter, any religion cant exist in any country? Islam would certainly want to take over....

true story goatdude.

Would you then agree, that islam and christianity, or for that matter, any religion cant exist in any country? Islam would certainly want to take over....

Posted by boaz

Of course it can exist, but it shouldn't rule. Christians have been trying to push their religion into government for years. Liberals would fight against islamic law just like they've been fighting christian law.

true story goatdude.

What is?

Liberals would fight against islamic law just like they've been fighting christian law.

Ahhh,

But there is a difference. Islam would have to be fought violently, as opposed to the christian law here in the U.S. where rights are guaranteed..agree?


"I answered your question, buffalo..."

You Lie These are the questions.

Now tell us about how Iraq is a war. What nation opposes us? What army stands against us? Who can surrender to us? Who is their leader? How do we know who to shoot.



"This is a difference of ideals..just because you dont think this war on terror is a war, doesnt mean it isnt. IT IS."

Now tell us about how Iraq is a war. What nation opposes us? What army stands against us? Who can surrender to us? Who is their leader? How do we know who to shoot.


"Choosing to put your head in the sand and hoping the ragheads stay on their side of the planet will NOT do."

Are we at war with ragheads? What nation of ragheads opposes us? What army of ragheads stands against us? Which raghead can surrender to us? Who is their raghead leader? How do we know which raghead to shoot?

If Al Qaeda ruled the United States, how would things change?

Capital Punishment? Yes
Abortion? No
Gun control? No
Ten Commandments in
the court room? Yes
Gay rights? No
Equal rights for
women? No

...sounds like a conservative's dream.

da bOoB thinks a war can exist only between two nations. His primitive nexus of neurons cannot conceive of anything else, so we will just have to watch his continuation of spamming his own stuff ad nauseum.

But there is a difference. Islam would have to be fought violently, as opposed to the christian law here in the U.S. where rights are guaranteed..agree?

Posted by boaz

Tell that to Barnett Slepian's family.

Goatman

Then let's hear your definition of a war where the United States Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines are involved that doesn't involve other countries--leaders--people who can surrender their army to us--or armies.

Oh yeah--you never have answers--just deflections.

;-)

Sorry, bOoB -- we all see you moving the goal posts. I'm not playing Calvin ball with you today.

BOAZ-
I really wanna know what the "basic rights" are that you mentioned. What are they, and where did they come from?

"da bOoB thinks a war can exist only between two nations."

I guess he hasn't heard of those other wars....

War on DRugs

WAr on Poverty

War on Terror...tell me how you conduct a war against "terror"????

I guess Bush and the boys didn't think War on Islamic Jihadists sounded good.

What nation opposes us?

War doesnt always constitue one nation against another. We are in a war of ideals.

And I have already answered your question. Just not to your liberal satisfaction.

"We are in a war of ideals."

What are our ideals of what the "basic rights" are?

Funny thing about those three wars I just mentioned, they go on forever because there is no identifiable enemy, no leader who can surrender....just limits to freedom, billions in costs, bigger government (Whole new departments), etc. Some of us suspect that those wars are really just excuses....no intent to win, no intent to end them....just a nice long gravy train for those connected in the right ways.


Sorry, bOoB -- we all see you moving the goal posts. I'm not playing Calvin ball with you today.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-19 04:12 PM | Reply |


Moving the goal posts? I believe that is what you were trying to do with your moronic post. I was sticking to the point dUmmy.

What are they, and where did they come from?

Rights according to the geneva convention appropriate to the situation. They certainly wouldnt have access to our court system. I consider these people combatants. You do not. Which is where your questioning is coming from.

I sometimes wonder how effective our country could be if it was united in our war efforts.

Posted by OohRah

See "WW2"

In this case the Iraq War was akin to attacking Peru after Pearl Harbor.

I think everyone knows Afghanistan was the justifiable war we needed to fight and win with all our resources - whether or not they're willing to say it.

Instead, half measures have gotten us pitiful results.

"We are in a war of ideals."

OMG!!! Now it's the WAr of Ideals!!!!

R I D I C U L O U S !

BB: you've got it all wrong. Goatman is better than us. He doesn't see skin color in people. He doesn't see political affiliation or agenda. Rather, he is able to look deeply into the soul's of others and discern truth. He is able to grasp the most complex scientific ideas and, again, discern the truth. He is able to dissect military and political conflicts, and once again discern the real underlying truth. He is like God. Only human. What a guy!

War doesnt always constitue one nation against another. We are in a war of ideals.

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 04:13 PM | Reply


Example? Can you explain yourself?

War on Terror...tell me how you conduct a war against "terror"????

You go after the terrorists and kill them. I'll take warfare for $200, please Alex.

BOAZ-
"Rights according to the geneva convention appropriate to the situation."

The Bush administration and its crack legal team have determined that the Geneva conventions don't apply, and have acted accordingly.

What are the "basic rights" that you spoke of? Can you not name even one of them?

I think everyone knows Afghanistan was the justifiable war we needed to fight and win with all our resources

That I must agree with....

Goatman-
re: "You go after the terrorists and kill them."

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-19 04:18 PM | Reply |


Shouldn't bin Laden have been first?

You go after the terrorists and kill them. I'll take warfare for $200, please Alex.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-19 04:18 PM | Reply


How do you know who they are? Magic beans? What a marOOn

Can you explain yourself?

Radical islam is the enemy, we are not. Terrorism is the enemy. That should be enough for any american. It is for me...

Oh we don't "spend a lot of time thinking about bib laden" anymore

What are the "basic rights" that you spoke of?

To be fed....

that's about it...

"They are given basic rights."

What are those basic rights, BOAZ, and where did they come from?

Hell, just name one.

Goatman is better than us.

A few of you

He doesn't see skin color in people.

True

He doesn't see political affiliation or agenda.

Untrue

Rather, he is able to look deeply into the soul's of others and discern truth.

Sometimes

He is able to grasp the most complex scientific ideas and, again, discern the truth.

Sometimes

He is able to dissect military and political conflicts, and once again discern the real underlying truth.

Not really. I'm not much of a warrior. Politics are boring and trite

He is like God.

Highly unlikely. I'm an atheist

Your batting average hasn't improved much, m8

Shouldn't bin Laden have been first?

Yes

Radical islam is the enemy, we are not. Terrorism is the enemy. That should be enough for any american. It is for me...

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 04:22 PM | Reply


You are a very scared person. Pants-pisser is the current term. Delusional and paranoid is the medical term.

Let's see--tell us why those radical Islam bad guys want to kill us--do they hate our freedom? The bulging breasts of our women?

;-)

Oh we don't "spend a lot of time thinking about bib laden" anymore

We do, it's just that pakistan is protecting him..get pakistan out of the way, bin laden will be found..

What are the "basic rights" that you spoke of?

To be fed....

that's about it...

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 04:23 PM


Is that your primary virtue in a war of Ideals?

You are a very scared person.

No, buffalo, I have seen this evil in action. Much different from your "Nam" days. I have seen the aftermath of the taliban. Little do you know, all of islam quietly approves of what radical islam and the taliban do.

We do, it's just that pakistan is protecting him..get pakistan out of the way, bin laden will be found..

Posted by boaz

You mean our ally in the War on Terror?
If they're harboring a terrorist, why haven't they been added to the Axis of Evil?

Betelg,

Why do you want islam to come here and take over? Are you that submissive?

How do you know who they are?

They are the ones who plan and/or execute terrorist acts.

I'll take 'incredibly stupid questions' for $200, Alex.

You mean our ally in the War on Terror?
If they're harboring a terrorist, why haven't they been added to the Axis of Evil?

More of the complicit approval of islam...They are riding the fence. You cannot ride the fence with radical islam...

Why do you want islam to come here and take over? Are you that submissive?

Posted by boaz

I don't think he does. But if he did, it would be for the same exact reason that conservatives want the Ten Commandments in the court room.

"Why do you want islam to come here and take over? Are you that submissive?"

I don't want your "ideals" to take over anywhere.

I don't want your "ideals" to take over anywhere.

I certainly dont want your liberal ideals...

War doesnt always constitue one nation against another. We are in a war of ideals.

posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 04:13 PM

The only "ideal" you have listed is "the right to be fed", and you didn't even say where that came from.


How do you know who they are?


They are the ones who plan and/or execute terrorist acts.


I'll take 'incredibly stupid questions' for $200, Alex.

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-19 04:29 PM | Reply


LOL--how do you know them on the street? Do they glow? Or is your secret plan to listen to them writing out their secret plans with your super hearing? What a mAroOn.

;-)

These are captured prisoners, BOAZ. And according to you they have no rights, because you must win the war against radical and destructive ideals.

Betelg,

I am not playing your asinie games. We know where we both stand on this. I am not going to give american style rights to a combatant who tried to kill americans. If they were on the battlefield, he will NOT get access to our legal courts. Period. If that puts them in some sort of legal limbo, so be it. They have military tribunals. Let them decide.

how do you know them on the street?

I don't. I don't a Catholic on the street, either, but if I see a person leaving the 9:15 mass at St. Marks, it is a pretty good assumption he is Catholic.

BTW, it's spelled m-o-r-o-n

What I know is this, I wouldn't have given up 1 American life to prevent Afghans from killing each other on 9/10/2008 but on 9/12/2008 I changed my mind. Allowing the nuts a safe place to operate will kill Americans in the long run. So the answer is yes if I think it is in my nations best interest.

Posted by laj at 2008-07-19 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Laj,
Please tell me what Iraq had to do with 911?

I certainly dont want your liberal ideals...

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 04:34 PM | Reply


Yes, feeding the poor, educating the people, trying for Universal Health care, and standing up for freedom of all people are certainly ideals opposed by conservatives. America is founded on liberal concepts--I can understand your opposition. You were just born in the wrong country. You should have been born in Darfur--you could tell them you have the right to be fed.

Geez BB, you are such a Nazi.

Please tell me what Iraq had to do with 911?

Posted by BenFranklinn

Ben, here's some pretty good evidence that Iraq was up to something pretty nasty.

America is founded on liberal concepts

Bullshit. You have no idea what this country was founded on...

Actually Boaz, anyone who attended grammar school has a good idea of the liberal concepts this country was founded on. Did you attend grammar school?

ideals opposed by conservatives.

We all just have different ideas on how to get there.

Everything you named takes money from me to give to someone else. Somewhere during the liberal 60's we got away from self sustainment and to giving everyone everything. We got away from we are united, individual states to we are one govt. That is the problem...

I don't. I don't a Catholic on the street, either, but if I see a person leaving the 9:15 mass at St. Marks, it is a pretty good assumption he is Catholic.


BTW, it's spelled m-o-r-o-n

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-19 04:40 PM | Reply


So you can figure out a Catholic leaving mass is a Catholic. The question was--how can you tell a terrorist. The word for you is mArOon--it is a super MoRon.

So--you have no idea how to tell a terrorist from a farmer, but you think having an aircraft carrier around in case you think you see one is justified? What's your Depends bill a month? Could we apply that amount to the Aircraft carrier cost? The troops need it. What a maroON.

;-)

I am not going to give american style rights to a combatant who tried to kill americans. If they were on the battlefield, he will NOT get access to our legal courts. Period. If that puts them in some sort of legal limbo, so be it. They have military tribunals. Let them decide.

Well, I guess you not in the realm of the prudent common sense in civil rights, but thank goodness we have the SCOTUS who thinks your idea is barbaric.

How many people have been put in prisons as combatants and have actually been brought to trail and convicted? Do you even know? As a military officer that you are, I would be concerned at the number.

Not being concerned just tells us what type of officer and person we have running our military. And it is not in a good way.

Everything you named takes money from me to give to someone else. Somewhere during the liberal 60's we got away from self sustainment and to giving everyone everything. We got away from we are united, individual states to we are one govt. That is the problem...

Posted by boaz


HAHA!!! 1960's or 1860's???

Actually Boaz, anyone who attended grammar school has a good idea of the liberal concepts this country was founded on.

That is a matter of opinion, as always. The garbage put into our kids heads today has them not being able to name what kind of govt we have. That is why they are always saying "We love the kids" crap. Get to the kids and you destroy opinions different from yours. See PETA trying to appeal to kids? They are just trying to program our kids in a liberal ideology. That is why homeschooling is so high.

I don't. I don't a Catholic on the street, either, but if I see a person leaving the 9:15 mass at St. Marks, it is a pretty good assumption he is Catholic.

So we just need to post some guys outside this place. - Damn that seems too easy!

Yeah, before the 1960's we were a nation of rugged individualists totin' rifles and wearin' coonskin caps. And everything was in black and white.

but if I see a person leaving the 9:15 mass at St. Marks, it is a pretty good assumption he is Catholic.

No it's not.

Millions of people go to mass and are not catholic. Some go because their wive is, some go just because it is local church, and some go because of any number of reasons but doesn't in any way suggest that they are catholic.

The question was--how can you tell a terrorist.

PGUP is your friend, bOoB.

but you think having an aircraft carrier around in case you think you see one is justified?

For one? No, that's not justified. A sniper will do.

What's your Depends bill a month?

$0

Could we apply that amount to the Aircraft carrier cost

$0 doesn't go very far, bOoB.

www.merriam-webster.com

must turn off computer now....must lead life...must interact with real human beings.
So long.

Not being concerned just tells us what type of officer and person we have running our military. And it is not in a good way.

There is a reason most military are conservative. We see things americans should not have to see. I am an american and I am true to it's ideals. But I will not let it's freedoms allow one who is not of our nation ruin it and mock it.

Damn that seems too easy!

I wish it was that easy, Yav.


America is founded on liberal concepts


Bullshit. You have no idea what this country was founded on...

Posted by boaz at 2008-07-19 04:48 PM | Reply

You are delusional aren't you. Actually they wrote down the concepts America was founded on--It is in the Declaration of Independence--the Preamble to the Constitution--the Constitution--and the Bill of rights. Read them sometime--very liberal concepts.

Freedom of Spech is a liberal concept--not a conservative concept. Freedom of the Press is a liberal concept--not a conservative concept. The right to keep and bear arms is a liberal concept--not a conservative concept. Freedom of religion is a liberal concept--not a conservative concept. The right to peaceful assembly is a liberal concept--not a conservative concept. The right to free of unreasonable search and seizure are liberal concepts--not conservative concepts. I guess you see the trend here. You say you love America--but you know so little about it. What makes America great are its liberal concepts--like freedom--for everyone--incuding gays and women--things you are against.

We see things americans should not have to see. I am an american and I am true to it's ideals. But I will not let it's freedoms allow one who is not of our nation ruin it and mock it.

I find it interesting that you have separated yourself and the military from being Americans.

Now one should question how your able to defend our laws from your ideals.

No it's not.

Yes it is. I said a good assumption, not certainty. Read.

Unless things have changed since I was forced to go to mass, I would estimate that less than 5% of people in a catholic church are non catholic. If I was gambling man, I would place my bet that a person leaving a catholic church after mass is catholic. Only an ignorant, argumentative and trolling fool like you, runnysore would think otherwise.

And most people leaving a synagogue are Jewish and most people leaving a Baptist church are baptist, most people leaving a mosque are muslim -- just in case you ever wondered.

And everything was in black and white.

Everything used to be black and white, then liberalism came along...


The right to keep and bear arms is a liberal concept--not a conservative concept.

LOL, LIE....

Freedom of religion is a liberal concept

Forcing americans to accomodate other religions isnt freedom. I am sure you interact with footbaths on a daily basis...

BOAZ-
I get it. I find little sense in your argument about a war of "ideals", because your "ideals" have nothing to do with the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or democracy or freedom.

You're in a religious war for Jesus.

You're just like them.

Now one should question how your able to defend our laws from your ideals.

You liberals will question yourselves out of existance.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"


It says the Constitution, not "America", or religion.

If Boaz still does not get it that is because Boaz does not want to get it. Very simple actually.

Boaz-
You seem to be fighting for a tribe or non-dairy creamer and pet rocks or something. We are with the founders in fighting for ideals, such as those codified in the Constitution and its amendments. That's why we are liberals.

"You liberals will question yourselves out of existence...."

Assuming US forces have killed 50,000 "combatants" to date in Iraq (no one knows the number), what was the average amount of money per combatant required to do that?

Anyone here tired of being lectured on unconventional warfare by someone who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground?


BOAZ, though some home schooling is good, most is for religious wingnuts that believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that the flintstones is based on a true story. modern science scares these people. how about it BOAZ does that define you?

read your new testament carefully and you will find Jesus was a liberal!

Laj,
Please tell me what Iraq had to do with 911?

Posted by BenFranklinn

Ben,

It doesn't have a thing to do with 911. You don't seem to understand that leaving Iraq early and allowing it to fall into a state of chaos will lead to the next 911. Iraq needs to be stable. It is going in that direction and the need for our troops being in that country is diminishing each day, which is good.

Forget about whether we should have gone in or not, it doesn't matter anymore and is a waste of energy.

"Iraq needs to be stable...."

Sure. But stable doesn't mean friendly or useful by a long damned shot.

"It doesn't matter anymore....."

It reminds me of certain teenagers. Caught stealing mom's car they hate being lectured about their behavior to date. All of them are turning over a new leaf, and you're a bad person for bringing up the past.

"Forget about whether we should have gone in or not..."

Not likely. Why do you say that, though? Did you think it was a good idea? ...and if you did, then why should your new wisdom be worth more than a free bucket of piss?

Stable may not mean friendly but if Iraq stays continues on the path of being a democracy than it will be useful. If it does not stay on the path of being a democracy than we replace the leadership with a friendly govt(dictator). Now we have a stable/friendly govt which would be useful but not ideal.

Compare a 'timetable' to a 'time horizon' -

A timetable has a defined goal.

Whoever created the term "time horizon" either doesn't know the world is round and the horizon endless, or they knew exactly that and came up with it to lull the 23% of true believers who still think Bush is the Second Coming.

"If it does not stay on the path to democracy...."


Frankly, I'm not sure what you mean by "path". Sounds a lot more organized than anything I see going on.

Are twenty-nine militias in Iraq part of the "path". Does their existence mean Iraq is not a democracy? I know how I'd answer.

Listen yo yourself, LAJ---You're talking about replacing a government in Iraq in order to make it more useful and friendly---Correct me if I'm wrong, hasn't that already been tried? How many times you want that dog to piss on your leg?

BetelG,

I was not a fan of going into Iraq. I thought Bush was swinging for the fences and it wasn't worth the risk. But that doesn't matter anymore, we are were we are and we need to deal with it. We could have pull out and LOST the fight to the enemy or send in more troops and win it. We are now on our way to winning it in Iraq. I do believe that pulling troops out 2 years ago was just stupid but the situation has changed for the better. I don't see an issue with having them out within 2 years.

we replace the leadership with a friendly govt(dictator). Now we have a stable/friendly govt which would be useful but not ideal.

Then we'd have something like Saddam of the '80s, and we can do this whole damned thing all over again in about thirty years. You Neocons just love making work for yourselves.

Saddam was never a friendly govt to the United States. I know people on the left love to say it but it simple isn't true. We had a common enemy in Iran but we were never allies.

"I was not a fan of going into Iraq."

I doubt that.

BetelG,

Well, you don't know me so you can't really know either way.

Oops! The White House accidentally sent a story on Maliki's comments to its entire mailing list:

blogs.abcnews.com

They meant just to send it internally.

Well, you don't know me so you can't really know either way.

Posted by laj at 2008-07-19 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:


I got a pretty good guess, dude. No one voted for Bush twice and no one was for the Iraq war...

I voted for Bush twice, didn't like it but had to do it. I HATE John Kerry, don't respect him and was so excited when he lost because of the swift boating. I heard about that stuff 20 years earlier and loved it. I don't like Kennedy but I do respect him. Very impressive politican but not Kerry.

LAJ-
But you were against the Iraq war from the beginning, and said so?

This must make you an Obama fan as he, like you, saw the folly and stupidity of the war before it was begun, and said so.

BetelG,

I was against going into Iraq but not because I am against war. Don't get me wrong. It just isn't what I would have done. It doesn't mean that going in couldn't be successful. I just thought the risk wasn't worth the reward.

I thought cutting a deal with Saddam was the better course of action than invading Iraq.

Unlike McCain and Bush who, unlike you, pushed for the war and sold it to a nation of folks not so reasonable and perspicacious as yourself and Barack Obama.

BetelG,

I am not a fan of Obama.

First, it is easy to say you are for or against something when you aren't responsible. Hence, the difference between saying he was against the war but not having the guts to cut off funding for it.

Second, he was wrong on the surge. It has worked very well and looks like it will bring a win for us in Iraq.

Third, he won't acknowledge that Iraq has turned around. He seems to have his head in the sand now concerning the state of Iraq as much as Bush did when things were going bad in Iraq 2 years ago.

Obama to me is a left wing version of Bush, just a better speaker.

"Looks like it will bring a win for us in Iraq...."

Ah, good. Describe to us when we've know we've won. You'd be the first.

LAJ-
re: "Hence, the difference between saying he was against the war but not having the guts to cut off funding for it."

He was against going to war in Iraq. Once we are in that DITCH that you were, of course, against from the beginning, it's a different situation altogether, as I'm sure you can understand.

"He won't acknowledge Iraq has turned around...."

Hmmm. You mean, like you wouldn't deal with my "twenty-nine militias" in Iraq point?

The existence of these forces means nothing's changed. Nothing.

We're going to win WHAT out of Iraq? Enumerate that for me.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. Hes a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.

I am not opposed to all wars. Im opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.

You want a fight, President Bush? Lets finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Lets fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons in already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Lets fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Lets fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not we will not travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I dont oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I dont oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administrations pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I dont oppose all wars.

And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.


Zed,

Simple, when we draw down the troops from Iraq because they aren't needed there. Key word is needed. We aren't being driven out by the enemy. We are pulling them out because they no longer serve a purpose being in country.

I don't believe that we will need significant amount of troops in Iraq 2 years from now. I don't have an issue if Obama starts to draw down the troops once in office over his first 16 months. Fine with me.

Let's talk about judgment. Yours, Obama's and McCain's.

Judgement is subjective but lets assume the following. Going into Iraq was wrong, not supporting the surge was wroing and not having a plan for getting out of Iraq is wrong. Sounds like I should be the next President. Can I count on your vote?

So, we win when the troops are gone, but aren't driven out by the enemy?

But, if we leave the enemy there, intact, is that a victory? Moqtada al-Sadr going any place, you think?

LAJ, I don't really blame you. It's been eight years of mind-numbing BS from Bush as to what we're fighting for and how well it's going, with never a marker offered for success or failure.

You've lost your sense of what a victory is. What's funny is that a large, very large reason why there is a reduction of violence in Iraq is because the various powers there want to ease our departure.

No, we won't be chased out of Iraq. We'll be sniggered out by a native political culture apparently too byzantine , or maybe just too sophisticated, for we stupid Americans to understand.

Zed,

I am not trying to create a perfect world in Iraq. That isn't the point. The players in Iraq know that getting power with the gun isn't going to work now. This is why al-Sadr isn't in Iraq but is in Iran getting a crash course on becoming a real religious scholar. The Iranians realized this and are trying to make his resume look better. The days of coming to power with the bullet are over in Iraq. The stronger the central govt becomes, the weaker the outside groups will become, the way to power will be the voting booth.

Zed,

Are you against the war in Afganistan? What is victory there? How would you define it?

Victory in Afghanistan is Osama Bin Laden's head on a stick. But Bush fucked up and let the Afghans do his fighting for him. Faced with that failure, the dry drunk thought that invading Iraq and overthrowing Sadaam would prove he had a bigger dick than his daddy...with the result being a huge increase in terrorists, primarily supported by Iran, who had no dog in the fight in Afghanistan. The failure of Bush's presidency is complete and total.

I understand your point about this "reduction of violence in Iraq is because the various powers there want to ease our departure" but don't agree. The groups wanted us out ASAP in the beginning because getting control of Iraq while it was in a state of chaos was there best bet to power.

Once this became impossible, the Sunni's turned against al-Qaida because al-Qaida only wanted chaos. This was just a battlefield to them and nothing more.

With al-Qaida being driven out or back, suddenly the need for the Shia militias to protect the civilian Shia from al-Qaida wasn't justified anymore. They are beginning to lose their purpose for the everyday Iraq. This means they will move more to the margin.

Jomama,

Osama Bin Laden's head on a stick is not victory, it is revenge. The pratical destruction of the terrorist group and its allies would be victory. Not the death of one individual.

Though OBLs head on a stick would be one helluva a symbol of victory.

My dear LAJ, Shia militias protect their constituencies from the Sunni militias and from competing Shia militias.

There WAS a realignment in Iraq. The Sunnis realized they could ally with us against the Shia. We WANTED them to ally themselves with us against the Shia.

Al-Qaeda was/is almost trivial.

My dear Zed,

As the central govt gets stronger, the need for the militias becomes less. The power base for the militias was security which won't be needed as time passes. Now the civilian populations become less willing to put up with the crap that comes from the militias. The militias become marginalized and disappear or become criminal organizations over time.

The Sunni realized that Al-Qaeda didn't give a crap about Iraq or them and they switched sides. They couldn't kill their way to power but a stable Iraq was in their best interest.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded was minimal at most. After we invaded it became larger but has been greatly reduced in the last 2 years. I believe that they will write Iraq off as a loss and move on for the most part.

Jomama wrote:
You mean the Al Qaeda in Iraq that wasn't in Iraq before the U.S. invaded Iraq, or the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan where Obama is committed to sending 10,000 more troops to get the bastards that blew up the Twin Towers and Pentagon?"
BOAZ PWNED.

Nanc wrote:
"of course they agree - they speak the same language."
Non sequitur and self-retort at the same time (both speak English).

And of course, Goatman's deflections.

This story is the largest nail in McCain's coffin.
And you right-wing hacks should remember the first rule of holes: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

NO, HE DOESN'T!

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha
ha!

i just love how the left looks for adoration from the world and somehow it alludes them. y'all're so cute when you're stupid - oops! all the time!

i just love how the left looks for adoration from the world and somehow it alludes them. y'all're so cute when you're stupid - oops! all the time!

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha
ha!


This story is the largest nail in McCain's coffin

Now this is fucking funny... Nanc already posted it but when you see comments like this it needs repeating:

Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan

Nanc has a user blog on the back page for this story... I think it should probably get an upgrade to the front...

Ouch...


The timing of this statement couldn't be better for Obama, considering his overseas trip. Evidently Maliki doesn't like the idea of a 100-year peacetime presence for U.S. troops in his country.

Posted by rcade

LMAO!!!!!

Ouch...

No new quotes from al-Maliki in that link. A lot of WH spin, and a statement from Ali al-Dabbagh.

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Not al-Maliki, no quotes from him. No "Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan."

That makes you a liar again, Rob.

No "Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan."

That's the title of the CNN article, dickweed.

Maybe you should lookup the definition of "spokesman."

That makes you a liar again, Rob.

Posted by YAV

No, it means you can't fucking read...

That's the title of the CNN article, dickweed.

Oh I read the headline. I read the article. You apparently aren't able to read the actual article, understand what and who said what, and instead repeat a headline. That's the best possibility. The other one, which you've proven over and over again is you prefer to repeat a lie. That makes you a liar or stupid. We all know you aren't stupid. . .

Now al-Maliki may very well come out and refute what he's said in Der Spiegel, but so far he hasn't.

YAV,

al-Maliki won't dispute it because Obama will be coming over but will clarify it later with caveats. Because al-Maliki is a politician and that's what politicians do, they will always leave the door open.

CRAWFORD, TX (CNN) An embarrassing slip up for the White House press office Saturday, when an aide hit the wrong button and mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel says, "It was a mistake. Clips list for staff was supposed to be the addressee."

The Obama campaign quickly took advantage of the mistake, forwarding an ABC report detailing the incident to its press list.

This is not the first time the White House has emailed in error. But its timing is particularly embarrassing as the Bush administration's recent agreement with al-Maliki on a "general time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is being cited by some as resembling Obama's proposal that U.S. forces should leave within 16 months.

From Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.

Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.

The German magazine said on Saturday that Maliki supported Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months. The interview was released on Saturday.

Clinton-
Yes. News of the "transcription error" was released by Centcom.

Clinton-
"Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly."

That's the second time on the same subject that Maliki's comments were recently "translated incorrectly".

Der Spiegal lies and everyone runs with it and uses it for a tool to vindictively attack felllow Americans. Whose side are we on? The people who want the Iraq war to a total failure so they can blame Bush now want it to be a success so they can give Obama credit.

"The people who want the Iraq war to a total failure so they can blame Bush now want it to be a success so they can give Obama credit."

Or, more realistically liar, we want our troops home and we want the drain of our treasury to stop.
Gosh, you'd think all Americans would want those things. Guess not for some on the right though, y'all seem to want perpetual war. Disappointed we aren't bombing Iran???? I bet you are, aren't you.
Them righties sure love those fireworks.

**** **** ***** *****
You mean the Al Qaeda in Iraq that wasn't in Iraq before the U.S. invaded Iraq
Posted by Jomama

We are at war with them, they are going to go wherever they think they can win or hurt us.
Posted by boaz
**** ****** ****** *******

.....they went to Iraq because Bush created a vacuum that let them in......

......should we not prosecute Bush for aiding & abetting Al Qaida's presence in Iraq ?.....

Why not, he is one of their own radical muslims.

Radical muslim that was a member of a christian church for 20 years?

Try again.


......So Maliki and Obama are on the same page.....

......great.......

......the the 16 month withdrawal is a done deal !!......


.......I predict that the Iraqi government will not sign the extension of the status of forces agreement that allows US troops to operate in Iraq with the Bush administration.......

.......they will wait until a reasonable person is elected to the President's office in November....


.....and in the meantime.......

.....the Maliki government will continue to leak information and opinions to humiliate the Bush administration.......

......you don't think that the 16 month quote was an accident ......do you ??.......

Bloomberg has the story now too...

Maliki Doesn't Endorse Obama Troop Withdrawal Plan

This headline should be changed, hell the link for this thread should be updated...

Rob blah, whine, blah, the asshole, blah, winger, blah.

Why don't you post it, then, for chrissakes?

Why don't you post it, then, for chrissakes?

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

It is... on the back page... should we all take a 45 minute break so you can catch up?

It's not on "User Blogs" and you're listed as having posted an article since July 15, to just stfu and treat yourself to another donut. Such a whiner.

Let me rephrase that:

It's not on "User Blogs" and you're not listed as having posted an article since July 15, so just stfu and treat yourself to another donut. Still such a whiner.

I didn't say I posted it, I just said its on the back page...

www.drudge.com

The title needs a little adjusting, but RCade can handle that quickly...

Here's the part that apparently was "misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately:"

Remarks made by the prime minister or any member of the Iraqi government ``should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidate,'' the statement said.

Guess we know what al-Maliki's saying now. No withdrawal of statements, just a clarification he's not backing any candidate.

My. That's nothing like saying "Maliki Doesn't Endorse Obama Troop Withdrawal Plan."

I know, it's the headline of the article, you're just posting it.

But as you would say, if you were honest and fair, the headline's wrong and it should read Maliki Doesn't Endorse Obama or McCain.

My. That's nothing like saying "Maliki Doesn't Endorse Obama Troop Withdrawal Plan."

You're absolutely right Yav...

but this is:

Al-Maliki supports a ``general vision'' of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and has not backed a plan by Obama, the presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential candidate, for a 16- month withdrawal window, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in an e-mailed statement in Baghdad today.

A general vision that:

"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited," (al-Maliki) said.

"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," al-Maliki said.

"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Ok, so he's not "supporting" Obama's plan exactly as it is.

Maliki supports withdrawing the troops... in that respect he and Obama are on the same page, but if Maliki backed Obama's timetable, there would be no corrections and objections to the story last night and today...

No Rob, if there were no Bush administration there would be no corrections and objections.

Them righties sure love those fireworks.

Posted by danni at 2008-07-20 08:30 AM

They ain't happy unless they got some Shock & Awe going down.

So here's the Shocker

And what a shock! Iraqi PM agrees that he wants our troops out and would like to to see a TIMETABLE...so lets oblige them!

Here's the Awe

Awwww - Bushco has to admit ...there is nothing wrong with having a Timetable (err a Plan!)

All together now...


AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
!

Guess Maliki ain't buyin' that 1000-year Reich plan of the Neocons.

If we were really trying to help the Iraqis we wouldn't be restricting the flow of oil. A western pipeline from Kirkuk would diversify the market. Now it all goes through Turkey. If the Army was deployed to build and protect that pipeline we'd see even more cooperation from the Sunnis. At least the income from the transport through the pipeline would supplant the tribute that we now pay them not to wreck havoc on our troops.

We could have paid them in 2003 and sorted them out like we did in Germany among the civilian employees of the government and members of the Nazi Party. That's the remedy that Wolfowitz and Feith conveniently left out. There was to be no mercy. Orders 1 & 2, CPA, insured that the Ba'athists would be punished with deprivation.

So now we pay them tribute like we've done before, and to some extent that's a matter of access through a domain. A tax if you will. But to have fought them and destroyed so much of the country in the process is beyond Machiavelli and Medieval. It's a desire to create anarchy and profit from it. Justify that.

The Iraqis want us out so they can divvy up the pie. The hang up has been the oil law and Bush trying to impose a deal they didn't like, and obviously through force of arms if they didn't comply. The tribal nature of their culture is rooted in a shared prosperity. Call it socialism but it's how they feed their family.

Bush will claim a Pyrrhic victory but it's clear now that he is trying to salvage his legacy buy adopting what he has resisted for so long. That members of his Administration may be guilty of war crimes - just the possibility, and the limited jurisdiction of the US - must weigh heavily on his mind. There's evidence and expert opinion on precedent.

The very law Bush sought to protect the CIA etc., means they can not be punished in the US, and that inhibits a sovereign defense. If war crimes were committed then the perpetrators must be tried in court. Germany could issue indictments and only US refusal to arrest could protect them. In theory so could Paraguay, but those solutions are only good if Bush is not impeached. By precedent that can be done after an official leaves office.

Just Desserts Georgie.


"I was in Nam numbnuts."

Didn't seem to help you to learn the facts. There never were two 'countries', Vietnam was a single country which the North allowed to be TEMPORARILY divided by the Geneva convention on the condition that an election was to be held within two years. The US REFUSED to honor the agreement because they knew Ho would win. How do we know? Because the President at that time wrote about it later.

I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai.


Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change. 1963, p. 372.

Eisenhower was groomed by George Marshall. He became an expert on strategy and logistics, but he was also very aggressive in probing the Soviets. His error was trusting the Dulles brothers. The CIA was tainted by using the Nazis to gain intelligence, and we got a lot of questionable analysis. That led to a military build up and sustained expenditures. Eisenhower recognized the political implications of an economy based on warfare and empire. His investment in the Interstate system speaks to his understanding that commerce and mobility make for a strong society.

I don't think it's a small thing that Susan Eisenhower has endorsed Obama. Good women like smart men.

"The North allowed to be temporarily divided....."

It's been a long tim since I thought about such things, TOM, but my recollection is it was the French that engineered the division between North and South Vietnam, therreby assuring a continuation of the war.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.

Doesn't sound like an end to the war to me! Doesn't sound like a 16 month timetable to remove all our troops!

Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-07-19 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag

Were did it say 'troops'?

I'm sure the rights favorite private army can do the job. Blackwater to the rescue.

"Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel."

Actually, it sounds like the policy we should have followed all along under the auspices of the "WAr on Terror", remember that???
If Al Quaeda sticks its head up in Iraq I think we should be there to whack it, but unfortunately Mr. Bush took his eye off the ball and invaded and then through incompetence disbanded the military, fired all the Baathists, etc. and created CHAOS. If things are truely settling down now in Iraq then we can expect the Iraqis so maintain their own security but if Al Quaeda makes a real presence then we should respond and take them out. They attacked us, Iraq did not. They are Sunnis, the majority of Iraqis are Shiites. I don't think they will mind.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Here's the transcript from Der Spiegel (Maliki's statements are on Page 2)

www.spiegel.de


Interesting the 'retraction' came through the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)

I can read. I Maliki 'misspoke' or was 'mistranslated' this transcript certainly offers no such evidence.

"The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel "misinterpreted and mistranslated" followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq."

blog.washingtonpost.com


I posted a thread on this a few minutes ago.

Not so much a mistranslation:

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Maliki's comments by The Times: "Obama's remarks that if he takes office in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

Maliki Backs Obama's Timetable

What a stretch! Barry doesn't even know where he stands!

Of course, according to the "NEOLIBS," foreign policy decisions should be based on placating others rather than serving the interests of the United States. This is the only basis for citing Maliki's purported statement as having any weight. Who gives a tinker's dam what Maliki wants for Iraq. What action is in the best interests of the United States? Maintaining a permanent presence with large land bases in Iraq enabling us to project our power in the region is in our interest.

Obama has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to project gravitas and grasp the nuances of foreign policy.

Obama is a clueless klutz. He is simpatico with his base since it is comprised largely of clueless klutzes, who don't understand the consequences of actions or are indifferent to them, and governments and people whose interests are antithetical to those of the United States, and who support decisions that harm U.S. interests.

Obama is a little presumptuous in relaying foreign policy positions to foreign leaders. Along with Willy Loman, I suppose that he has adopted the salesman's adage, "Assume the sale."

Let's see. It's time to concoct some words and phrases to demean Obama a bit more. It's difficult, since as a street agitator with a bullhorn, he is attempting a quantum leap, and will undoubtedly be "Wilsoned" as good old Woodrow Wilson was by Clemenceau and George after WWI. Moving up in class is an effort fraught with peril as it is a different world with considerations, concerns, and motivations not within the ambit of a man molded as a mediocrity.

Here.

Obama spoke.
Obama lied.
Obama acted.
People died.

News suppression and distortion by the shameless media, which creates fictional characters, and takes no responsibility for the consequences of its positions, are de rigeur. These advocates formulate and disseminate positions they support based on misleading indoctrination to which they are subjected in "journalism schools," bastions of mindless leftist anachronisms.

This results in kneejerk media support for the positions of esurious politicians, who are otherwise motivated. Politicians to serve their egos and their pocketbooks. How does the song go? "First with me comes the purse."

Oh, the shameful irresponsible media that is unwilling to repent its sins, or in this case the sins of its fathers. Remember Vietnam. Well, the media was a primary factor in the effort to undercut support for our allies there. The Congress withdrew financial and logistical support and our allies were doomed. And what was the result, a million or two million people died, let alone the privation and torture that occurred in the "re-education" camps.

Has the media or the aggressive left reviewed its actions and their consequences? No. Has there been any lamentation? No. Has there been any regret expressed? No. Because the media has largely suppressed any information regarding the tragedy that occurred there because of our betrayal of our allies. Remorse? Where is the leftist expression of remorse?

The mindless shameless, or more probably clueless left, will not feel any remorse for any tragic consequences resulting from pursuit of their policy goals in respect to our confrontation with our implacable enemies in the Islamic world, nor the negative effects on our position in relation to that of other powers. This manifestation of weakness and abandonment of positions to satisfy a weak and degenerate population, is an indication of our decline.

The mindless shameless, or more probably clueless left, will not feel any remorse for any tragic consequences resulting from pursuit of their policy goals in respect to our confrontation with our implacable enemies in the Islamic world, nor the negative effects on our position in relation to that of other powers. This manifestation of weakness and abandonment of positions to satisfy a weak and degenerate population, is an indication of our decline.

Posted by Johnson at 2008-07-21 12:00 PM


Gosh what a load of Bullshit!

Let me ask you a simple question then Mr. Empty Words.

Do you not feel shame for what the MINDLESS Right has done in creating more Enemies in the Islamic world by using our Military in such an Imperialistic way?

Do you not see that the Right has made us weaker by the foolish policies regarding Iraq in particular?

You want to blame the media? Look in the mirror first. The Media is playing to YOU, the lowest common denominator. And yes YOU are the lowest common denominator and I can tell because I hear Faux News being echoed in your thoughts...

So stop buying into their bullshit and they will quit selling it to you.

Obama will win the Presidency in spite of your ignorance and the ignorance of the Media.

We can already see the Positive effects of the Obama Presidency. The world is cheering us on. Only DeadEnders like you want to Justify Bush Insanity by trying to trash Obama.

I see us getting stronger and stronger even before Obama wins the Election (oh and he will win) by doing the right things like Insisting on Funding the Withdrawal and refocusing or efforts in Afghanistan WHERE IT HAS ALWAYS BELONGED...and we will continue to become stronger not weaker.

So quit yer whining a buck up. Time to get back in the game... Obama has his Eye on the Ball!

Oh and BTW- according to your Naked Emperor, Bush, Only History can be the judge of any of that anyway... certainly not YOU or me...we'll be dead.

Right?

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable