Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, January 10, 2007

President Bush said Wednesday he will send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq to quell its near-anarchy and for the first time acknowledged he had erred by failing to order a military buildup last year. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," Bush said.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

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

It was a good speech.

Let's see if the Iraqis can finally step up and stop the violence.

I have my doubts.

Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

cue the comments of how "this will fail, just like all the rest" and "chimpy's newest mistake". a wise man once said, " don't come to me with just a problem, come to me with a solution as well. if the problem is such that you cannot find a better solution, the one in place, by definition, is currently the best." pessimists....all of "you"

Silver, it was a good speech...but tis true it wasn't Shakespeare

"It was a good speech."


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHa
ROLF!!!!!!!!!!

ROLF
ROFL
whatever

Before we make any decisions, let's look at what Keith "The Man" Olbermann had to say about what your Preznit has already told us about this war:

"Olbermann: President Bush makes no secret of his distaste for looking backward, for assessing past results.

But in our third story on the Countdown tonight ... too bad.

Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.

So, let's look at the record:

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.

Now, he says it is vital for America.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary ... Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.

He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.

Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.

We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.

As they stood upwe would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',

The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.

The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people."

Now what do you think?

It was a good speech. It breaks down to Bush saying "I screwed this war up and I am going to let the commanders run things now." I am not going to mock it. I wish we were never there, but we are and we need to get out without creating a new enemy.

The only good part of this speech was listening to our liar of a president saying any mistakes that were made were made by him. First time he has told the truth in a long time. All you kool-aid drinking right wingers reading this site need to get to bed now - they'll be lookin for you at the recruiting stations tomorrow morning. Go bail your boy out of the mess he gotten himself into.

walnut, I agree. I think the Democrats and Bush haters finally got the Bush they said they wanted with this speech. Yet they will probally complain and say "too little too late.",

He was contrite. he took responsibility for "mistakes".

He let the Iraqis know the clock was running and we would be leaving if they didn't start pulling their weight right away.

I believe he made the case he needed to make to the American people.

I don't see how the Democrats are going to be able to block the troop increase now. Especially knowing that the alternative is for us to pull out and watch Iraq devolve into a mass slaughter that makes anything seen so far look insignificant.

"Bush saying "I screwed this war up and I am going to let the commanders run things now."

That's not entirely true, Kan. Bush has removed the commanders out of his advisory that have disagreed with him.

I think this speech was nothing more than bullshit.

So many things wrong with it, one has no idea where to begin.

I read the text. I cannot watch the man anymore. It was a good speech. I think it was honest. It made sense except it started with a lie. Ignore the first paragraph and it is good.

go ahead, lisa, start at the beginning. whats wrong with the new plan. not old plans, not past mistakes, the new plan. "you" got what you wanted, now lets hear you complain.

The only real problem with the speech is that it is the same plan he rejected three years ago. If he had listened then we would be home now. Instead, we are looking at 3 more years.

"Get it done and get us out...."

Wonderful that Bush has discovered counter-insurgency doctrine, three miserable years and still 300,000 soldiers too late.

Note Bush's references to "this critical moment in time"? That would be the recent November elections he is alluding to, because save for that he'd still be fast ahold of his wanger.

Four thousand new troops for al-Anbar. Laugh or cry? Tears seem appropriate.

We'll agree to disagree, Kan.

It made no sense IMHO.

If....we had already rid the neighborhoods of terrorists, and they came back when we left....where, in Bush's "plan", is there insurance, it won't happen again?

There isn't any!

You don't think that more terrorists will engage, if more Americans are sent???

All this is doing, is endangering more American lives.

Actually there is.

This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

""you" got what you wanted, now lets hear you complain."

I want Bush under oath. Obviously, I haven't gotten what I wanted....yet.

The time to put in more troops, was when we first invaded...like many, many military experts advised.

I would have said more would have helped a year ago....not anymore!

Bush has screwed this up since day one.

"The alternative is mass slaughter (to leaving)...."

You might as well go ahead and make Tar Baby the 51st State of the Union.

Those are quotes, not my words.

I think more terrorists will not engage per say because it is Iraqis fighting. It seems the main thrust of his plan is having Iraqis do the bulk of the work with Americans re-taking Baghdad. I would rather we leave, but we are not so at least this is a plan that possibly could work instead of flower and candy.

lisa, the part of the plan where he said that the problem problem with the old plan is that the military rid the neighborhoods of the terrorists and left, and then said that the new plan addresses these mistakes. that's where.

"I think it was honest. "

I've met the man.
It probably was.

sigh

It was a good speech.

Let's see if the Iraqis can finally step up and stop the violence.

I have my doubts.
- Bowa

It was a good speech if you think a piece of wood can talk.

I said it last January and I'll say it again this January - this was one of his most wooden meaningless speeches ever.

He reads something he has no comprehension of. The achievment is to READ it, not anything to do with what it says.

He is clearly medicated, dry-lipped, barely there.

Honest? Doesn't even start.

"Made sense except it started with a lie"- Kanrei. Well cool that's OK dude - after the lie it was cool..... duh.

Honest?

NO DEAL!!!


"The new plan addresses thos mistakes..."

Mistakes which, pardon me, a well-read 8th Grader could have anticipated.

Bush's new approach won't work because Bush remains Bush.

lisa,
"not old plans, not past mistakes, the new plan"

kanrei, you touch on the the major ideological split over the war. Bush and the pro-war advocates believe that to leave Iraq and allow it to devolve into an all out civil war possibly leading to an Iranian takeover has implications that extend far beyond the borders of Iraq.

You and the anti-war advocates apparently belive that whatever the outcome in Iraq it will have absolutely no effect on increasing terror activity aimed at the United States.

I'm somewhere in between. I can't say for sure what happens in Iraq won't have any effect on our "war on terror". I just don't know.

I do know, that if the US were to pull out today, Iraq would become an unchecked bloodbath as the unity governemnt is destroyed and violent sectarian fiefdoms popping up everywhere ruling the population with an iron fist.

"
This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. "

1,500,000 several years ago?

" don't come to me with just a problem, come to me with a solution as well. if the problem is such that you cannot find a better solution, the one in place, by definition, is currently the best."

Check out the "Message from Iraq" video.

This is what our troops are in store for.

49-reasons.com

The new plan sucks, Nut!!

There's an inexorable momentum at work here. The American people will give him his one-last-chance-for real-this-time-I-promise, things will hold together (barely) for six months, PBJ will say "see, told you so".

Lather, rinse, repeat until 2008 and he dumps it on somebody else's lap. His presidential library will trumpet his vision, and how everything was fine until President Hillary came along and screwed it all up.

That is, unless something REALLY bad happens sooner, in which case he'll blame SEN. Clinton.

Either way, no way out. We're riding this rocket straight into the ground.

"It is "your side's" fuckup.

"You" pay for it."

i dont subscribe to party ideology. if you are calling me a republican/consevative, you are wrong. depending on the issue, i can be liberal or conservative.

This is what our troops are in store for.

49-reasons.com

Posted by Lisa at 2007-01-10 10:06 PM | Reply

DOne did Lisa. They don't hate Average Americans they hate the Government that exploits their Natural resources. Why the Bushites can't see this is beyond Me.

Larry

"We're riding this rocket straight into the ground."

Agreed.

Bowa,

"You and the anti-war advocates apparently belive that whatever the outcome in Iraq it will have absolutely no effect on increasing terror activity aimed at the United States."

You are right about the anti-war people but not me. I have said here for years that all the info on WMDs and AQ's connection to Iraq was all Iran's doing to begin with. They used Bush's Oedipal hatred of Saddam as their final weapon in the war against Iraq while getting us back for selling Iraq bioweapons. I have no ideas for what to do now personally because our window to leave has left without us and we cannot stay and expect the violence to slow down. This is the ultimate catch-22 and we are screwed no matter what we do.

lisa,
what about it sucks?

I must go play Company of Heroes and free France from Nazi oppression. All this talk of war...

It does suck.

Thousands more Americans are going to die because Bush doesn't have a frickin' clue.

He hunts and hunts until he finds people who are willing to agree with him, dismissing those who don't.

What the hell is that????

That is not the rational of someone whose concern is on the proper issue. That is the rational whose concern is on himself.


"Dick Durbin's logic that the disparate political interests and their militias will never settle on terms until they know we are leaving is more convincing than the hogwash we have heard out of this administration.

"All the military men who have run the war in Iraq and Colin Powell agree with Dick Durbin".

- Joe Scarborough on MSNBC


He and many conservative Repubes are not behind this President's plan to give more blood for oil in Iraq.

"Bush said the same thing he said 6 months ago, the same thing he said a year ago, "Be patient and we'll do something about it" - Barak Obama

Sam Brownback (R) from Iraq today said he had no confidence that this surge would help.

Obama also talks of not a Repub vs Dem proposition, but ideologue vs realist.

"Bush acknowledges profound mistakes in strategy. His neck is on the line. He knows the American people are not with him. He bet his administration on Iraq, and tonight he went "double or nothing" - Tim Russert


AFTER years of us hearing from Bush that he had enough troops in Iraq, he tells us that he did not have enough troops in Iraq.

OK. I should never have expected more.

"Too little, too late." - James Baker

"Current counter-insurgency strategy would require 250,000 troops, not 20,000" - Jim Baker

"The Maliki government has no credibility." - Jim Baker

Kanrei--

Nice to see you around!

Can't wait for 24 to start Sunday. You suggested it two seasons ago--we have been hooked ever since.


The speech was pretty good. He hit the best point --that the Iraqi's need to become men and stand up for their own country as our patience is between slim and none.

This is better than leaving. I want it to work and succeed and the troops can come home.

Murphy

Bush is doing the equivalent of using apricot pit extract to fight cancer. Everyone knows it won't save the patient, but it will be given a go just so someone can say they did everything possible.

"But in 2006, the opposite happened."
-W

It's OPPOSITE DAY!!!!

And the alternative was another bonesman.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Yalies .............

Murph:

Bush has had YEARS to train the Iraqi's to care for themselves.

How things change.

First, all the libs fumed about how 'staying the course' wasn't working.

Now it's the libs who want to 'stay the course'.

This illustrates the insincerity of the libs, who just hate George.

The only thing more distasteful than a person who agrees with whatever is best for America is a person who disagrees with whatever is best for America.

Now the Dems have to placate the treasonous wing of their coalition without alienating the American voter for two years.

Should be interesting.

Go Liberals!

"Current counter-insurgency strategy would require 250,000 troops, not 20,000" - Jim Baker


That is not what the general is saying--the book calls for 1 soldier for every 50 Iraqi's--they are going to Anbar and Baghdad--the other 18 provinces are not having problems.

Murphy

Persian Gulf War (#1) Generals Tranior and Odom both agreed -- Dubya's and the AEI's plan for the next year is very much anchored on wishful thinking. David Brooks suspects that it may be a set-up for withdrawal in 2008. Nobody thought the "Dubya / AEI Plan" contained much original thought. Nobody thought it would really work. Some thought it was merely an essential step before abandoning ship.

Nearly everyone complained that Dubya conflates all the violent parties into one whole "enemy", which truly reflects one of two options -- either (1) Dubya never really understood the nature of he situation that he worsened in Iraq and the component parts as they are today, or (2) that he was briefed and understands, but doesn't really care and won't fess up to the American people. In the first case, he's simply ignorant and has no credibility because he cannot get his mind around complex global and national security issues. In the second he is worse than incompetent -- he may be crazy and/or maliciously intent on a destructive course.

At the end of the day, significantly more troops are needed, and there is only one place where we can borrow the manpower needed to police and stabilize the crazy violent place called Iraq -- Hu Jintao's China has over a million soldiers. At least another 200,000 boots on the ground are needed to stabilize Baghdad. Who cares if they are American, British or Chinese. If they help stabilize Iraq, then they will defuse a dangerous and hostile situation.

www.pbs.org

Now it's the libs who want to 'stay the course'.


I think Zuloser has finally flipped. Or flopped.

"Now it's the libs who want to 'stay the course'."

As usual, Zulu...you are wrong.

But don't let that stop you!! It never has before.

There is the continued hate Bush theme--the libs want to vidicate that Bush should never have been President.

They continue to hate and anything the man says or does is never--ever--good enough.

And the question for Iraq is ---Why are Arab men so weak?

Murphy

I'm just curious, what would you guys all do if this just happened to actually work? I know you'll all be quick to give me reasons why it won't, but what will you say if it does?

I believe Baker was talking Baghdad, Murph.

"I think Zuloser has finally flipped."

Finally???

Al Queida has been plating the Bush administration and the American people like a violin since 911, and we've played right into their hands.

They didn't blow up the WTC because they thought two less skyscrapers would cripple us, they WANTED us to fly off the handle and hurt ourselves by getting bogged down in a land war and pissing away our strength and influence. They were unpleasantly surprised by how quickly we took down the Taliban, but Iraq is all they could have hoped for and more.

Argh is spot on.

"Why are Arab men so weak...?"

I dunno. I guess it's too bad no insurgents are Arabs. We could be out of Iraq by now.

It doesn't surprise this it boils down into an issue of machoism some. And liberals were supposed to be the emotional ones.

I'm still waiting to here a better plan

Hey Zulu get a fucking clue dude. I am NOT a Stay the COurse Lib. I want them Out l;ike Last Year. Actualy I never wanted them their in the first place unless the UN Declared it which was the LEGAL thing to do I know that must surly boggles Your mind. I want them out NOW.

Larry

No the libs want to do what they always wanted--Get Bush!

They want to leave and then blame Bush again when there is slaughter in Iraq--just like they did in Vietnam.

The enemy will have safe haven in Iraq--if we leave and don't get this under control. To plot and plan and kill and train and come on over here to do the same.

The libs will be the first ones in line on the wall if the enemy gets their way and have their heads used as lamp shades.

Instead of just saying--It sucks or It's stupid

Why don't you debate the plan and say why it won't work. We can have different view points--but saying sucks and stupid is not an intelligent argument.

Murphy

"the libs want to vidicate that Bush should never have been President."

We should have never been in Iraq, Murph!!!!

THAT is what those other than the few republicans left who support Bush are admitting.

I have made no secret of how I don't think Bush is qualified to hold the position he has.

How the hell can anyone think a man who is infamous at sinking business's won't sink a country, is beyond me.

"...but what will you say if it does?"

Whoo hoo!!

Can't wait for 24 to start Sunday. You suggested it two seasons ago--we have been hooked ever since.


The speech was pretty good. He hit the best point --that the Iraqi's need to become men and stand up for their own country as our patience is between slim and none.

This is better than leaving. I want it to work and succeed and the troops can come home.

Murphy


Jack Bauer has done more for justify the use of torture than any other character in Tv land as far as I can tell...

Go Bush, torture the world some more. It's your God damn right!


"Instead of just saying--It sucks or It's stupid

Why don't you debate the plan and say why it won't work. We can have different view points--but saying sucks and stupid is not an intelligent argument."

murph, the word intelligent explains why that'll never happen

It's cracking me up, that you all hate Clinton because of a blow job, but don't think that hatred is warranted for guy who has fucked up a war that we shouldn't have been in to begin with, causing thousands of Americans to die and costing this country trillions.

That is amazing to me!!

"A better plan...."

Put the country on a war footing and waqe war from a position of strength.

Now, who was it blew that option off?

"I'm just curious, what would you guys all do if this just happened to actually work? I know you'll all be quick to give me reasons why it won't, but what will you say if it does?"

We'll, if it does, I'd say wow, we dodged a huge bullet that we wouldn't have had to dodge if Bush hadn't gotten us into this mess to begin with.

I get back to the thing which has really irked me the most since day one:

If Iraq is so damned existentially important to this country, why does George Bush behave as it's some sort of hobby?

Breaking news here but we are not going to win a war that can't be won. There is no way to make the Shias and Sunnis get along. They have hated each other since God knows when and will continue to do so. We basically would have to put in another ruthless dictator to get control of that country. We need to divide the country in 3 so they don't kill each other.

Red...

They would give credit to the new Congress....

FYI 24 fans.Canadian citizen Kiefer Sutherland is the grandson of Tommy Douglas.The former preacher/socialist premier of Saskatchewan who was the founder of universal medicare in Canada.

zed, can you expound a bit?

"you all hate Clinton because of a blow job"

lisa, i could care less about a stupid blowjob. i agree that this war couldve been avoided, but hindsight is 20-20, dear. now that we are there, we have a responsibility to do what is best for everyone involved. btw, noone goes into the miolitary expecting it to be "club med".

What exactly was the plan, to secure baghdad, to give them a breath of fresh air? To allow the government to act like a government and try to lead it's people?

To answer nutz earlier question about come with your own plan, Durbin nailed it. The dems plan is to come home, we have achieved the goals of going into the war, there are no WMD's, there is no Sadam and there is a democratic government. If they want to devolve into a civil war, it is their right. If you think that will allow Iran to jump in and take over or al queda, your crazy. It will be like two brothers fighting each other till the stranger jumps in and then the brothers whoop his ass. Iraq hates Iran..they did have a little war recently. Iran would be held in check by Saudi and Egypt even they did enter. What also could be wrong with a little war and strife in their regions to stir a buying frenzy of the few american products teh world wants...guns and ammo...

Just thoughts from a lib...

"I'm still waiting to here(sic) a better plan"

Posted by walnuthill


Another child left behind.

Ummm..

Do we have 21,000 more troops to send?

Just a question...

military, sorry

I don't hate Clinton--

He's an accused rapist and can't keep it in his pants--

Oh yeah--he lost OBL like 4 times before 9/11.

There are lots of things to be critical of Clinton--but he did lie to a judge--under Oath--

That's his legacy--but hate --no.

You wont recognize that Bush ran Texas for two terms--successfully.

But where is the plan to defeat the enemy?

Just leave? That's the Plan? Whoa!

Murphy

The Dems have no choice but to play two card monte. Not having enough courage to follow a single conviction is the closest shadow of a character trait any Liberal can hope to possess.

Redeploy? Why not just come out and be honest and say retreat?

Because Liberals are cowards and as cowards they fear the meanings of the words they want to use.

So the Democratic 'Leadership' will pass a non-binding' resolution stating they feel George is just wrong.

But they'll give George the money.

What conviction. What courage.

'Stay the course', cowardly Democrats.

The Chinese Army has sufficient manpower.

data...ahhhh the wonders of spelling errors...when all else fails, insult something obvious

Walnut:

I know people in the military. I think they expect their commander in chief to make better decisions than Bush has made.

I dislike the man. I think he is an utter failure at everything he touches. His presidency has proven no different.

Unfortunately, Americans are dying because of his stupidity.

And now he wants to send in more.

He's a fool.

"The speech was pretty good. He hit the best point --that the Iraqi's need to become men and stand up for their own country as our patience is between slim and none."

You're stupid, Murphy. We go in and rip up their country and you're spouting macho buck-passing bullshit. Iraqi security forces are risking their lives and getting killed every day and you're whining about them not acting like men?

Bush loved to execute while he was Governor, too:>)


Sooo.... the new plan is to have Maliki (sp) turn on al-Sadr who put him in power, sic the Iraqi Army and the US troops on him, turn over oil rights in the Shia south to Sunnis in the north, and give up some political power to them.

It IS what needs to be done, but is he up to the job?

Well, we'll see, won't we?

$400 Billion and thousands of deaths later.

You know, I heard him finally admit his mistakes, but I didn't hear an apology to the families of the dead or the taxpayers in general for those mistakes.

If your kid brother knocked over a hornet's nest while everyone was out enjoying a barbecue by the swimming pool, would you throw your kid brother under the bus? It seems that you'd get out of the pool, get dressed appropriately, and work on taking care of the hornets.

If it were your Dad or crazy old Grandpa, you'd probably want to throw them under the bus, but you'd try to work with them to solve the problem they created.

Sort of like the situation we have here, but the problem created by the country's national security team is a bit more serious than a nestful of hornets.

Nixon was strange, but he reconnected the world's oldest civilization with the rest of the world.

"There are lots of things to be critical of Clinton--but he did lie to a judge--under Oath--"

Well....let's get this bastard under oath, Murph!!!!

Let's see how critical you are of Bush once it is finally proven that he has manipulated intel, he has mislead this country!!

He can't even testify before a committee without Cheney holding his fucking hand....oh....and nothing under oath!

Secrets everywhere with this administration....and you don't suspect a thing.

Amazing!!!

"It's cracking me up, that you all hate Clinton because of a blow job, but don't think that hatred is warranted for guy who has fucked up a war that we shouldn't have been in to begin with, causing thousands of Americans to die and costing this country trillions."

Lisa,

Perfectly said....I mean I would hate to see the "right to lifers" rally around a cause that doesn't support needless killing of american men and women.

One real creative solution might be this:

Consider who has the largest stake in a stable Iraq? Its neighbors (to a degree). The EU to a degree. And all of the other major net consumers of oil -- notably Japan, China and the USA.

Seems that Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld did an exceptional job at pissing off all of the EU in the run-up to the 2003 invasion, and that Canada and the EU are now doing their fair share by manning a large share of the force to fight Dubya's unfinished war in Afghanistan, so they cannot be blamed for not wanting to help out in Iraq. Japan did a lot of its share in Iraq, and perhaps they could be persuaded to return if it looked like China would be entering the fold.

And since 300,000 MORE troops would be needed to quell the violence in Baghdad Province alone, it seems reasonable to think that the administration should be working to entice China to provide the bulk of the 300,000 more needed to help out.

Ni hao ma? Tshai tshai!

I'm not just referring to the Iraqi's dying to police their country--silly boy!

I am referring to all Arabs. They kill eachother and their neighbors and their children. They are weak-minded.

Same as you.

Now go troll somewhere else.

Murphy

i have to say that i thought Bush seemed defeated in his speach. I wish he would have come out and said that he was going to insert 50,000 more troops. I am tired of watching us play two hand touch w/ these people. I dont think leaving right now will produce anything but a blood bath and then what would we do? Go back in? That seems improbable at best. I dont think the democrats have any plan other than negotiated defeat. I also think that we are not fighting to win!

'he reconnected the world's oldest civilization with the rest of the world'

If you don't believe that all you have to do is visit a Wal-Mart.

hindsight is 20-20,

lmao!

Get ready to hear that old chestnut ad nauseum. It'll be on the Repub talking points for sure.

On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy

Again, I'm curious. Do you disagree with this statement, or do you just disagree with our execution of the objective?

"You're stupid, Murphy. We go in and rip up their country and you're spouting macho buck-passing bullshit. Iraqi security forces are risking their lives and getting killed every day and you're whining about them not acting like men?"

It's all part of the new Bush trial balloon - It's all Iraq's fault for not playing along with our vision of a New American Century.

lisa, i was in the military. if they diagree soooooo much, there are ways out.

"I think they expect their commander in chief to make better decisions than Bush has made."

i can personally vouch for 180(+/-) that would not agree with you. as for people dying, thats what happens in war. you wouldnt move to alaska and expect to see palm trees everywhere, would you?

Let me be the first to officially state:

THIS PLAN WILL NOT WORK.

ahhh I feel so much better now.

And Murph:

Don't talk about letting OBL get away.

The worlds strongest most capable military, giving up control of Tora Bora to a much lesser, weaker military...is inexcusable.

You want to talk about OBL...we can do so. But I'm sure you don't want to hear about Bush's failures or should I say...lack of interest in the mastermind of the greatest sucker punch this country has ever seen, costing thousands their lives.

But...we're talking about Iraq...a country we shouldn't have ever been in.

I want Bush under oath and I pray the democrats put him there!!

The Republicans got us in this mess. The Democrats have legislative power because the American people want us out of Iraq. If the Dems don't use this mandate then they do not deserve to govern. What we need is a 3rd party President who would serve one term and then give his VP the opportunity to run. A 3rd party and a one-term limit for all political offices is the only real answer to the abuses of power we regularly see by both parties.

Is Murphy related to LZK. I remember reading some wingnut named LZK who was just as delusional.

Lisa I am sickened by these Bushites. I can not understand their blind loyalty to that fucking loser extra oridaire. I really wish that they had not injested that Grape Flavoured FlavorAid laced with the NeoCon Cianide. I would love to see their reactions of their faces when they find out they have been swallowing the NeoCon Poison. I am not a vengeful Person I abhor all Violence but it would be sweet.

Larry

Walnut:

You do not speak for the entire US military...whether you were in it or not.

Don't presume to think you do.

Is there a link to a text copy?

Good for you truth. Who do you think a re deployment would work for?

On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy



Strawman at work.

How hard do you have to work to create an arguement you can win?

Much of the hate in Iraq is directed towards the gentlemen in khaki knocking on their doors, shooting their third cousins, destroying their cities while the remainder of this hatred is aimed at the iraqi down the street who believes in a different protege of mohammed

Um, 'scuse me?

Could we hear Plan B, pleeeeze!?

Lisa I left a message in the nooner. I live in new mexico and anyplace is great long as I can drive to it and there is a hotel close.

I also think that we are not fighting to win!



win what?

"i can personally vouch for 180(+/-) "
how does that equate to the entire military? keep trying to shove things in my mouth. it wont work.

Who do you think a re deployment would work for?

Posted by Dalton


noone.

Let me restate what i have said for over 3 years.

Iraq is unwinnable cause there is nothing to win.

We are fighting and dying to create a state that will be hostile to our intents.

Turning country intoa battlefield to keep oneself safe is immoral and the basis of all failed policies.

Iraq is a catch 22. We cannot stay, we cannot leave.

We will not leave Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Get used to it.

Just leave? That's the Plan? Whoa!

Murphy

Just stay and referee a civil war while blindly supporting a moron who lied and manipulated information just to send American men and women to their death, whoa.

Oh yeah and Bush ran Texas successfully?

What about his two energy companies that he ran bankrupt, no championships or league championships while he ran the rangers, and he followed on Anne Richards coat tails in the GOvernors mansion. Even that dumb ass Anna Nicole Smith from texas could have done what Bush did, except she may not have left the state's education system in shambles...no child left behind...more like any child outside of the top 15%.

Nice try Smurphy.......

Your prays will go unanswered Lisa--sorry to disappoint.

Did you want to talk about the plan? Or going down memory lane?

If you want to talk about the Plan--great!

But the continued he did this and he did that--from both of us--is not going forward.

Murphy


This plan is all the things that the Shia goverment has failed to deliver for the last year.

To think that they are going to give in to the idea of a unity government is delusional.

Hillary says she cannot support the plan and that arrogance and incomptence have gotten us into this.


to our interests not intents.

I am referring to all Arabs. They kill each other and their neighbors and their children. They are weak-minded.


Name me one society that doesn't.

Nice hatespeak, though.

Anyone going to take the question? Why doesn't China pony up troops to make the occupation work?

Why doesn't the administration try diplomacy to get China into this game. They have the largest Army in the world, and NATO and US Navy ships patrol the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Straits of Malacca to help tankers carry Persian Gulf crude to China. So what is China doing with it's great big enormous army? Why cant they spare half a million (or so) of their soldiers to make the occupation work, and to bring stability to Iraq???

"Now go troll somewhere else."

Blow me. You made idiotic comments and I called you on it. You can make an argument or you can just whine and call me a troll.

murph, ive been saying that for the past 20-30 mins. it wont work.

the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy

TruthHurts - Agree? Or Disagree? If you disagree, what's your plan?

And if 2.2 million pilgrims can fly their way into Mecca for hajj over the past 2 weeks, why can't the world's logistics geniuses figure out a way to get 200,000+ Chinese soldiers into Baghdad over the next 3-6 months???

I'm just curious, considering all this talk of winning in Iraq - what exactly do we win here, what does that look like?

It seems to me the goals of this war are acknowledged to either have been acheived (WMDs, Saddam, etc.) or hopelessly out of reach (West leaning democracy that will spread western values throughout the ME).

If we do this, what do we get out of it, besides delaying our withdrawal at the cost of a several thousand more casualties?

Here's the thing:

Bush wouldn't listen to military experts who warned him that he wasn't going into Iraq with enough troops. Why? Because he couldn't afford the time it would take to train enough troops that were needed. Why? Because we would have all found out what he knew already....the intel wasn't accurate. Why? Because he cherry picked it. Why? Because he would have never gotten the support for his personal agenda. But...I've gotten off track.

So...he didn't listen at the beginning...and he's not listening now...his last chance.

21,000 is NOT enough to do the job. Are you going to tell me that Bush is still listenting to military "advisors"????

Iraq is a catch 22. We cannot stay, we cannot leave.

We will not leave Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Get used to it.

Posted by truthhurts


That's putting it pithy.

To be honest, I don't believe we wil ever--entirely leave Iraq.

Murphy

"Did you want to talk about the plan? "

I have been.

You wanted to go into how this is just to bash Bush.

The "hatred".

Remember?

Why doesn't the administration try diplomacy to get China into this game. They have the largest Army in the world, and NATO and US Navy ships patrol the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Straits of Malacca to help tankers carry Persian Gulf crude to China. So what is China doing with it's great big enormous army? Why cant they spare half a million (or so) of their soldiers to make the occupation work, and to bring stability to Iraq???


Posted by townncountry at 2007-01-10 10:51 PM | Reply

You think that would actualy work and that they would dismiss having The Collective (Fuck You Finger) shoved in their faces by Dubya ?? You think they would actualy excuse that and come help?? Remember Dubya by Invading Iraq Illegaly without the clear UN Mandate He told the world to kiss off.

Larry

Live Vote on the Bushwhacked speech from MSNBC

www.msnbc.msn.com

"I am referring to all Arabs. They kill eachother and their neighbors and their children. They are weak-minded"

All arabs??? 100 percent% You're really full of bullshit.

Gotta love the new Republican mantras...

Well, what's your plan?

We need to move forward....

Your retarded chimp and his cabal of oil-company cronies got us into this mess in the first place. YOU put him in the WH twice. What is clearer than this?

"Why doesn't China pony up troops to make the occupation work? "

Because China doesn't want to.

I will not set flame to your strawman.

Your point has ZERO to do with Iraq.

Define enemy vis a vis Iraq.

Define hopeful alternative?

Define realistic

Define this hateful ideology you speak of.

America did NOT invade Iraq to provide a hopeful alternative. It was not even a signifcant consideration, (read Bush's SOTU in 2003).

America invaded Iraq to protect the US from some convergence of terrorists with WMD or some silly bullshit.

We are NOW in the midst of genocide and civil war.

Unity government is a fiction.

lisa,
so you say more is needed? more to "die because of his stupidity" (your words)?

Tand C,

Because china is more than content to continue to bankroll this war and America's debt and position themselves as teh next and only superpower.

Based upon the responses from the liberals, I guess the DNC has not yet issued their new talking points.

This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

Yeah right!!
If you beleive a measely 21,000 troops are gonna do that-yer dumber than the prez....
Aside from the fact that the force is too small-you'll have our troops surrounded by Iraqi Military and police forces-the same ones that have been infiltrated to their eyballs by the very militias they're supposed to fight.
It's gonna be a bloodbath alright-OUR troops are going to get slaughtered and for what?

So that a spoiled, moronic, incurious, self absorbed Connecticut Yankee pretending to be a Texass cowboy can talk about how great a prez he was?

You guys pull the oddest shaped things outta yer asses-how can you do that and NOT bleed to death afterward?

redridinghood,

I guess neither has Karl rove and the right based on the number of elected officials abandoning the president.

Here it is:

Bush speech

21K wont do squat 210k would make a difference, but Republicans can't bear the thought of their rich kids dying after being drafted.

To be honest, I don't believe we wil ever--entirely leave Iraq.

Murphy


Now Murphy that is something I totally agree with you on!

Commander in Chiefs like Bush don't care...they serve a different master than most sane people.

General Custer would have understood.

"Because he cherry picked it"

Damn that gets old.

"Earlier today,
I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. "

After Afghanistan Saddam posed the greatest risk and George had to deal with Iraq because a lot of people knew Iraq supported terrorists and a lot of people believed Iraq was close to developing WMDs.

Mongrel - I see the righties wanting to talk about the plan and the lefties wanting to talk about what happened three years ago.

Truth, i appreciate your answer. But that is flawed logic b/c we made Europe a battlefield to protect our interest.
You are wrong in my opinion when you say no one b/c Iran and Syria would be able to fight their proxy war through Iraq if we leave. Blaming everything on the Iraqis who up until this point as a people have not supported terrorism. There is chaos in Iraq but we can not allow Iran to control that country.

Walnut:

Bush has been told by many, many people that 21,000 is not enough. If you're going to surge....then surge. That is the only way to over take them.

To send 21,000 now, at this time, when it will have little to no impact, is just sending them to die.

My views have not changed. A year ago, I said we needed more troops...prior to the swarm of terrorists that claimed that country.

"Anyone going to take the question? Why doesn't China pony up troops to make the occupation work?"

Because it serves their interests for us to be weakened by the war, because they can come get the oil anyway as neutral buyers, because Chinese soldiers are needed at home to oppress their own population, because Chinese soldiers are (generally) not nearly as well trained or equipped as Western troops and would get their asses handed to them, and because they don't want to.

Redman.

Let me make this perfectly clear so that even someone as dimwitted as yourself can understand.

THERE IS NO PLAN THAT CAN WORK IN IRAQ.

NONE, NOT A SINGLE PLAN.

WOuld you like me to explain why?

Because there is nothing to win in Iraq.

Can you comprehend that?

The goal is what?

YOU CANNOT MAKE SUNNIS LIKE SHIITES.

YOU CANNOT MAKE SHIITES LIKE SUNNIS.

THEY HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AGENDA THAN THE HAPPINESS AND SECURITY OF THE USA.

Unless you wish to eradicate on part of iraq or another, you cannot make one group get along with the other.

SOOOOO what is the most likely outcome? What our efforts WILL give us?

A weak nation state allied with(in numerous manifestations) Iran.

Spreading dissatisfaction throughout the Middle east.

This bastion of democracy is actually spreading totalarism if you hadnt noticed.

Mongrel - I see the righties wanting to talk about the plan and the lefties wanting to talk about what happened three years ago.

Posted by Redman


Your plan stinks and always has. The only plan that makes sense is to just gtfo.

so, oh wise, great, and powerful strategist(spoken: lisa)*sarchasm* what now? what is your NEW PLAN that will be much better than the current one?

Lisa--with all due respect--the topic was the Plan--the speech--the ideas presented by the President.

You started with how he is a failure, etc. etc etc.

And then I digressed and fell into the Clinton trap.

I'm trying to bring it back around to the topic of the thread.

The plan is to use 18 Iraqi brigades and 5 US brigades just inside Baghdad. That equates to 1 soldier for every 50 people. They want ot go area to area and when the enemy is killed and they can moe to the next area, they will leave Iraqi army and police to hold the area they just cleared.

This is a change from what they were doing before.

The new general in charge--Petrecki (?) He is a pretty smart guy and apparently has expertise in insurgency.

And to include the surrounding countries and especially telling Maliki how the cow ate the cabbage--is all better than what was being followed before.

Is this not a change for the better? Or do we take our ball and leave the slaughter behind?

Murphy

"YOU CANNOT MAKE SUNNIS LIKE SHIITES.

YOU CANNOT MAKE SHIITES LIKE SUNNIS.

THEY HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AGENDA THAN THE HAPPINESS AND SECURITY OF THE USA."

Excellent!

Not to mention, you can't take a country that bases it's laws and policies on their religious beliefs, and expect them to conform to our form of democracy.

It's not going to happen!

Someone know how many soldiers and logistics are included in One Brigade?

Murphy

"I don't believe we wil ever--entirely leave Iraq."

-Murphy

As long as there is oil.

Thankfully homo sapiens is confined to quarters.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov

TruthHurts - You need to have your keyboard checked. I think your CapsLock key is sticking.

Damn that gets old.

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. "

After Afghanistan Saddam posed the greatest risk and George had to deal with Iraq because a lot of people knew Iraq supported terrorists and a lot of people believed Iraq was close to developing WMDs.

Posted by zulu at 2007-01-10 11:02 PM | Reply


www.thememoryhole.org

Colin Powell
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Condi Rice
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Hmmmmmm They didn't think so until it became Politically advantagous to State otherwise.


Larry

"Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. "

GW Tonite

:>)LOL

Truth, i appreciate your answer. But that is flawed logic b/c we made Europe a battlefield to protect our interest.


Sorry you are wrong.

WW 2 and Iraq are NOT alike.

Japan attack US.

Germany declared war on US.

France had surrendered to Germany.

WE invaded continent to reach Germany.

We defeated Germany.

Iraq did not attack us.

Iraq was not a threat nor did they declare war on us.

We are not fighting Iraq, we are occupying Iraq in the midst of their civil war.

All to make sure we fight the terrorists over there so we dont have to fight them over here.

How do you think the iraqis feel about that?

Bush is sending in the 21K soldiers to guard the Halliburton contractors so they can extort more tax dollars.

There is chaos in Iraq but we can not allow Iran to control that country.



They didnt until we invaded.


This plan is all the things that the Shia goverment has failed to deliver for the last year.

To think that they are going to give in to the idea of a unity government is delusional.

/>

Murph:

With all due respect, I've addressed some of the issues that are wrong with Bush's plan.

It's too little too late for what he is suggesting.

It should have happened long ago, with a larger number of troops...prior to the swarm of terrorists that went into Iraq.

Bush has failed. His current plan is a receipe for disaster.

Psssssssssst TruthHurts need to remind them of the fact that Germany was bombing Our shipping Vessels Pre Pearl Harbor too Iraq on the other hand never attacked the United States.

Larry

so, oh wise, great, and powerful strategist(spoken: lisa)*sarchasm* what now? what is your NEW PLAN that will be much better than the current one?

And Murph....the terrorists have no plans of backing off. Check out the link I put up awhile back.

I'm not willing to risk 21,000 more American lives, when it is clear....it's not enough to stop this.

ugh Larry you will make me blush and pull out my Germany and italy declarations of war for the less learned amoung us.

"win the war on terror"

I'm not afraid.
I feel no "terror".
What "war"?

Whats wrong with the cut and run plan. Let the Shias and Sunnis blow each other up. Or is about the Oil????

LOL

All these Bush supporters looking for answers from someone other than the asshole that caused the problem.

Amazing!

My plan....let Iraq have it's civil war. Let Bush take responsibility for the damage he has caused. And save American lives.

lisa,
someone very wise once said, " don't come to me with just a problem, come to me with a solution as well. if the problem is such that you cannot find a better solution, the one in place, by definition, is currently the best."

more troops to accomplish what?

whach this mole so another mole pops up?



Maliki to confront Sadr?

You mean the Sadr whose men hung Saddam?

hahahahahahahaha

the insanity and stupidity of this notion is incredible.

somewhere next February we will reach 4000 dead Americans.

Get used to it.

THERE IS NO PLAN THAT CAN WORK IN IRAQ.

This, at least is true

sometimes, you have to learn when to cut your losses.

LEAVE is the solution. Blood has more value than oil unless you vote republican. Then the dollar is the holy grail.

They dont have to like eachother--just stop killing eachother.

Turkey has a parliament--democractically elected and religious--and they are not killing eachother.

The majority of the country is fine--it's within Baghdad and the Anbar area that needs the attention.

And since the President is Commander in Chief--he gets to decide.

Instead of continuing to bash him--why not support the idea of winning--or pretend and hope and pray it works--for the Iraqis and the troops and the US.

Gotta go--my son has homework.

Murphy

A wise man once said "It's better to be alive than to be dead"

"Someone know how many soldiers and logistics are included in One Brigade?"

vomited by Murphy



Lots of folks.


Try google,

imbecile.

"Mongrel - I see the righties wanting to talk about the plan and the lefties wanting to talk about what happened three years ago."

Redamn, nothing has significantly changed in the past three years, and all this plan will do is perpetuate the status belli.

Happy now?

never said i supported bush, just wondered what your better idea was. dont get me wrong. i'm all for a little isolationism, but at what point will it cease to be constructive? when will those that we refused to help turn on us?

and they are not killing eachother.


yes they are

and until about a month or so ago were fighting the Iraqi kurds.

Other plans have been given, Walnut.

Bush's arrogance forbids him to listen.

and they are not killing eachother.


yes they are

and until about a month or so ago were fighting the Iraqi kurds.

You want a plan-WalnutHill?
Here's a Plan-

Put 750,000 pairs of boots on the ground.
Kill everyone who isn't Sunni-or-Shia(pick one).
Then get the fuck out.
That'd stop the violence in Iraq.
What it'd do to Terrorist activity around the world is another matter.

and they are not killing eachother.


yes they are

and until about a month or so ago were fighting the Iraqi kurds.

ugh Larry you will make me blush and pull out my Germany and italy declarations of war for the less learned amoung us.


Posted by truthhurts at 2007-01-10 11:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Hey I don't like making Men blush. I Love it when THEY Make ME blush.

Larry

Murphy is clueless. I feel sorry for her.

Argh -- a reasonable answer, but one that applies to every other nation, too. The fact is however, that China gets a free security ride because the US is afraid to make China pony up to provide for its own security. Sooner or later, the US will have to decide that it will have to have a cooperative military relationship with China or a hostile one. Currently, Hu Jintao doesn't want to spend a penny on an international peacekeeping force, although it would accelerate his military's modernization.

Fact is, however, that a 1:10 ratio of occupiers to civilians is needed at a minimum to make a difficult occupation work. (See British Malaya findings).

The only place to get place-keeper forces to stand on the corner's of Baghdad is from China. (If the Chinese are good enough to make our TV's, I-pods and cha-cha, why not out-source some international peacekeeping work to them?)

Did I say it was his worst speech ever, since the last one?

Well, it was.

The majority of the country is fine--it's within Baghdad and the Anbar area that needs the attention.



cause that's where all the people are.

No people-no problems.

Of course in Basra we have taliban like rule but who cares tis peaceful

frank,
so how is that the best plan?

"when will those that we refused to help turn on us?"

Funny how that same attitude isn't carried out by republicans when it comes to people of this very country.

"People need to have personal responsibility...take care of themselves".

They don't like social programs here for Americans. Why is it so important to help those in other countries???

01/10/07 Reuters: 60 Bodies found in Baghdad
Police recovered the bodies of 60 people with gunshot wounds and signs of torture from various parts of Baghdad in the 24 hours to Wednesday evening, an Interior Ministry source said.


how many days in the past year have you seen a story like this?

"Psssssssssst TruthHurts need to remind them of the fact that Germany was bombing Our shipping Vessels Pre Pearl Harbor too Iraq on the other hand never attacked the United States"

Larry they were shooting missiles at our planes that your beloved U.N sent there!

"ugh Larry you will make me blush and pull out my Germany and italy declarations of war for the less learned amoung us." Truth hurts
You know nothing about me you arrogant bastard! You sit on your high horse and pretend to be something you are not. If you think that the baathist regime was not looking for our demise you are a fool!

01/10/07 Reuters: 60 Bodies found in Baghdad
Police recovered the bodies of 60 people with gunshot wounds and signs of torture from various parts of Baghdad in the 24 hours to Wednesday evening, an Interior Ministry source said.


how many days in the past year have you seen a story like this?

Time for my Fat Boy Slim video with Chris Walken.

Nitey nite.

how many days in the past year have you seen a story like this?

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-01-10 11:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Hey I only have 8 fingers 2 thumbs and 10 toes I forgot how to count after that.

Larry

tsk tsk tsk dalton.

lots of people wish for our demise.

and often the surest way to that demise is a foolish military adventure.

saddam was contained.

saddam was not a threat.

war should be the absolute LAST resort.

lisa,
to ensure that none/minimal #'s are a threat to us. we hope that by giving them what "we" "believe" to be the better option, they wont mess with us in the future.

Larry they were shooting missiles at our planes that your beloved U.N sent there!

"ugh Larry you will make me blush and pull out my Germany and italy declarations of war for the less learned amoung us." Truth hurts
You know nothing about me you arrogant bastard! You sit on your high horse and pretend to be something you are not. If you think that the baathist regime was not looking for our demise you are a fool!

Posted by Dalton at 2007-01-10 11:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Psssssssssst the UN Did NOT send those planes into Iraq. that was Set up by the United States Great Brittan and France when France learned that they were ILLEGAL they vacated their support. Learn something next time Dalton.

Larry

Larry they were shooting missiles at our planes that your beloved U.N sent there!


btw dalton, you demonstrate your ignorance once again.


Please provide us with a UN document authorizing the presence of US planes in Iraqi space?

I didn't say it was the best plan.
It is-however aplan that does what dipshit "claims" to be trying to do. End the violence in Iraq-so our Troops can come home-with as little of their blood shed as possible.

Is it the best possible plan?
Not by a long shot.
But-it is BY FAR-a lot BETTER plan-with more of a chance of working toward the STATED goal-than the current "drop in the bucket"-then set the bucket on fire plan dumbass just got done blathering about.

And what does that have to do w/ American troops truth?

gnite

gnite

sory dalton what are you refering to? the 60 dead iraqis? Just wanted to remind you we surged in baghdad several months ago, to neglible effect.

remember that 6 months from now.

frank,
toward a stated goal, yes. in that you are right. but that alone doesnt make it a better plan. just b/c a plan is completely successful, doesnt mean that is well thought out or even a good idea

You are correct Truth. They were part of the cease fire that Saddam agreed to after the first Gulf war. I was incorrect. But the Iraqi govt agreed to them so we would not remove the current Baathist regime.

"they wont mess with us in the future."

Are you serious????

They most certainly will!!!

This president has shown the terrorists just how stupid this country is.

We have allowed a man, whose arrogance dictates policy, to invade a country, being proven wrong time and time again....and we still allow him to make decisions.

They do not take us seriously.

It's time for Iraq to sink or swim.

So technically when they broke their part of the cease fire we were able to resume hostilities.

lisa,
like i said...that's the IDEA. didnt say thats how it worked. i agree with you. hell, while were at it, lets manufacture a few billion tons of glass and be done with that entire region (joking)

"This president has shown the terrorists just how stupid this country is." Lisa.

Those are your words not mine lisa. So are you calling the citizens of the U.S stupid? I really can not believe you just said that.

not sure if i agree with the stupid part though.....

www.fff.org

The Embarrassment and Illegality of the No-Fly Zones
by Jacob G. Hornberger, November 21, 2002


President Bush's "zero tolerance" for Iraqi violations of UN resolutions has apparently dropped to "two percent tolerance." According to administration officials, Iraqi forces have once again fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq, which U.S. officials had previously claimed would constitute an immediate justification for invading Iraq, not only under the principle of "self-defense" but also for violation of the recently passed UN resolution.

The Bush administration, however, is backing off and so far is not using the shootings as a "self-defense" excuse to invade Iraq, and so far isn't even taking the matter to the UN Security Council.

There's a very good reason for the government's decision: Despite their mild protestations to the contrary, U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go. And their decision not to use either "self-defense" or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.

www.prospect.org

In fact, no UN resolution or other international authority exists to legitimize the NFZs, which are currently the scene of an intensifying air-to-ground firefight between an armada of U.S. and British warplanes and an ineffectual Iraqi defense system. The British-American presence over Iraq is a case of might-makes-right, and Iraq's feeble attempts to defend its skies are justified under international law. Yet the NFZs are immeasurably more explosive now because a unilateral U.S. interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted on Nov. 8, provides a pretext for launching the war that President George W. Bush wants

Want Me to go on Dalton ???

Larry

lol, this back and fourth with lisa walnut and murphy is hilarious. There has been about 2 hours of this conversation:

Lisa: Bush sucks
Walnut/Murphy: How so?
Lisa: Bush sucks
Walnut/Murphy: What don't you like about his NEW plan?
Lisa: His old plan sucked
Walnut/Murphy: But what about the NEW one?
Lisa: I already explained, Bush sucks.


Typical druge conversation.

So are you calling the citizens of the U.S stupid?

Have you seen the kind of shit they put on TV now?

Larry are you deaf or blind? i admitted my mistake in my earlier position. But the no fly zones were part of the cease fire that was signed by Iraq after the first Gulf War. You must have missed that post.

quitbitching,
yep...that pretty much sums it up

So technically when they broke their part of the cease fire we were able to resume hostilities.

Posted by Dalton at 2007-01-10 11:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

They had every right to fire upon those airplanes Violating their airspace. They had SOvereignty in Iraq as Acknowledged in UN Resolution 687 and 688.

Larry

no fly zones were part of the cease fire that was signed by Iraq after the first Gulf War. You must have missed that post.

Posted by Dalton at 2007-01-10 11:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

NO they were NOT part of ANY Cease Fire DO try yet again Dalton for You know not what You speak of.

Larry

you have a point Ness! But i dont think Lisa was talking about what Americans watch on tv. I have had debates with her in the past and only wanted to give her the opportunity to revise her statement. i dont think she meant that Americans are stupid. maybe i am wrong?

"So are you calling the citizens of the U.S stupid? "

Yes, Dalton...I am.

People have given this president carte blanche on everything...never questioning anything. That....is stupidity!! That is ignorance! That is naivity!! All are dangerous and costly.

Thank God....people are starting to smarten up! Unfortunately....the damage is already done.

news.bbc.co.uk

The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.
The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.


British Jaguar aircraft on patrol

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

Larry

walnuthill-
Now you've got it! Keep thinking in those terms.
Of course it isn't well thought out. I put it forward to prove a point. We can attain the goals dipshit has put out for Iraq-and louse it up even worse-given his track record-I don't trust him OR his advisors to get it right.
They haven't gotten ONE THING right in the six years they've been in control of the Government.
Why should I-or anyone else-for that matter-trust them to have thought this through this time?

They haven't.

They'll be putting our troops in with Iraqi troops that have been heavily infiltrated by the very Militias they were sent after.
All it's going to do is increase our casualties.
In 6 mos. he'll come up with another delaying tactic. And then another 6 mos. after that.
He's doing nothing but running out the clock-so he can dump the problem of what to do-and therefore the blame-when the backlash for HIS little misadventure-starts-on his successor.
Typical frat boy-never held accountable in his life-asswipe.
What I'm waiting for is his "announcement" that he's going to get a multi-million dollar "bonus" for doing such a good job...

well, on those notes, im going to sleep. g'night ya'll

This nation is stupid or at least the 51% who voted Bush into office.

Actually...what really has "changed" in Bush's recent plan???

We've always been trying to train Iraqi's to hold their own.

We've been adding troops, here and there.

We've been pouring money into that country.

Bush is still trying to equate 911 with Iraq.

Basically....this speech was needless. It really is "stay the course".

btw frank,
i disagree. nite!

G'nite walnut-thanks for the civil tone....

no problem

Hmmmmmmmmm Silence from Dalton I wonder why BWhahahahahahahah

Larry

I am referring to all Arabs. They kill eachother and their neighbors and their children. They are weak-minded.

What started as a series of dots on my screen hit my retina as electromagnetic radiation, collected by photoreceptors. Ganglion cells sent the stimuli as electrical impulses through the optic chiasm to the visual cortex of the occupital lobe in my brain.

And then, like having eaten ice cream too fast, my head froze as I couldn't believe I'd read something this god damn fucking stupid and racist ON A COMPUTER...IN THE 21ST CENTURY.

You are-of course-welcome to disagree-however-that soesn't mean you're right-or that I'm wrong.
But I digress.

Your're wrong-I'm right.

Why do iI come here and abuse myself? I was in a good mood...

Now I want to break something.

Murphy will get ya everytime

Truthfully, the only thing Bush has done different with this plan, is to put the blame for failure in the hands of Iraqi's. Of course....excusing himself from any responsibility.

Basically....this speech was needless. It really is "stay the course".

Posted by Lisa at 2007-01-10 11:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stay the course(TM) 2.0

Now with more troops!

Lisa Dubya has never had to take the blame for anything in His Life. He doesn't know the very meaning of Responsibility. He is a low down no good Manboy who is still wetting His pants and going Gaga Googoo for the Camera.

Larry

I understand how you feel Alex-it's enough to make yer brain hurt.
Of course-since most of them hate anyone to the left of flush rimjob so much-it makes their hair bleed-it's no wonder so many of us get Migraines.....

It's ridiculous, Alex.

All this was, was to set Iraq up to take the entire blame for what's happened in their country.

I will be shocked if Bush's numbers go up after this speech. He was lifeless, monotone...hardly anything to get excited or uplifted about.

He most certainly looks defeated. As he should look. He has really screwed up!

Larry, the U.N did not fight the first gulf war.

"A peace conference was held in allied-occupied Iraq. At the conference, Iraq negotiated use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border. Soon after, these helicopters -- and much of the Iraqi armed forces -- were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support a people's uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones in both the North and the South. In Kuwait, the Emir's dictatorship was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were attacked extra-judicially, especially Palestinians. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country."

Larry this does not spell it out in so many words and i do not have time to research it at this moment but helicopters were the only thing that could be used. that was short sighted on our militaries part but, it is essentially a no fly zone.

Well, Bush just gave us notice tonight in his speech that Cheney and the rest of the Neocons intend to implement their PNAC plans and we better get ready 'cause we are going to war with Syria and Iran.

We need our military leaders and the Democrats to stop these madmen before the entire ME is ablaze. Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- all Sunnis -- will side with the Iraq Sunnis, and the Iranians who are Shiites will unite with the Iraq Shiites and BOTH THE SUNNIS AND SHIITES will all go against our own military troops.

Bush is a sociopath and must be stopped. If I had any doubts that Bush might be having second thoughts about attacking Iran, all I needed to do was listen to his speech to realize that Iraq is just Part I of Bush's Middle East Armaggedon. No diplomatic talks with the Iranians and Syrians for Psycho Boy -- he's ready to nuke.

The republican talkshow hosts will say he was brilliant. I heard Michael Reagan saying he needs more chances.

Murphy- I hope if you have any kids they marry arabs, and have long and happy marriages...pushing little brown kids out.

Americans are stupid.

Sincerely,

Lisa

Why Did Bush Give Kristol's Speech? PNAC is Alive and Well and They're Taking Us to Iran and Syria!

PNAC is alive and well and living inside George W. Bush's empty skull. All you had to do was watch a few minutes of FOX News before George W. Bush gave his speech and the grin on William Kristol's face, (PNAC chairman who is very likely one of the insiders that brought us 9/11 or as he called it, our "new Pearl Harbor"), and you would have known that Bush was about to announce the continuation of the PNAC agenda. Kristol grinned like a little boy trying to keep a secret. But some of us know better. Some of us know that Kristol has been one of the Neocons who has helped package and sell the continuation of the PNAC foreign policy agenda.

"A new way forward" and troop "surge" are two of the laughable inaccurate terms that have been coined for this second chapter in the PNAC coup. These guys stole an election, 9/11ed us into giving them control of our military and they even sacrificed their own (Rumsfeld) in order to retain power. Tonight's speech by George W. Bush was simply the public announcement that the Iran/Syria chapter of the PNAC remapping of the Middle East is on its way. Another element of PNAC chapter two is also under way, for those of you who are not paying attention: the part of their agenda that recommended that the US secure (steal) resources in the region is in the works because Iraq's newly "elected" Parliament, you know the people who represent the citizens of Iraq, just decided to sign the Iraqi oil rights over to western companies. You know; the oil that Saddam used to provide free health care and education (through college) to Iraqi citizens. Now that oil revenue will go right into the pockets of the oil executives who bring us global warming, war and a wall of secrecy when it comes to any technology that could replace oil for anything.

Hey, stupid brainwashed Americans, did you know that Saddam used Iraq's oil money to pay for health care? No; because your lying bastards in the media did not tell you this. While Saddam was providing free health care for his people your health care costs rose 70% (another fine Bush legacy) and while Iraq's oil money also paid for Iraqis' education, Exxon has turned in one global profit record after another!


tvnewslies.org

Yep!

That's right Dalton.

We have been stupid. No doubt about it.

If you are in denial of that....you're still following blindly.

Cali what you say is truth. There is an old Arab saying. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my cousin against a stranger. We are obviously strangers but worse infidels and Christian Zionists in their eyes

Uh...americans that give bush cartt blance to do anything he likes without question...are stupid. That was lisa's explanation.

Reading comprehension, dalton.

carte blanche. BAD KEYBOARD!

Dalton-certainly the ones that voted FOR Bush in the last two elections are dumber than HE is.

The Plan!


In the beginning was the Plan.

And then came the Assumptions.

And the Assumptions were without form.

And the Plan was without substance.

And darkness was upon the face of the Workers.

And they spoke amongst themselves, saying:
"It is a crock of shit, and it stinketh."

And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said:
"It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor thereof."

And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying:
"It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong,
such that none may abide by it."

And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."

And the Directors spoke amongst themselves, saying to one another:
"It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very powerful."

And the Vice Presidents went unto the President, saying unto him:
"This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the
company, with powerful effects."

And the President looked upon the Plan, and saw that it was good.

And the Plan became Policy.

This is how Shit happens.

Lisa- I dont bother listening to bushs speeches anymore. I read them later, when suicide is the furthest thing from my mind.

I cannot listen or watch howdy doody read someone elses words.(badly)

Imagine what all the money spent in Iraq could have done right here. We would have universal healthcare already. Why is money spent on the poor bad in republican eyes but money spent killing ok according to republicans?

Republicans make no sense.

Donnerboy-
phunny phlag!
LOL!

Alex:

This is the first one I've watched!!

Normally, I can't stand to look at his smirky face.

I just had to listen to what the boy blunder was going to come up with.

Unfortunately...it wasn't worth it.

Lisa-I told my wife I was going to go in from the computer and pick up a little bit here and there-you know-to limit my exposure to his gnibs....

I'd hoped it would help.

It didn't.

I listened for a couple of minutes-then had to leave and stop listening-I was too inclined at that point to take a ball point pen and punture my own eardrums-then use a fork to poke out my own eyes...
What a freaky thing to have happen....

Larry, the U.N did not fight the first gulf war.

"A peace conference was held in allied-occupied Iraq. At the conference, Iraq negotiated use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border. Soon after, these helicopters -- and much of the Iraqi armed forces -- were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support a people's uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones in both the North and the South. In Kuwait, the Emir's dictatorship was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were attacked extra-judicially, especially Palestinians. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country."

Larry this does not spell it out in so many words and i do not have time to research it at this moment but helicopters were the only thing that could be used. that was short sighted on our militaries part but, it is essentially a no fly zone.

Posted by Dalton at 2007-01-10 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

BULLSHIT. The Gulf War was the only second time the UN Declared War upon another Nation. The UN Resolution 678 Authorized the Military Intervention for Kuwait. The UN Did not declare the Authority for the No Fly Zones they were blatantly Illegal from their inception. TYhey were ILLEGAL. Period.

Larry

In the past, I've often said that President Bush has been more effective in televised speeches than he has been given credit for. Not tonight. I thought he came across as stiff, nervous, and anxious to get it over with. The importance of the issue seemed to overwhelm the President's ability to communicate. I suspect that only a few listeners absorbed more than a general impression of what the new strategy is all about.

Even Brit Hume is tired of how bushs shit tastes.

Why Did Bush Give Kristol's Speech? PNAC is Alive and Well and They're Taking Us to Iran and Syria!

tvnewslies.org

hmmmm...can't get the link on...

You know i find it Hilarious that Dalton first declares that the No Fly Zones were UN No Fly Zones but then when proven wrong goes on to state they were part of the cease fire but when that doesn't pan out he will make another excuse. typical Bushite.

Larry

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

Translation. The gloves come off today, screw the dems and anyone else who gets in the way.

My Pussy has sand in it. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaqaa Corky

www.globalpolicy.org

In April 1991, claiming a false authority under Security Council Resolution 688, the US, UK and France began to patrol the skies over northern Iraq, excluding Iraqi aircraft from this zone. The same powers started to enforce a second "no fly" zone in southern Iraq a few months later. Announced as a means to protect Iraqi Kurds (in the north) and Iraq's Shi'a population (in the south), the no-fly has offered dubious humanitarian protection, while engaging Iraq's government in ceaseless military pressure. France eventually withdrew from the no-fly process. The US-UK turned no-fly into an even more aggressive operation after 1998, when "more robust rules of engagement" have led to regular bombing of ground targets and substantial civilian casualties.

Larry

Stop him before he kills more. He is putting our kids into the meat grinder of a civil war that was permitted to escalate by our invasion.

Under Saddam, the tribal factions were not at each other's throats. They intermarried and were able to get along. Now, they're killing each other over a power struggle that belies any possibility of democracy....a system that CANNOT be imposed from outside a nation... and can only evolve from the will of the people.

This is a forever involvement, because there is OIL. Wake up, sheeple, the 14 permanent bases and an embassasy larger than the Vatica under construction are not for temporary use.

This is only the prelude to Iran.

BTW - the link to the TvNewsLIES.org blog on the speech seems to have a problem. Try this
CLICK HERE

Bush: But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq -- particularly in Baghdad -- overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made.

Have to like this, opposite happened????? Was he even in the same war we were in since 2003. The opposite happened from the very beginning.

Delusional in all respects.

Bush: But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq -- particularly in Baghdad -- overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made.

Have to like this, opposite happened????? Was he even in the same war we were in since 2003. The opposite happened from the very beginning.

Delusional in all respects.

No diplomatic talks with the Iranians and Syrians for Psycho Boy -- he's ready to nuke.

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-01-10 11:59 PM

Suddenly Oil is at $54 dollars a barrel.

www.msnbc.msn.com

The Speculators have spoken.

Iran is on the clock to respond to a U.N. Resolution ... less than sixty days left.

Bush has secured the oil fields in Iraq.

Just like a game of Risk...

But He looked a bit stiff and that bothers me...

He is the War President.

He could push the Button.

He could be the One.

OMG... I need to either cut back or double my meds...or clean my guns.


As Congress considers our future course in Iraq, we remain committed, on a bipartisan basis, to providing our soldiers every resource they need to fight effectively and come home safely

Translation. We'll bitch moan and gripe but still pony up the money, cause truth is, we don't what the fuck to do.

signed, dick turbin.

Did anyone else besides me burst out laughing when Bush said he was going to work in bipartisanship and would bring former DINO and Israel's go to boy Senator Joe Lieberman to help get "all sides" of the views on the Iraq war? Makes you want to throw up. The reason Lieberman lost his 2006 primary in Connecticut is because he is so pro-Iraq war (because anything good for Israel is good for Lieberman no matter how many U.S. soldiers and Marines are blown to bits). If that's Bush's idea of "opposite sides working together to form a consensus" it shows you Bush hasn't changed a thing.

Also, Bush kept talking about "nations" - plural -- who would need help in forming democracies. What country is next in his gun sites?

I also barfed when Bush made a point tonight of saying the Iraqis would all "share" their oil even after the British press this week broke the story that Bush and his oil boys are pushing the Iraq government to immediately sign over contracts that would privatize and give 75% of Iraq's oil over to Bush and his oil thugs for the next 50 years.

Bush kept repeating "our new strategy." What new strategy? All I heard in his speech was the same old crap -- "we will prevail" "freedom" "democracy" -- and the only new news was that he was sending another 20,000 troops as more cannon fodder. Did I miss something?

OMG... I need to either cut back or double my meds...or clean my guns.
=
Posted by donnerboy at 2007-01-11 12:37 AM


After Bush's speech tonight I suggest you do both -- DOUBLE your meds AND clean your guns.

Let me tell you, my biggest frustration here in Baghdad has been that once we cleared an area we would move on,and eventually the enemy would show back up. And sometimes there would be more casualties over the same piece of ground.
If we actually have enough guys on the ground to hold it, this could be what we need to at least stop all the kids fromgetting murdered. I would be real happy with that. I am sick to my heart of seeing dead women and kids.I don't mind putting my ass on the line for that.



This is only the prelude to Iran.

BTW - the link to the TvNewsLIES.org blog on the speech seems to have a problem. Try this
CLICK HERE

Posted by shadow7 at 2007-01-11 12:32 AM


Gee, you're a regular rocket scientist, though a bit behind the power curved I'd say.

What was your first clue, the axis of evil or this?


We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

Oh Baby give Me more yes more baby I love this part Read it and weep Dalton

everything2.com

The problem is that no UN resolution mandates or even approves of the NFZs. They were imposed solely by the participants and maintained by them only. Even a generous (mis)reading of UNSCR 688 would still require a formal resolution to okay the NFZs. No such resolution exists. Further, Security Council resolutions 686 (setting out the preliminary terms of the ceasefire), 687 (the formal ceasefire declaration), and 688 all include "Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq," things clearly violated by the NFZs.

Larry

yeah, CC ~ I got a kick out the Liebermann slant earlier here...

What a joke.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts.


Really get the feeling there was not much listening and a whole lot of telling.

We benefitted from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.


Get the feeling he told the group to piss up a tree here.

In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.


We all agreed, to one message and failure would be disaster yet he still has not expressed what is success.

Bush still has not figured out that part of his problem is the outline of what he views is a success in iraq.

I liked the part where Bush said, after pledging $1 billion more for reconstruction, that Secretary Rice will form a reconstruction team (or something like that) to make sure all goes well. Wasn't that Paul "I misplaced $9 BILLION U.S. tax dollars" Bremer's job in Iraq? You remember Bremer -- he's the one who "misplaced" billions$$$$ and Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Bush and his oil boys are pushing the Iraq government to immediately sign over contracts that would privatize and give 75% of Iraq's oil over to Bush and his oil thugs for the next 50 years.

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-01-11 12:38 AM

And that is the answer Nancy Pelosi was speaking of. The answer to question as to why we are doing this again.

The reason is to allow time for the Iraqi Legislature to sign the Compact with the Oil companies to secure the Oil Fields.

Check!

Then it will be Irans move.

Meanwhile Let the Checks and Balancing Begin (TM).

Washington, D.C. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin released the following statement tonight on President Bush's address to the nation on the war in Iraq:

"In the days ahead, Congress will exercise its Constitutional responsibilities by giving the President's latest proposal the scrutiny our troops and the American people expect. We will demand answers to the tough questions that have not been asked or answered to date. The American people want a change of course in Iraq. We intend to keep pressing President Bush to provide it."

speaker.gov

DONNERBOY

And that is the answer Nancy Pelosi was speaking of. The answer to question as to why we are doing this again.

The reason is to allow time for the Iraqi Legislature to sign the Compact with the Oil companies to secure the Oil Fields.

Check!

Then it will be Irans move.


You nailed it on the head. As soon as those oil contracts extorting all of Iraq's oil for Bush's oil warprofiteers are signed on the dotted line, it will be Neocon nuke time for Iran.

please refute and discredit this article for me...if you can.

Say it ain't so Joe!

www.truthout.org

I am afraid it is and once again our Emperor has no clothes...

You nailed it on the head. As soon as those oil contracts extorting all of Iraq's oil for Bush's oil warprofiteers are signed on the dotted line, it will be Neocon nuke time for Iran.


Posted by CalifChris at 2007-01-11 01:08 AM |

you truly aren't serious? The oil goes all over the globe not just to the US. Who do you want to control the globes resources? Iran? Russia? China? Korea?
How do you think the US would fare if OPEC were disolved?

Time to grow up and recognize reality. you and everyone else on here use the fu-king slippery stuff too.

We could certainly slow the aging process down if it had to work its way through Congress.
-- Will Rogers

And the Iraqi's now have democrazy, too!

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions.


Seems he created this and now he thinks he is going to stop it with a quick increase in troops.

Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.


Now, how in the world did Iran get put into this mix.......just try and slip it in for future subliminal fear tactic of evil. This is the big idiots slow confusion of the delusional listeners.

Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.


Now have to bring 911 into the situation that was never ever part to the situation. Time and time again he does this and those RNC supporters fall in this hook line and sinker so he is trying to "fool me twice, and never fool me again" idea.

Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations -- conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.


Now how is this different than what is going on right now. The army and police brigades are what is the problem in the first place with the U.S. military just watching as the JAFO.

Bush Describing the reason why he wants to enhance the war...

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis.

The rules of engagement give the enemy of tactical advantage. US and Allied troops were not allowed in certain neighborhoods...As a result the violence from the extreme "elements" would enhance it's killing because of lack of law enforcement in the area. After all this time, Bush finally convinces Iraqi PM to remove the restriction...

The lack of troops to maintain what they accomplished (eliminating the enemy from a particular place) was always a problem...

The Dems say 148,000 troops is enough so now it's time to take our troops out of there...Then they say well 20,000 troops is still too few to quell the major violence anyway...So even if they agreed with Bush's plan in general, they still disagree with him on how to accomplish it...

I had reservations about sending more troops myself but the new plan is not only about sending troops as some like us to think, there are other variables which makes sense to give it one more try before we pull out of there...

The variables include:

1) Sharing the oil wealth with all Iraqis.
2) Using the oil wealth to rebuild the country.
3) Enhancing more troops to training Iraqi forces and increase the size of the Iraqi army and security forces faster...
4)Give aid when needed to the Iraqis




I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."


This is funny because the Iraqi's want the U.S. out of Iraq not staying there.

LOL!!!!

INCUBUS

Go to DONNERBOY's 1:16 a.m. post and click on the link. The news about it being about the oil all along is all over the place. The British papers published the facts last week.

Sorry, but your boy Bush LIED to you. He went into Iraq to privatize and take over their oil fields. All that needs to be done now is to have the Shiites sign over the oil -- just as soon as Bush orders the ethnic cleansing of every Sunni man, woman and child in Baghdad. You see, the Sunnis are cramping Bush's plans for the signing of those oil contracts due to that civil war they and the Shiites have going.

Since the Sunnis are only 20% of the Iraq population and don't have any oil fields of their own like the Shiites do, Bush will just have them murdered and gotten out of the way. That's why 20,000 troops are going into Baghdad -- to exterminate ALL the Sunnis and clear the way for the privatization and theft of Iraq's oil. Yes, INCUBUS, your boy Bush is a thief, a liar, and a war criminal.

I had reservations about sending more troops myself but the new plan is not only about sending troops as some like us to think, there are other variables which makes sense to give it one more try before we pull out of there...

The variables include:

1) Sharing the oil wealth with all Iraqis.

2) Using the oil wealth to rebuild the country.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha -- and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya.

Give Bush a chance, not a chance!!!!

This speech is loaded with deception, innuendo, and misguided ideals and facts pushing blame at the Iraqis instead of himself.

Bush removes all those who don't agree with him and continues on the same ole path. Bush made this path perfectly clear before Thanksgiving and now what has changed........Nothing.

Success???????? What is success there??????? What is the plan???????? What direction is Bush trying to push the puppet government into other than stealing their oil.

Wonder what kind of threats he is giving the puppet government to sign this oil agreement and all the other security protection measures.

Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts....


errr, Bush, you forgot to tell the American folks that more than 1/2 of Iraq's Army and, particularly, its Police force is made up of insurgents who act as spies for the militias.

"How can we expect ordinary Iraqis to trust the police when we don't even trust them not to kill our own men?" asked Capt. Alexander Shaw, head of the police transition team of the 372nd Military Police Battalion, a Washington-based unit charged with overseeing training of all Iraqi police in western Baghdad. "To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure we're ever going to have police here that are free of the militia influence."

. . .Seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by militias, primarily the Mahdi Army, according to Shaw and other military police trainers. Police officers are too terrified to patrol enormous swaths of the capital. And while there are some good cops, many have been assassinated or are considering quitting the force.


Fair catch Warrior. It's unfortunate that 1-4 weren't tried sooner. Same with the reversal on the de-baathification program.

That's what set off the insurgency and allowed al Qaeda to establish itself.

Sadr's Mehdi Army is 40,000 strong, and he' got Maliki by the balls. Now if Maliki was the kind of guy who really wanted the job things might be different. I don't see him as a guy who has that edge.

Personally I didn't support this war, and I can't understand the democracy angle because the Shias believe in the same theocratic power-behind-the-throne as they have in Iran.

We'll have to kill a lot of people to make this work, all the while trying to mend fences. Not a good formula.

I guess the good news is that Bush finally got a reality check. He was looking pretty desperate.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.


Benchmarks announced????? What are these benchmarks????? Less violence!!!! Oil being signed over to U.S. oil corporations!!!!!

Instead of stealing it we will force it through strong arms of our military.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.


Meaning the constitution is not fair now!!!! Hmmmm!!!! The election process and the new Bush/Iraqi constitution so bragged about before the 2006 election is not fair....Imagine dat!!!

You know it must suck being a Bushite. Your Leader has screwed the pooch on everything that He has touched during His lifetime. How can You support Him now that He wants to send more troops into His Meat Grinder just because His Fragile Ego can not stand defeat. How can You Bushites Look Yourselves into the Mirror and be proud. I would be totally and completely Disgusted with Myself had I Supported and Continualy support an Illegal Immoral Unjust Failure of action. I can understand making Mistakes in Life I have Made a whole bunch. This in no way is a Mistake. We warned You folks what would occur before Dubya invaded Iraq We warned You guys. You had the gall to say that We were UnAmerican UnPatriotic Giving Aid and Comfort to the enemy etc etc etc. Yet when EVERYTHING has passed that we warned You about You make excuses You deflect You act like it's OUR Fault that we are in this mess. No it's NOT Our Faults that it has happened it is NOT Our Responsibility to clean it up. When Your child makes a Mess do You clean it up for them or do You make them clean it up?? This is on You Bushites. The Mess and Death and Destruction is upon Each and everyone of Your hands. May God have Mercy upon Your souls each and every one of You. Thank You for Reading.

Sincerely
Larry Mohr

we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance.


Why do I smell more GAO kicking Bush's ass in stolen/missing billions of dollars again. Nothing about how these dollars will be watched closely for progress.

So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.


So I have given orders, but I thought this was run by the generals over there. Guess we were correct all along that this war is being run by a politician in the white house.

Afghanistan is not a safe haven now????? Really, seems we just don't have the Taliban still in power do we.

We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.


We are not leaving ever, we will set up military bases for quick rocket launch to begin the threat to Iran.

It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.


Did not know our brave men and women lacked freedom.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?


Yes, we all know these people are truely asking this question of the U.S. They really really want to know this.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world -- a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them -- and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and our grandchildren


Well, terrorist were not in Iraq until Bush decided to go on this war adventure. Now he is trying to say they were there again.

At what point will the RNC decide to break from this fool and pull him from making the RNC a disfunctioning party being hated by all people.

One day People will talk about all the horrible leaders of Nations and they will mention names like Pol Pot and Hitler and a few other guys but I guarantee Bush will be in the same chapter. He will be the guy probably for starting WW3. Bush is so bad you could just about find anybody who managed to complete highschool that would do a better job. He truly sucks

This new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States, and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad -- or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals.


We talked with congress and concluded that we will not listen to them or the American people and will do what ever we want.

Bush: "American people go fuck yourself!!!!!"

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy.


Notice the change here, not our national security team but MY national security team.

Seems this team is not part of this country's employ but strictly under Bush's employ. No wonder all the opposition was fired for opposing him.

"and pull him from making the RNC a disfunctioning party being hated by all people."

Well, the conservative party folded their tent twice before Lincoln.

Considering they made a deal with the devil - I mean the evangelicals - which is how they got Bush - I'd like to see them splinter. Might be a good thing for the Dems too.

Maybe we could form a moderate party ( or two ) and leave the wackos on both sides to themselves.

Why does Bush want to murder more American soldiers?...does he hate them that much?

Where is Hillary Clinton? With an escalation of the war imminent why does it seem that she is avoiding having to take a clear position?? Is she secretly sleeping with Joe Lieberman?? Joe, BTW, was mentioned specifically last night but I wonder if Hillary isn't in agreement with him. In another thread someone posted an article about the Israelis lobbying her to support the bombing Iran. Have they succeeded?

"With an escalation of the war imminent why does it seem that she is avoiding having to take a clear position??"

Danni:

She stated last night that she does not support Bush's plan.

To Larry and all other self righteous liberals on this board.

Your party doesn't get a pass on any of this. If they were duped by our own govt. and "stupid, uneducated chimp in charge" even more so that they don't get a pass.

Fact. They signed the rsolution. The end.

What would really disgust me Larry is that were we to leave at this point that untold numbers would die, Iran would be another rung up the ladder and our soldiers would have died in vain.

We're there, the dem senate is as guilty for us being there as any other party or persons. You fuckwads are in denial and the big lie is that you hide behind the lie that your senators were duped.

"Fact. They signed the rsolution. The end."

No. It's not.

Put this administration under oath. Let them answer under oath, the questions this country wants to hear truthful answers to.

I'm quite sure that will be just the begining!

Your determination to blame everyone but Bush and co, is telling.

You want Larry and others, myself included to do be held to a higher standard that you yourself are not willing to live up to.

I wouldn't accuse others of being in denial if I were you!

"Even a blatant lie, if repeated often and loudly, can be mistaken for the truth. So it is with the claim that the results of November's election amounted to a public demand to bring our troops home from Iraq.

No matter how loud that claim is made, it is not even close to true. The election results were a vote against our bloody failure in Iraq. They were a demand for success.

Withdrawal, for those keeping honest score, was not the policy of the Democratic Party. Very few of its candidates advocated withdrawal. Even Sen. Chuck Schumer, who orchestrated the Dem Senate takeover, told me in November, "I'd say 65% of the vote was a rejection of Bush's stay-the-course plan and 35% were voting to take a chance on Democrats."

Or, as columnist Charles Krauthammer noted, Democrats didn't get a mandate on Iraq because they didn't run on anything except being anti-Bush. To get a mandate, you have to run "for" something.

Those are the facts, and they are the backdrop to President Bush's crucial speech tonight on Iraq. The American people, frustrated and demoralized over the war, still seem ready to give the President a final chance to make the case for changes that will involve new troops. Democrats, and his Republican critics, should do no less. Those who are already planning to block Bush's plan, even before they know it, do their country a disservice in a time of war."
www.nydailynews.com

""You fuckwads are in denial and the big lie is that you hide behind the lie that your senators were duped.""

Still denying the truth. No matter how many times you and Fox repeat it, it still will never be the truth and America finally recognizes that.

"You fuckwads are in denial and the big lie is that you hide behind the lie that your senators were duped.
Posted by Incubus_Con"

When you have nothing else, dazzle 'em with words, eh?

What a fuckwad.

"The March of Folly"

news.independent.co.uk

"You fuckwads are in denial and the big lie is that you hide behind the lie that your senators were duped.
Posted by Incubus_Con"

And what name do you have for those who continue to support the one responsible for doing the duping??

You fuckwads are in denial and the big lie is that you hide behind the lie that your senators were duped.

Incubus, Let the investigations begin. Let us find out what the President knew and when he knew it, and also what the Congress knew and was told prior to signing the resolution to authorize war.

I agree with you. The attempts by the Congress after the fact to say they were duped is disingenuous. If the Senators felt they were being misled or not being given all the information, they should have spoken up before the vote.

That they didn't leads me to suspect the Congress, like Bush were victims of a tragic failure of intelligence on Iraq that made intel agencies all over the world misrepresent Saddam's threat level. At least I hope it was just a horrible mistake. The alternative, that Bush was involved in a criminal conspiracy and knew without a doubt Saddam did not have any WMD's yet told the world he did, is too horrible for me to believe at this time. If true, it would make watergate look like nothing.

So let the investigations begin and let's get this sorted out once and for all so we can move on.

The mention of ONE SINGLE American Senator last night was BushCo's idea of "bi-Partisan approach", and, of all people, he mentions Joe Lieberman. No 'reward' for McCain, whose idea he stole, bad though it is.

But I don't want to pick apart this awful speech. Bush is the one in the FOG here. Political, pharmaceutical, whatever.

"If the Senators felt they were being misled or not being given all the information, they should have spoken up before the vote."


Bowa, that wasn't evident until after the fact.

There is a reason, Bush did what he did. He presented intel in a way that would suit his purpose so the vote wouldn't go against him.


""She stated last night that she does not support Bush's plan.""

Thanks Lisa, I didn't hear her. It does seem to me that anyone with presidential aspirations needs to be clear about their position in regards to the war.

Escalation? Try this: US forces entered the Iranian consulate in Irbil "detaining the five staffers and confiscating computers and documents....Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told state-run radio that the raid was "against a diplomatic mission" since the "presence of Iranian staffers in Irbil was legal."....A resident living near the mission said the foreign force used stun bombs in the raid and brought down an Iranian flag that was on the roof of the two-story yellow house. As the operation went on, two helicopters flew overhead, said the resident on condition of anonymity because he feared retribution. "They took five Iranians with them and at about seven in the morning they handed over the house to Kurdish peshmergas," he said."
news.yahoo.com

I'm shocked that those who say things like "you fuckwads are in denial" have not blamed Bill Clinton yet this morning.

Come forward to 2007, please!

Fact. They signed the rsolution. The end.


Signed the resolution that Bush did not follow?

Sitdown, it seems like the author of the article I posted, Michael Goodwin and Robert Fisk, the author of the article you posted are at odds. Maybe they should go into a boxing ring and fight it out.

Mr. Fisk is a bit too hateful and partisan for my liking. He sounds like Olberman.

I don't hate my President. Nor do I believe the situation in Iraq is entirely hopeless. Or that the # of US casualties is so devastating there is no doubt we are losing this war. I don't believe those things.

I believe we are neither winning or losing. We are just there witnessing the beginnings of a civil war which will surely devolve into a bloody mess rivaling our own civil war if we leave. And may even do so while we are there. That is an unacceptable situation for the US military to be in.

Either we are there to achieve victory, which means helping to support the unity government in becoming self-sustaining and succeeding. Or we need to get the hell out.

I'm willing to give Bush a final chance for our troops to help give the unity government an opportunity to fend for themselves.

If I don't see real progress on the part of the Iraqis in the next few months then you can count me in on the side of those calling for withdrawl.

Attempts to understand how anybody who is even reasonably sentient could swallow the load of b.s. Bush was peddling last night may save themselves some knocking of the head against the proverbial wall by checking out "Authoritarian Personality"
en.wikipedia.org

"I'm willing to give Bush a final chance"

Not me. He's been given enough.

"If I don't see real progress on the part of the Iraqis in the next few months..."

Bush has had years to do this...and hasn't made it work.

It's time to cut our losses and get the hell out!

(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq;




What threat would that have been?

"Excerpt

AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to--"

Then, he should be held accountable for his actions as well.

With responsibility comes accountability.

Start the investigations!!

Bowa, that wasn't evident until after the fact.

Lisa, I don't buy it. The Senators are not living in some fishbowl, they have their friends in the CIA and FBI and those on the intelligence committess have clearence access to the all the same intel the President was seeing.

If there really was a core group of disgruntled people in the CIA/FBI who felt the President was misleading the Congress, they would have contacted the Democrats and told them what was up.

And maybe they did, and the Democratic Senators just ignored the whistleblowers. Who knows.

That's why these investigations are so important. It needs to be sorted out in the proper forum. And bi-partisan congressional hearings are the best way to insure some semblance of fairness so the outcome can be trusted by all sides.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


Allah, not providing full information is a form of lying.

and not or

Not me. He's been given enough.

Lisa, OK, I'll bite.

When did you stop supporting our operation in Iraq?

Bowa:

There is much that Senators were not privy to. That opened the door for Bush to disclose what he wanted, misrepresent what he wanted and mislead them.

They voted on what they had...not what they didn't have.

I don't blame the republican senators, either. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of an administration abusing their powers, to suit their own personal purposes.

They need to be investigated and held accountable.

If I don't see real progress on the part of the Iraqis in the next few months then you can count me in on the side of those calling for withdrawl.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-01-11 08:37 AM | Reply

I think you can be counted on, Bowa....I believe one of the worst aspects right now is the supposed faith in the Maliki government. Bush still calls Iraq a 'young democracy'. Well, Iraq is not an "it". There is no "itself" for it to govern. And this final paragraph of the Daily Telegraph editorial expresses my feelings pretty well:

"Today, he had the chance to persuade them that victory was still possible. Unfortunately, Mr Bush's uncertain demeanour indicated that not even he is sure of this any longer".

Though I would say that "uncertain" has been his demeanor for the past four years, except when he's in "flight-suit' mode. The dumbest thing he ever said, in my view, was "bring 'em on".

"When did you stop supporting our operation in Iraq?"

About two months after it began.

"About two months after it began."

Weak, weak, weak. Do you know what war is? Or loyalty?

You wouldn't happen to be one of our finest from "Generation X," would you?

Our enemies are counting on the low attention span and weak-minded nature of individuals like yourself. Keep up the good work!

"Allah, not providing full information is a form of lying."

Agreed.

1. aluminum centrifuges were acquired for Iraqi uranium enrichment (failed to provide information that there were dual uses for such equipment)

2. Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger (failed to provide information that those in the intelligence sectors had already deemed the documentation fakes)


Is that the kind of withholding of information that is the same as lying?

There is much that Senators were not privy to.

And you know that how?

I'm just saying it is the Senators themselves who are saying they were prevented from seeing certain information. And they certainly have a motive for saying that. Is it true? maybe.

But Is there also a chance the senators just didn't request the intel at the time even though they had security clearence to do that, or had it but didn't bother to read it, or discounted it, or just ignored it entirely?

Yup. Maybe any of that could be true too.

remember, after 9/11, there seemed to be a bi-partisan rush to get on the Bush bandwagon and give him all the power he needed to prosecute the "War on Terror". Nobody in Congress wanted to be seen as soft.

That likely led to a lot of things being ignored or discounted which bit a lot of people in the ass later on.

Which I say again, is why, we need these bi-partisan investigations so we can know what actually happened to get us in this mess we are in now.

Our enemies are counting on the low attention span and weak-minded nature of individuals like yourself. Keep up the good work!



hahahahahahaha
like taking one's attention from finding OBL and taking down the Taliban and rebuilding Afghanistan and attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

yep Bush does have ADD.

About two months after it began.

Lisa, What happened at 2 months that turned you against the war?

"When did you stop supporting our operation in Iraq?"

About two months after it began.

Posted by Lisa at 2007-01-11 08:49 AM | Reply


There's that American resolve our enemies depend so much upon.

Yeah well truth it's a ~global~ war on terror. Apparently you forgot about all that at some point between september of 2001 and right after we removed the Taliban from power, is that right?

Typical. Is there a mental illness you won't accuse Bush of having?

Another question. At what point would you give up looking for OBL? I mean, you're pretty hellbent on giving up the fight against cowards in Iraq that are killing us with roadside bombs, but then you talk tough about OBL. How much of our precious resources would you give to hunting OBL?

Also, how do you know we are not still looking for OBL?

now now now ayn

just because saddam had a muslim name that does not make him part of the same group that attacked us on 9/11

please try again.

Lisa, My support for the war has been evolving from day 1.

I supported the invasion believing Saddam was an urgent threat who would exploit opur weakness after the tragedy of 9/11 to build nukes, build wmds and sponsor terrorist attacks against the US and the west.

When no WMD's were found in that first year, I realized the "urgent threat" did not actually exist. Was that because of a failure of inteligence or a criminal misrepresentation on the part of Bush. Until proven otherwise, I choose to give my President the benefit of the doubt that it was a horrible mistake.

I still supported the war however, because the Iraqi people embraced freedom and democracy by voting in three separate democratic elections. I believe that a free and democratic Iraq is a positive goal for the people of Iraq and certainly for the United States. And The alternative, an Iraq controlled with an iron hand by Iran or a Mullah after a bloody civil war would not be a good thing for anyone.

Then the Unity governemnt formed and instead of quelling the sectarian violence it increased. Whe the supposedly "unity" governemnt itself started to act in a sectarian manner, mostly supporting the Shia, my support for the war began to wane.

When the US soldiers were forced to release known terrorists on the orders of the Iraqi government. My support for the war began to wane.

When the executioners started yelling "Moqtada" at the hanging of Saddam, my support for the war began to wane.

So my support has been waning for a long time now. That's why Bush's speech last night was a breath of fresh air. I appreciate that he was contrite and took responsibility. I also can appreciate the importance of a free and democratic Iraq in that region. I also can appreciate what are leaving will mean, and all the bloodshed that it will cause.

So given all that, I can give my support to this one last push to get the Iraqis to stand up for themeselves. I am cautiously optimistic it will work. Very cautious.

""1. aluminum centrifuges were acquired for Iraqi uranium enrichment (failed to provide information that there were dual uses for such equipment)

2. Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger (failed to provide information that those in the intelligence sectors had already deemed the documentation fakes)""

the aluminum tubes were shown to be not usable for centrifuge manufacture. More likely used as short range rockets.

Failed to show this was nonsense my butt.
Ask Joe Wilson.

"There's that American resolve our enemies depend so much upon."

With all due respect, 101...what our enemy depends upon are Americans who are not diligent. Americans who are lax. Americans who don't see the big picture. Americans who don't have foresight. Americans who do not take action against those who have done us harm, seeing that through, rather than begin a quest for self gratification.

THAT is what our enemy depends upon.

Ask Joe Wilson.

Posted by danni at 2007-01-11 09:15 AM | Reply


The same Joe Wilson that won't testify?

THAT is what our enemy depends upon.

Posted by Lisa at 2007-01-11 09:19 AM | Reply


No, they depend upon shot attention spans and lack of resolve. They know the American people will lose all resolve at the sight of the first casualty. I'm sure you're aware of that. If not, listen to what Osama has to say on the matter.

Everything Bush had needed to know about how things would go in Iraq was spelled out about 15 years ago (I think) in the movie "The Princess Bride."

When the Dread Pirate Roberts confronts the little Sicilian holding the prince, this line is used in the discussion:
"The second biggest blunder in the world is to get into a land war in Asia."

"Is there a mental illness you won't acuse Bush of having...."

Do you admit he may be mentally ill? You DO relaize that the plan he advanced last night was largely created by one neocon pencil-neck think-tank fellow? When will you admit there's something fey with Bush?

Princess Bride-OUTSTANDING MOVIE!

My Name in Inijo Montoya, You Killed my Father. Prepare to die!

"same group that attacked us on 9/11"

Oh, I am sorry, truth, was that a requirement?

Perhaps if we send out a mass mailing, all al Queda members will respond and we can track them down. Other bad guys really don't matter until they personally threaten truthhurts...

"Because you have set a very high standard...."

Not at all. Following an ordinary standard of performance, Bush would have done what he's trying to do now three years ago, except using fifteen times the number of troops.

The problem really is you've set such a very low standard. Then, when slovenly habits of thought bite you in the ass, you complain about how very complicated the world is.

"loyalty"

Funny you should mention loyalty.

Apparently, there are some who are still loyal to a man, a party, rather than an entire country.

You seem to fall into that catagory.

Weak??

Weak is standing up in front of millions of Americans trying once again, to equate 911 with Iraq. Weak, is invading a country without a frickin' plan. Weak, is dismissing every person around you, that has a differing opinion than your own. Weak, is being unconcerned about the real enemy.

Weak is George W. Bush.

"Oh, I am sorry, truth, was that a requirement?"

Apparently not to this administration and the few that still believe in them.

Lisa, I'm curious so I'll ask again What happened at 2 months that turned you against the war?

Weak, I would add, is deliberately farting to freak out WH personnel. No, sorry, that would be stupid.

LOL

Read too fast....I thought you were refering to truth...not "truth" the poster.

However...I'm not wrong about truth being a requirement in this administration.

www.youtube.com

THe Princess Bride, eh?

Count Rugen: You've got an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. It's going to get you into trouble someday. (said to GW)

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Condi Rice as Vizzini)

Miracle Max: The King's stinking son fired me, and thank you so much for bringing up such a painful subject. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it? We're closed. ( Colin Powell as Miracle Max )

"You should admire his strength...."

Bush has done what in life to show he's strong? I'll reserve that praise for the kids currently serving their third tour of Iraq.

Hmmmm. What would be brave from Bush's personal frame of reference? Probably deciding not to die his hair any more a few years back.

Was that the President of the United States who made that speech last night, or was that Howdy Doody?? Could have sworn I saw some strings hanging... I could definitely see the teleprompter reflecting in those cold waxed over and emotionless eyes. The reason we had to wait this long is because it took at least a week for the Shrub to be trained to read PNACs plan. There was definitely no substance and no understanding in that face. What you saw is the true wooden puppet with the PNAC ventriloquist talking.

BTW, sending in 20K more soldiers will only bring the troop levels up to what they were last year, and we were losing then too... so how could it possibly help now?

Solution: Pull the troops out now and let the Iraqi's settle it the way they've done for thousands of years. It will be bloody at first, but overall less bloody then if we stay, and it will be over at some point.

If we stay, it will NEVER be over. But maybe that is what you reichwings really want, ETERNAL WAR.

What if Bush and Congress agreed to pass legislation taking out all the profit from the war effort?
I wonder if the corporate powers that be would support this war if no profit could ever be derived from supplying our troops or in future oil exports.
Me thinks that the flag waving patriotic war supporters would find themselves alone, deserted by the very people who planned this war.
BTW, War profiteers continue to steal waiting for the Democrats (finally) to pass legislation that will make it treasonous. The very fact that this has been allowed to go on while REpublicans controlled Congress makes me very suspicious about the real reasons we are in Iraq.

"same group that attacked us on 9/11"

Oh, I am sorry, truth, was that a requirement?

Perhaps if we send out a mass mailing, all al Queda members will respond and we can track them down. Other bad guys really don't matter until they personally threaten truthhurts...

Posted by aynrandlives



umm yes.

america should not enter wars illegally.

america should not attack countries that are not a threat to the US>

america should not equate one type of bad guy with another type of threat.

america should only respond to attacks or stop IMMINENT threats to our nation or its people.

america should not fight a global war on terror because it is a meaningless rhethoricalstatement.

Bowa:

I started rehashing Bush's words, and started questioning.

911 didn't have a thing to do with Iraq, as Bush kept trying to equate the two.

Bush was careful not to come right out and say that 911 and Iraq were related. He left that up to Powell, Rice and others to do. I wondered, why would he continue to mention 911 and Iraq together, even misstating Saddam's name for OBL in speeches...which I'm not sure was done by accident.

That opened the door for questioning his true motives.

There is so much to question, Bowa and not enough time this morning to get into it all.

" I would add, is deliberately farting to freak out WH personnel. "

That is something I would expect a teenager to do. Not the leader of the worlds greatest country.

Bush has some deep emotional issues.

He should have taken on those, rather than a country.

"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that the US will take action against any country seeking to destabilise Iraq."

news.bbc.co.uk

seeking to destabilise Iraq."

Now, they could put a big "Mission Accomplishitfucked" banner up over that one.

"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that the US will take action against any country seeking to destabilise Iraq."

Then she is virtually threatening to attack the United States. Traitorous bitch.

In further statements Ms. Rice said that anyone who disturbs any of the pieces of Humpty Dumpty will be attacked.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

"You should admire his strength"

What strength??

He's a weak, weak man.

And sadly, his weakness has cost his brother the White House.

And sadly, his weakness has cost his brother the White House.


Posted by Lisa at 2007-01-11 09:52 AM


Who are you kidding? You're gleeful for this, hardly sad.

Incubus:

Unlike you, I don't live and breathe a party line.

I have a mind of my own and use it.

I have voted republican in the past...depending on the individual and would do so again, due to the same.

You should try being open minded, not relying on others to give you your opinions....it would do you a world of good.

Ya startin' to get the feeling that the "sovereign" Iraqi government of the purple fingers is now getting the finger from Bush?
"We don't like the way the elected Iraqis are s running their country so we're going to run it for them".
Sounds like we can add "democracy" to WMD and al queda as no longer reasons we liberated Iraq.

It'll be interetsing to see how much of that billion we're borrowing from China ends up in security companies hands. Most of the last 20 billion of "reconstruction" money did, and did damn little else. So I'm guessing the next biliion will be about as successful.

"Better to say his weakness has cost his brother the opportunity to win the White House."

True. I stand corrected.

See, Bushies....I admitted I was wrong, I'm still here to talk about it and it didn't take me years and thousands of deaths before I did it!!

Allah, you have lost any relevance you may have had by lying regarding the Iraqi resolution.

Please go away.

Well, this has been interesting, but I have to get my day started.

Where's Bushlover??? I was looking forward to reading his nonsense about this, and getting a good laugh before I had to go.

Damn.

hmmmmm allahamerican sounds awful like

lastamerican like derflaflaflooey like lokisfur like corporal like ninjaboy.

such good company you stand.

"It is a tale ... full of sound and fury; signifying nothing."

A Tale Told By An Idiot---George W. Bush

"And" not "or" makes no real difference here in relation to Senator Clinton's vote.

Either way, "and" or "or", Senator Clinton voted "yes" to authorize the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" against Iraq.

Truthhurts, deliberately distorting the meaning of PL 107-243 with the word "and" or "or" is a form of lying.

For Truthhurts, Allaah be praised!


Posted by allahamerican at


You are wrong and either you intentionally dont recognize this (lie) or are too stupid to recognize this.

Bush was authorized to enforce UN resolutions. Congress thought it important enough to put it in the resolution. may not mean anything to you but and means BOTH not one or the other.

UN never authorized invasion of iraq.

Well boys and girls, this lot of noise signifying nothing. I will update you all over the next few months with what I actually see happening here. Lets see how the pudding sets.

"We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night."

More faith-based wishful thinking from the Decider. So if things go wrong Bush can say, to himself at least, that "The Author of Liberty" works in mysterious ways.

He should have ended the speech with "Good Night and Good Luck".

Scarey:

I have to run, but need your email address to send out our Drudgestock questionaire.

Please email it to me.

Thanks.

Allah, is boxitch or havent you figured that out.

RCADE, just how many drudge names are you allowed to register, especially after you are banned?

I think maybe that since LurchBox is so desperate to be here, Rogers should reconsider his exile.

Naw!

I like Box.

I wish he could come back.

Ok..that's my last post this morning.

I gotta get out of here!! lol!

sorry allah you are wrong.

enforce ALL relevant resolutions.

UN 1441 calls for coming back for second resolution.

bush said he would call for the second resolution (NO MATTER WHAT).

Bush drafted a second resolution.

what was the vote on that second resolution?

sorry you are wrong.

"Allah be praised"
Actually Allah is pretty happy about the religious theocracy taking shape in Iraq, well the Shia Allah anyway, the Sunni Allah is pissed.
Allah loves George W. Bush and his supporters.

""I like Box.""

I miss him like I miss a toothache.

btw please demonstrate how Iraq was not in compliance with 687 and 1284

I like Box too!
Sincerely,
Danni

I think everybodies missing the point here. Dems and Repubs both seem to think Georgy is trying to continue his already protracted war and escalate it to a new level. I think you're all wrong. I think the idea here is to try to quite the place by locking it down, let American public opinion settle a little bit and then as soon as that's accomplished get the fuck out, fast. Afterwords blame the ensuing carnage on the Iraqis.

Dems should be happier (assuming they believe the whole thing is inevitable anyway) Repubs should be more dissatisfied.

DOGMAN

Boy, I sure miss Box. We aren't talking about the same thing,are we? Or are we?

Boy, I sure miss Box. We aren't talking about the same thing,are we? Or are we?

Posted by trooper at 2007-01-11 10:52 AM | Reply


You and "Danni" are...

Anyone who supports this escalation is suffering from the dilusion that the civil war will stop if we just send in more troops. EVen if we had 200,000 additional troops and could "lock down" the nation as Dogman suggests, as soon as we eventually removed those troops the civil war would immediately begin again. The Sunnis are simply not going to feel safe in an Iraq controlled by Shia who hate them and who have militias killing them. It will be interesting to see Maliki enforcing his promises, I want to see his military go agains Sadyr's militias, unfortunately though, Maliki's troops are probably more loyal to Sadyr than to Maliki.
Bush and his supporters are trying to ignore reality and pretend their way to some kind of undefined victory.

Anyone who supports this escalation is suffering from the dilusion that the civil war will stop if we just send in more troops. EVen if we had 200,000 additional troops and could "lock down" the nation as Dogman suggests, as soon as we eventually removed those troops the civil war would immediately begin again. The Sunnis are simply not going to feel safe in an Iraq controlled by Shia who hate them and who have militias killing them. It will be interesting to see Maliki enforcing his promises, I want to see his military go agains Sadyr's militias, unfortunately though, Maliki's troops are probably more loyal to Sadyr than to Maliki.
Bush and his supporters are trying to ignore reality and pretend their way to some kind of undefined victory.

hahahaha, yep Iraq was required to prove they had no WMD, well done.

UN 1441 listed the UN's concerns about what Iraq was doing.

UN 1441 allowed Iraq one last chance to prove the negative.

Inspectors returned.

Inspectors found nothing.

1441 requires UN to meet again to discuss the matter.

interpretive statements indicate this does not mean automatic trigger for invasion.

Bush knew he needed another resolution.

Bush drafted a second resolution

Bush said NO MATTER WHAT he would call for a vote.

what were the results of that vote?

Let's please reserve the last post on this thread for History. It will provide the most cogent comments of all.

Meanwhile, sing on, brother, play on, drummer.

which post is thatjimi?


"Tonight, the President ignored the recommendations of members of both parties, military leaders, foreign policy experts, and the will of the American people by announcing that he intends to escalate our involvement in Iraq by sending more troops there. Congress must bring an end to what has been one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in the history of our nation.

The President continues to deny the devastating impact that keeping our brave troops in Iraq is having on our national security. The American people have rejected the Administration's Iraq-centric foreign policy. It is time to bring our troops out of Iraq and refocus on defeating the global terrorist networks that threaten this country."

Senator Russ Feingold

"Nearly four years old, President Bush's War in Iraq has been an abysmal failure," said Stark. "The war has cost more than $400 billion and taken the lives of more than 3,000 brave American troops and countless Iraqis. Time and time again, President Bush and Republicans in Congress made false claims about our supposed progress, only to have the situation on the ground get worse and worse. Today, our troops remain in harms way, even as Iraq has spiraled into civil war."

"In his address, President Bush committed to more of the same more troops, more wishful thinking, and more empty slogans," Stark continued.

"Bush didn't offer a new strategy, he offered new spin. Republicans have repeatedly promised the Iraqis would soon take control of their own security. But the presence of American troops has made and will continue to make such an outcome less likely."

"Enough is enough. It is past time Congress takes America's best interests into its own hands. I oppose escalation and, given the opportunity, will vote against providing billions in funding to deploy thousands of additional troops. Rather than send more servicemen and women to die in Iraq, we should serve the will of the American people and bring all of our troops home,"

Representative Pete Stark (D-CA)

My only problem with the plan is that it is the plan he should have used three years ago. Then we would be coming home now instead of looking at three more years of massive bloodshed. The speech last night is a plan to fix the problems, but does not excuse Bush's major contribution to those problems. Had he listened to the people he claims to be listening to now we would not be in the situation we are in. I only fear this is too little too late.

too little too late

Exactly what James Baker said last night.

That, and he didn't have any confidence in Maliki's ability to change the direction of the Shia government, which he has been promising to do for many months.


Maliki is worthless since the story of him wanting to retire. It does not matter if it was a mis-statement or his true feelings, he has lost the faith of those few people who had any in him.

why not support the idea of winning
Define winning.
Iraq has a democratically elected government and a security force which wants to give power to the majority and crush sunni terrorists. Isn't that their right? Or was Lincoln wrong to oppose the Confederacy?
Since the Bushies can't be so stupid as not to expect shia revenge (well actually they are that stupid, but what can you do?), what Bush is proposing is attacking the people who make up the elected government and support those sunnis who support al queda.
Sounds like a winning plan to me.
For saudia arabia.

Somebody was whining about China not being involved. Why should they? Bush has screwed up so badly in the ME, China is busily becoming everybody'd best buddy and signing deals with the Iranians and saudis and everybody else they can.
Now why aren't the grateful kuwaitis and saudistanis helping their muslim brothers by patrolling the streets of Baghdad? Other than they've told Bush no, and he's too deep in their pockets to stand up to them?

Same old bullshit. We had 160,000 troops there months ago and nothing changed. Tell the Iraqi's they've got 90 days, then we're gone. They want us to do all the work. Their treating us like we're their Mexicans.

We need to just leave so they can get on with it over there. It's gonna happen anyway no sense in dragging it out.

The most civilized thing we can do for the people over there now would be to arrange safe transport out of the country for those who wish to leave.

DOGMAN

"america should only respond to attacks or stop IMMINENT threats to our nation or its people."

NO Truth. We can't think that way anymore. We even knew after WW2 that we couldn't think this way anymore.

Rand

"whining about China not being involved."

Well they built a $100 million facility in Iraq prior to the invasion and we declared that to be the property of Iraq. So we essentially kicked them out.

Then they have signed an agreement with Iran. They'll get more oil (eventually) if Iran builds the nuke power plants and that's why they support them on that issue.

China also went into Sudan and is using their military to guard the pipelines so they can get that oil.

I suppose it could work if one accepts as fact or theory that "we were soooooo close to having it right. Man if we had only had 21,500 more troops on the ground we would have a stable Bagdhag
with The Iraqis steppin up while we stand down. Man, we were soooo close. This time for sure."
Kind of a stretch huh.

The President said we need to protect the Iraqi's from the insurgents. The Iraqi's ARE the insurgents.

I could support more troops in the region, but not with the current commander in chief in charge. His shortsightedness has proven time and time again to be a liability.

Ayn, welcoming in the thought police.

No Ayn is probably right but disregards the fact that Saddam wasn't even a remote threat to the US or anyone else.
Now the focus is on Iran and we will trump up excuses to attack them too.
It is absolutely not because of any danger faced by the United States. Now, it could have to do with a perceived threat towards Israel but that is a different debate.

ayn is not right.

he is advocating thought police.

Holding nations responsible, violently responsible for hostility to the US. Not just for taking military action against us but for contemplating such action.

this is immoral and unworkable.

We are not divine, we cannot look into the future to determine what a nation state will do.

Iraq is the perfect example of how wrong that decision making process is.

Our intelligence was wrong. It was questionable at best. Decisions were made based on this.

Look at hte mess we are in now.

I will not accept that the best policy with dealing with mass casualty attacks from WMD is by invading sovereign nations.

"...you're pretty hellbent on giving up the fight against cowards in Iraq that are killing us with roadside bombs, but then you talk tough about OBL."

Did the "cowards in Iraq" attack us on 9/11?

No.

Would the "cowards in Iraq" be killing us with roadside bombs if we were doing something related to those who attacked us on 9/11, instead of the fools errand of the invasion of Iraq?

No.

Would the American people like a little justice for the attack on us on 9/11, like bringing to justice the mastermind behind 9/11, bin Laden?

Yes.

Hans

Ben who?

Ben Hur?

We need to just leave so they can get on with it over there. It's gonna happen anyway no sense in dragging it out.

The most civilized thing we can do for the people over there now would be to arrange safe transport out of the country for those who wish to leave.

DOGMAN

Posted by dogman at 2007-01-11 11:35 AM |


And just as soon as we're finished retreating Iraq we can leave the inner cities of the United states. Redepoloy our cops to the borders and let the gangs fight it out. It's going to happen anyway, no sense dragging it out, these people will never stand up.

Ben Gunn, gone

Con, re your 1229:

That dog don't hunt. Inner cities of the US... they're still (mostly anyway) our citizens. Therefore the cops have the responsibility of maintaining law and order, or at least trying to.

Wait, the 9/11 mastermind? Oh, you must be taking about this guy, right?

www.cbsnews.com

""And just as soon as we're finished retreating Iraq we can leave the inner cities of the United states. Redepoloy our cops to the borders and let the gangs fight it out. It's going to happen anyway, no sense dragging it out, these people will never stand up.""

At least when you discuss things with those who support Bush you can be sure to have an intelligent discussion.
Something tells me that some of the troops who are now going to be redeployed back to Iraq would have a few choice words for Americans who sit here safely and send them off to fight for George Bush's ego. Or for the oil. Most probably both.

"Oh, you must be taking about this guy, right?"

Although Charles Manson himself was not present at the Tate/La Bianca killings, he was convicted on seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder.

The attitude of the Bush apologists on this site is similar to an attitude which would claim that Manson was unimportant so long as we caught and convicted Bobby Beausoleil, Susan Adkins, Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel.

The exact same attitude.

Hans

Bush's plan will probably be successful on or about the same day that OJ catches the people responsible for killing Nicole.

Hans that's just stupid. First of all, is it exactly the same or similar to? Second of all, I don't speak for all "Bush apologists." You can call me by my name, unless you know... you don't have what it takes. Also consider that the concept of implicating and bringing to justice countries that aide and abet terrorism, like Iraq, but that may not be a direct threat is very similar to the concept of trying Charles Manson for crimes that his "family" committed.

"First of all, is it exactly the same or similar to?"

The exact same.

Who needs Manson (bin Laden) if we've caught Bobby Beausoleil (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed)?

See. The exact same attitude.

"You can call me by my name, unless you know... you don't have what it takes."

Uh, okay. But is it Ms. Lives, Miss Lives, or Mrs. Lives?

"Also consider that the concept of implicating and bringing to justice countries that aide and abet terrorism, like Iraq..."

No, not "like" Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on us on 9/11. Didn't harbor the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Didn't give money to the families of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Nothing.

Hans

"""Also consider that the concept of implicating and bringing to justice countries that aide and abet terrorism, like Iraq,"""

This has been disproven so many times.
If you were really going to go after the nation that has "aided and betted" terrorists the most it would have to be either Saudi ARabia or Pakistan.

bin Laden set up the funding for the Al Qaeda jihadi movement. And they started the training for flying ariplanes into skyscrapers after the bombing of the WTC failed in 1993.

So he's wanted dead or alive and no one has taken the bounty. Where's Dog when you really need him?

Al Qaeda was in northern Iraq along the border of Iran and inside the no-fly zone. Why did Bush wait until May 2003 to bomb them?

Following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is believed that Zarqawi moved westward into Iraq, where he may have received medical treatment in Baghdad for an injured leg. It is believed that he developed extensive ties in Iraq with Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish Islamist militant group that was based in the extreme northeast of the country, but there is no evidence that deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government was involved in harboring Zarqawi or Ansar al-Islam.
en.wikipedia.org

Osama Been Forgotten

"Where's Dog when you really need him?"

Posted by MikeSiesel

Mexican jail?

www.dogthebountyhunter.com

Dog got a continuance. He is in Hawaii but must wear an ankle bracelet. The US is working a prisoner exchange. A mexican drug lord for Dog. He captured a convicted rapist he should be honored not locked up. Mexico is not an ally of America that is for sure. When will our politicians realize Mexico is more of a threat to America them Iraq ever was.

"When will our politicians realize Mexico is more of a threat to America them Iraq ever was."

Yeah, we could have invaded Mexico!!!

They have oil too.

Oh, forgot. That little deal that Clinton pushed through that mortgaged their oil fields. We wouldn't want to fuck over the bankers.

Let's invade Mexico with all the troops we have left in America.

America, fuck yeah!

Just saw a piece that said for the $357 BILLION dollars (due to gross mismanagement) already spent America COULD have received any of the following:

6 million new teachers
6 millions police officers
600 New elementary schools in every state
6 million port inspectors
Free gas for a year for every American

And the righties say we can't afford health insurance for our own citizens? Got their priorities all wrong if you ask me.

To AllahAmerican

Why do you spend full time being an asshole? You're sick and you need help !

Signed,
AllAmerican

Same goes for 101st and ROB (one of which is this brand new nickname of 'AllahAmerican".

Complete and utter assholes. Geesh, you're screwed up. I could really give a flying FUCK what you do or don't think about anything.

Thieves and pricks the both of you.

So.... The President finally did what the Democrats wanted.... Now what? You dems who disagree with the troop surge, did u know that many of your own political leaders (including nancy pelosi, john kerry, john edwards, the sen majority whip and leader) were all saying as late as last December 17 that there should be a troop surge? and now bush says it and its "WHAT A FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!".... get ur fucking story straight u dumbass libs.... its all political with you guys.

The problem with the "new" plan is its being undertaken and sold by the guy who gave us the horribly cluster fucked, everyone but him seen this coming old plan.

I gotta say I almost bought his bullshit, but you can't just cleave off the past call it frumps and let him continue on. If his new plan is so great, let someone else carry it out. Bush hasn't exactly been the poster boy for making good judgements. It would be tragic if this plan actually could work, but doesn't because bush makes other decisions that horribly fuck this one up too.

The 10% solution. Currently, approximately 200,000 soldiers fight for 'democracy' in Iraq [roughly US troops + foriegn troops + paid mercenaries (i.e. Blackwater)]. So, the President's solution is to add 10% more (20,000 troops). Even assuming these extra troops perform 100% efficient, things will merely get 10% better in Iraq. Will 10% be worth the continuing carnage of American soldiers? Don't look to the Democrats for help. They will sit idly by as they did when the gov't suspended habeas corpus, opened mail, banned the novel "America Deceived" from Amazon, stole private lands, conducted illegal wire-taps and continues wars in the Middle East based on a false-flag event known as 9/11. If the Democrats cannot stop the current 10% increase in this war, then they will never stop 100% of this war.
Only remaining link (until the gov't pulls the novel off Google Books):
America Deceived (book)

I've just read the entire thread, and the "surge protectors" have convinced me: those 20K troop are going to be absolutely magical mutherfuckers, and their presence will, without a doubt, scare the living bejeezus out of those pathetic arabs, and we will wind up victorious. So let the "surge" begin!

ROB Ahole, 101st, George Bush Anyone see a pattern here of the arrogance and malicious nature of THESE particular 'Frat Boys' and their ILK at Drudge.com "Red Meat for Yellow Dogs'?

People who will use any means, no matter how malicious, to bash anyone personally not in agreement with them. Who's only intent here at Drudge.com is to ruin the conversation with snide and snarling remarks that have no bearing whatsoever on the conversation at hand?

I'm sick of this type of person. RCADE, don't you realize that you most likely lose more posters through allowing this type of insulting behavior day after day than you keep around countering their constant barrage of insulting posts?

I for one have had just about enough. Too bad you didn't keep this site enjoyable for socially conscience people with something to add to the conversation, instead of allowing the constant barrage of abuse to continue unabated. If it changes, I may return. But, for now I'm outta here. Not because of ROB and 101st and their ilk, but because you've allowed it to continute this long.

I served my country well, and hoped to be able to participate here without this malicious natured abuse to the vast majority of posters who care about this country and someone other than their own selfish kicks. Thanks for the site RCADE. Wish things had been different around here.

"china is more than content to continue to bankroll this war and America's debt and position themselves as teh next and only superpower."

Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2007-01-10 10:59 PM

LM (MikeS also had a similar post)

Very true -- Does it take us rocket scientists to figure this out? What about those geniuses working in the basement of the White House??? Why can't they figure this out? Who's paying their salaries? Nobody but us dumb, non-neocon voters!

AllAmerican - 101 doesn't mean any harm. he's trying to be funny, and points out hypocracy, but he's just a teddy bear at the core. Robiderfl is a snot-nosed little brat who tries to copy 101, but doesn't measure up. Just ignore him like most around here do, or make jokes about having sex with his wife and watch him jump. It's kind of entertaining, in a sad and pathetic sort of way.

Posted by mOntecOre


Personally, I've never seen anything 'funny' from 101st. It's not 'funny' to use either his tone, no matter how much anyone thinks he's trying to be 'funny'. Every bully in every school thought they were 'funny' too, when in fact they were just malicious, sarcastic idiots who got kicks out of slamming someone else to the ground.

"Every bully in every school thought they were 'funny' too, when in fact they were just malicious, sarcastic idiots who got kicks out of slamming someone else to the ground."

Dude, yer taking this way too seriously. Jerx like 101 and assface rob are half the fun. Lighten up a little...

Dude, yer taking this way too seriously. Jerx like 101 and assface rob are half the fun. Lighten up a little...

Posted by Dave


Na, I laugh at them, but don't want to spend anymore time here as long as their ilk is allowed to spout their excrement. Why should I? There are too many other sites where reasonable conversation can take place.

I have no issue with Republicans here. But, the decent ones are the one's who should be giving the jerks around here the hardest time. They're the downfall of of Republicans afterall.

Seriously, you are making an argument that illustrates that you simply can't stand an opposing viewpoint....or at least you can't argue unless it is 5 to 1 in your favor.

Posted by eberly

Their ILK doesn't post an 'opposing viewpoint'. They personally attack people for having a viewpoint of their own rather than offer a constructive alternative. I have MANY Republican friends, and used to be one myself.

Allamerican, I read your long post including this comment:

People who will use any means, no matter how malicious, to bash anyone personally not in agreement with them. Who's only intent here at Drudge.com is to ruin the conversation with snide and snarling remarks that have no bearing whatsoever on the conversation at hand?

Frankly, I thought you were talking about the posters on the left. Go to the thread about Bush crying at the ceremony and see why I thought that. That is a good example of "snide and snarling remarks" that serve no purpose other than to express hate. What purpose do those comments serve other than that?

this is what the vile john podheretz (sp?) wrote recently in the NY post:
"What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?"

bush stated in the 'surge' speech that the restraint shown by US and Iraqi forces towards insurgents and their AOs will no longer apply. maliki has given him assurances that US troops will no longer be handcuffed. maliki is shia.
does'nt this sound like a call to be done with the sunnis? as for anbar province, they're designated 'al kaydah', so we can default go mediavel on them.
flynt leverett said the important part of the speech dealt with iran and syria; and it would'nt surprise him if there has been presidential findings/directives to pursue the roots of the insurgency to syrian and iranian territory.
also, why would you base patriot missile batteries to 'reassure friends and allies'? what would you be expecting the patriots to intercept? shahab-2s? from whom, to where?
all in all, escalation is the right term. but it's that kind of gambler's escalation, having had no previous winning hand in the game.
fasten your seatbelts!

coming in here a little late, but what i thought was also interesting was bush's almost total rejection of baker's proposals. this, combined with the provenance of the 'surge' plan, and the installation of negroponte as assistant to the wobbly rice, seems to point to a phoenix-like resusitation of the neo-con plans. it exposes the weakness of the establishment position versus the neo-con/likudnik axis. it is only when the wealth of the establishment is seriously jeopardised will it act.
i have no solid evidence to back up this theory but i get the impression that encapsulated in fine print of the surge, is the expectation that iraq will devolve into three separate entities.
how the other sunni countries (saudi arabia for one) will respond to a violent subduing of iraqi sunnis is another matter. this adminstration has never devoted much consideration toward reprecussions of it's actions.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable