The surge has worked, blah, blah, blah, stay the course, blah, blah, blah, don't cut and run, blah, blah, blah, give me another $100 BILLION for my war, blah, blah, blah, we are making progress, blah, blah, blah

-- President George W. Bush

Why does the WH consider Al Anbar with 5% of the population and free of sectarian violence, or killing the small numbers of Al Qaeda compared to tens of thousands of Shia 'friends' shooting at us and each other as reasons to believe we're being successful?

What the pool up to on the number of words that the marble-mouth-in-chief destroys?

Breaking Related Story:

Tadowe, Bowa, Bushlover2 upon hearing of the pending prevarications from Der Leader became so excited and agitated that they gave their respective and collective trousers a nice, warm gooey jism eruction.

According to CNN poll, 80% of Americans will not be watching the Boy Blunder.

"The West Coast will air Bush's speech at 6:00 p.m. PST"

That should be interesting - they'll be airing the speech an hour before he gives it.

And what a surprise - he's delivering the speech in front of the military.

I feel a drinking game coming on.

The funny part is that when proposing the "surge", we were told that the 20,000 (then upped to 30,000) would be going to stabilize baghdad, where the bulk of the problems apparently were. Yet, when rationalizing about thesuccess of the "surge" were are told that Anbar province is now nearly pacified. WTF? What about Baghdad? How are things going there?

That should be interesting - they'll be airing the speech an hour before he gives it.

It's 6:00 PST, so it'll be 9 PM in the east. It will actually be over by then.

This is a Big Suck week for Liberals.

First, Petraous gives a dull but positive accounting of the current situation in Iraq. Even Hillary! and Obama could not urn it into a Crackpot Circus. Where was Clown Hagel?

How disappointing -- not even considering the facts on the ground. OUCH!

Then, Congressional Dems admit they have NOTHING on Bush re: crimes, coverups, smoke and mirrors, etc. They say they will "delay" pursuit of those bullshit accusations.

Translation: You whored yourself for us when we talked big against Bush. Now, our little lemmings go away quietly so we can focus on re-election. The only thing we really care about is our own personal power. You have served us well.

Now, tonight, Bush rubs your nose in the dirty diaper!

HAR~! HAR~!

When he finally slithers out of the Oval Office, Bush has said he wants to go around giving speeches so he can "refill the ol' coffers." Tonight, he'll be making a speech that'll help fill the new coffins.

Disgusting.

NESS

feel a drinking game coming on.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2007-09-13 02:12 PM

That's so funny 'cause I just came on this thread now to post the game.

Okay -- one shot/swig for every time Bush makes mention of "9/11"

Your turn -- add another one on to the drinking list:

one shot/swig for every time Bush says ___________

"It's 6:00 PST, so it'll be 9 PM in the east. It will actually be over by then"

Oops - you're right!

um

"one shot/swig for every time Bush says ___________"

Nucular?

ah

one shot/swig for every time Bush says ___________

"Progress"

Yeah, I know, we'll all be shitfaced in no time, but hey, it's Thursday.

Bush is suppose to tout how wonderful his surged worked. .

The troops that are scheduled to come home now are not because his 'surge' worked but because these troops were scheduled to come home anyway as their numerous bakc to back deployments required the troop to come back -- not 'cause Bush did anything to help.

um

This is a Big Suck week for Liberals.

It's been a Big Suck past 6 years for all of us.

Now, tonight, Bush rubs your nose in the dirty diaper!

Your nurse must be slacking off.

Vermin!! Party over Country still?

one shot/swig for every time Bush says ___________

"Al Qaeda"

I know I'm going to feel like hell tomorrow morning.

CC

Way too many 'Inconvenient Truths' about Iraq to count.

So, Bush will be stuck telling us how hunky dorey things are in Al Anbar's 5% of Iraq population (who's leaders have walked out of the government), and how fighting a thousand Al Qaeda (who weren't there before) are reasons to be optomistic about the situation, while tens of thousands of Shia shoot at us and each other.
Spin spin spin spin Condi Rice came out of the woodwork yesterday to set up the Potemkin village of success in advance.

My drinking game:

-makes attempt at humor: one shot
-refers to a cabinet member by a nickname: one shot
-mentions 9/11: one shot
-says "sacrifice:" one shot
-mispronounces "terrorists:" one shot
-says "nukular:" one shot
-implies that violence in iraq is down, even though the pentagon no longer counts car bombs: drink an irish car bomb (guiness and whiskey)
-says "thank you, and god bless" = finish the bottle and cry

AU

I actually got RightOCenter to promise me he'll read the article you turned me on to (thanks!) -- "The Great Iraq Swindle" I am trying to get as many people to read it as I can. I can't believe a word Bush says anymore after I read it (not that I did much before reading it) because everything, every move, is calculated on keeping those reconstruction contracts going and in order to do that the war has to keep on going.

WHY is Bush allowed to get away with all that he's done in that article? It is calculated theft of our government Treasury far beyond graft and corruption. And the way the article describes how Bush allows and even encourages these for-profit reconstruction contractors to use our military guys and put them in danger just to drive up their profits!!!
It goes to pre-meditated, out and out fraud and stealing. IMPEACH.

My drinking game:

-makes attempt at humor: one shot
-refers to a cabinet member by a nickname: one shot
-mentions 9/11: one shot
-says "sacrifice:" one shot
-mispronounces "terrorists:" one shot
-says "nukular:" one shot
-implies that violence in iraq is down, even though the pentagon no longer counts car bombs: drink an irish car bomb (guiness and whiskey)
-says "thank you, and god bless" = finish the bottle and cry

Posted by JOE

Talks about how many times we've been attacked in the U.S. since 9/11: stick your finger down your throat and start over.

My drinking game:

-makes attempt at humor: one shot
-refers to a cabinet member by a nickname: one shot
-mentions 9/11: one shot
-says "sacrifice:" one shot
-mispronounces "terrorists:" one shot
-says "nukular:" one shot
-implies that violence in iraq is down, even though the pentagon no longer counts car bombs: drink an irish car bomb (guiness and whiskey)
-says "thank you, and god bless" = finish the bottle and cry

Posted by JOE at 2007-09-13 02:38 PM | Reply

Good one Joe

Can we add one shot for every time Bush hunches his shoulders and snickers -- where goes 'heh heh heh' as if we are all only 8 years old and he is trying to explain something to us.

Ever notice that the more uncomfortable Bush is when asked a question or when he is out and out lying he smile on his face gets broader and broader. True.

My bottles of Kahlua and Vodka will be empty in the first ten Bush minutes. ahhhh, Black Russians.

drinking game

one shot -- Bush says "We're kicking ass"

The headline of this thread refers to a June 2005 speech.

Tonight's, I believe, is at 9pm EST from the Oval Office.

Yesterday I said I would boycott it, but I'm going to watch it, and Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews are discussing it at 9.15pm.

But I still wish I was boycotting it.

On account of the unnerving way the President behaves, you really can't miss these "live" events.

He might say something interesting.

He might call Iraq Iran or Iron or Irony or ironing board.

He might say September the 13th.

My bottles of Kahlua and Vodka will be empty in the first ten Bush minutes. ahhhh, Black Russians.

Posted by CalifChris at


"Bush minutes", is that like dog years? Or the meeting notes of the Cunnilingus Society?

I have to scrub out my toilet at that time so I won't be seeing it 'live'.

Not to worry though, I won't be missing anything cause I'm going to rerun a recording of a speech he gave in 2004.

Black Russians are good Chris. I prefer a splash of Bailey's on top - it is then referred to as a "Blind Russian."

I'm NOT watching it that is for sure. Dubya makes Me wanna vomit so I will abstain.

Larry

Part of Bush's speech.....

".... My detractors may be 'misunderestimating' me, but let us not 'misunderestimate' what will happen if we leave Iraq too soon and in too drastic measure.....

.... " as a gesture of goodwill, I am ready to 'make nice' with the Dixie Chicks, moveon.hate, Barbaric Streisand, and others in LiberalWOOD..... and pardon Hugo Chavez and Madonara (Maradona and Madonna) even though they hated with with perfect hatred....

"From now on, I intend to pursue a 'forgive and forget' attitude as mentioned above, to preserve my legacy and deny Putin, Jintao, Chirac, and the predecessor of Merkel to write bad things about me, as they played a key role in reducing the membership of the 'Coalition of the Willing'....

"Saddam is gone. Osama is in hiding, banished from civilization, and my ally Musharraf is making smart moves....

"Above all, American soil is safe from al queda mischief, for which I thank the Almighty....

"Good night, America. God bless America".

Bush's speeches are interesting. I've never seen any other man say "nonny-noony-boo-boo" in so many different ways.

Bush the Magnificent, having pumped 30,000 new troops into Iraq, will now amaze us all with news he will bring them home the instant it's not possible that they stay---May, 1998.

I never hear the Right acknowledge teh Surge stops in May or thereabouts. I sure never hear them opine on what that means to the military situation in Iraq.

I know the reason for that. They're just happy that the war goes on. I'm deadly serious. The idea is that the war must go one. That's what victory is.

Now, that there are (even with the surge) and never will be enough troops in Iraq to make a permanent qualitative difference in Iraq does not matter to them.

Does not matter---Non-starter, never to be spoken of.

What matters is that someone (not them exactly) continues to fight. Because, you know (and I'm sure Clausewitz agrees entirely with them), as long as the blood and money keep flowing no one can ever really lose a war.

Does anyone know who is doing the Democratic rebuttal?

I think Larry is doing it.

I think Larry is doing it.

Posted by ride_on

Now that I would watch! A drinking game called "Gnats ass".

It's for all the world like the Right is married to this meth freak that turns tricks on the side. But they desperately love her, and the least little smile from her face makes them melt and hope that another six months of relationship will make her reform.

Edwards bought airtime on MSNBC after the speech, already trying to rebuke the president, even before the speech is given. How brilliant, but typical.

Does anyone know who is doing the Democratic rebuttal?

Posted by wisgod

I just read it was Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia

Edwards bought airtime on MSNBC after the speech, already trying to rebuke the president, even before the speech is given. How brilliant, but typical.

Posted by FormerLib

Haircut at 4:00 EST.

I just read it was Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Is that the guy whose son was/is in Iraq?

Bush may mispronounce sommat new toight but he sure as hell aint gonna be saying anything new.

He will talk about how the surge is working, how he listens to his generals, and how America has to "stay the course" fer the next 10 to 20 years.

Lies, basically.

He will talk about the military's success in the Anbar province but prolly not about the fact that the main Sheik who opposed the AQ in the area got killed by an IED just the other day.

He will state that the Iraqi government just needs a little more time to get their shit together ignoring furiously the fact that they are stalling fer time waiting for the US to leave and loathe to sign an oil sharing agreement with a gun pointed at their collective heads.

Prime Time Speech?

Bush is wot Spud calls a "Never Ready fer Primetime Player".

Be Well.

PS: Spud's Drinking game?

If Bush sez 9/11, freedom, nuKular, or smirks then ya gotta drink. Is rule.

Edwards bought airtime on MSNBC after the speech, already trying to rebuke the president, even before the speech is given. How brilliant, but typical.

And Bush waiting on the "Petraeus" report before deciding has spent days practicing the speech he's giving tonight.

It's a miracle!

Yawnnnn. More Repug bullshit.

Who ever listens to this turd now considering the last 6 years deserves what they get.

"Is that the guy whose son was/is in Iraq?

Posted by wisgod"

Yes. Also Sec. of the Navy under Reagan.

Haircut at 4:00 EST.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-09-13 03:37 PM |


Ok first off, that is admittedly pretty clever. That said, let's examine a few facts.

EDWARDS:
$400 haircut that either he or his campaign funds paid for.

Got rich as a trial lawyer, kind sleazy perhaps.

Has a huge house while advocating for the poor.


BUSH:
Ignored intel that may have averted 9/11

Started a war based upon at a minimum intel so poor that many of his own advisor were very skeptical about. Possibly even had the intel created to fit his schema.

Instituted tax cuts that helped noone except for his millionaire friends.

Instituted tax cuts that have hurt many middle class Americans.

Called the Bill of Rights "just a piece of paper" thereby demosntrating his complete lack of regard for what has made America great for all of these years.

Bungled the response to Katrina to a degree that still astounds.

Need I go on? You certainly got quite a set of CONjones to even make remarks given your undying love and support for Bush. How hard is it to even walk around with a sackful like that?

Is that the guy whose son was/is in Iraq?

Posted by wisgod

Ya.

Say, you got me going the other night and I pulled out my Mott the Hoople LP's Had a good time!

Stay the course...

Progress....

Al Queda.....

9/11.....

Saddamm....

General on the ground.....

Troops coming home sometime.....

All translates into "must miss tv".

Even watching Shop at Home Network will be more exciting.

Called the Bill of Rights "just a piece of paper"


Posted by Reagan58 at 2007-09-13 03:58 PM

Reagan get it straight.....

It is a "goddamn piece of paper" according to Bush.

It is a "goddamn piece of paper" according to Bush.


Posted by JimmyWallback at 2007-09-13


I was pretty sure I fucked that up but I wanted to err on the side of reasonability.

I was pretty sure I fucked that up but I wanted to err on the side of reasonability.

Posted by Reagan58

Want to borrow my CONjones?

Ewww, that's just nasty.

WISGOD

"Ian Jones: 'Would you ever consider doing something with the Motts for a Live Aid/Live Earth type concert?' Hasn't come up, so I haven't considered it."

Hope they do. They could be huge again.

If I ever see Ian Hunter on Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson again I'll tape it and send it to your secret mountain hideaway. He was great. Great interview too. Craig's obviously a big fan of Ian's. Said he saw the Hoople for the first time in a small club in Glasgow way before they hit it big.

WISGOD

The rebuttal will be by Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island

Oops

Tadowe, Bowa, Bushlover2 upon hearing of the pending prevarications from Der Leader became so excited and agitated that they gave their respective and collective trousers a nice, warm gooey jism eruction.

Posted by Reagan58

Looks to me that you libs are already creaming your jeans and he hasn't said a word.

Chris and AU-

I read the Rolling Stones article, and what suprised me the most was the fact that the writer was acting like this is the very first time that 1)cost plus contracts were given out; 2) that certain unscrupulous individuals were taking advantage of lax government oversight and 3) companies like Halliburton and KBR had their hands firmly in the Government trough.

Sadly, these kinds of activities have been going on as long as the Pentagon has been doling out defense contracts: Remember the $800 toilet seat from the 80's? How about the Dyncorp human trafficing scandal of the 90's? This happens in every administration, and is part of the government contracting scam that has developed over the past 100 years.

For example, Halliburton was given no-bid contracts to build four bases in Bosnia in the mid 90's, with an initial cost estimate of about 200 Million all in. Final price: 1.5 Billion Dollars. A Brown and Root operation in Bosnia estimated at $191.6 million when presented to Congress in 1996 had ballooned to $461.5 million a year later. Examples of overspending by contractors include flying plywood from the United States to the Balkans at $85.98 a sheet. Do you think these abuses were the fault of the Administration that granted that contract?

I am not trying to deflect, but to make the point that this process has been going on forever, and there will always be unscrupulous people who try to take advantage of it. If anyone should be vilified, it is the Pentagon, who has been having to clean up after itself since WWII.

SNIPER

I for one have never made a single connection to Iraq and how it might affect politics, and it's very cynical to think that anyone from either side of the aisle would. Politics is exactly the LAST thing that needs to be involved when we're faced with the mother of all messes that threatens to destabilize the entire ME and create more Islamic radicals than you can count.

Our economic security is being threatened as well with the massive amounts of money pouring down the drain in Iraq. Have you noticed oil just hit $80 a barrel!!? Talk about inflationary for our economy and hurting everyone in the pocketbook. All because of this damn war. Nothing to rejoice about in my house that's for sure.

ROC

'Cost Plus' contracts weren't done at the expense of our troops before. Neither have those abusing the system been exempt from accountability for fraud. As tight as money is these days we should be counting our pennies and making sure our troops have everything they need when we send them into battle.

This is a whole new situation.

PS ROC

They got the $800 hammers. We're not getting anything for our money when we're paying for broken down trucks that don't run, training academies with urnine in the light bulbs, and the GI's can't even have AC in 120 degree heat for example.

Privatized war isn't working out so well.

Thank God for the Mute button. I can't remember the last time I actually HEARD Bush's voice.

BTW...where is Black Sugar?...(aka Condi)

BTW...where is Black Sugar?...(aka Condi)

Posted by CLINTONISKING

I saw her yesterday morning on The Today Show spinning on about our great success in Al Anbar where 5% of the population live and we're paying them not to shoot, and Al Qaeda who are a small fraction of the fighting going on. Still full of shit spinning on about successes that pale in comparison to the huge problems yet to be tackled.

Expect to hear Al Qaeda, Al Anbar, and now I read Korea tonight

I'll post what Eisenhower said about Korea tomorrow

Chimpeach.

""If Bush sez 9/11, freedom, nuKular, or smirks then ya gotta drink. Is rule.""

That's just a recipe for drunkenness.

You guys are right, this is the first time anybody has made money from a war. Just ask Dianne's husband from San Francisco. They know how this construction business for the military works. It's called the military industrial complex. Lots of companies besides Haliburton take a place at the trough every day.

AU-

I worked on Government Contracts for a telecommunications company in the mid-80's and almost all the DOD RFP's were "cost plus", its how most defense procurement is done. Rolling Stone's indignation notwithstanding, this is not something new, it has been done at the expense of our troops since WWI, if not earlier.

Waste is always a problem on these types of contracts, because there is no incentive for the company to be profitable or efficient.

The problem lays not in any one administration but with the system itself, and until that changes these types of abuses will continue.

I do agree that accountability is an issue, but the problem there is typical pass-the-buck beltway politics: DOD isn't going to do anything, it isn't within the purview of the Administration, the GAO only investigates, etc. If you really want to make these people accountable, write a letter to every member of Congress demanding something be done.

For all those who support our troops, do you want the troops to be successful in the surge?

ROC

Did you read the article? Since when do we do an end run around accountability? Since when do we spend billions on unfinished projects and broken down trucks, or use our troops to ferry empty trucks on dangerous roads so someone can make a buck?

ROC

Much of the money spent in Iraq isn't even DOD money. It's coming from appropriations in addition to the DOD budget, right?

This is a whole new situation.

Agreed. Clinton had his screwups, but he didn't lose $9 Billion in cash in Bosnia. And for all the cost overruns, at least the facilities built in Bosnia function.

But Iraq is far, far different.

A few months later, in March 2004, your company magically wins a contract from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to design and build the Baghdad Police College, a facility that's supposed to house and train at least 4,000 police recruits. But two years and $72 million later, you deliver not a functioning police academy but one of the great engineering clusterfucks of all time, a practically useless pile of rubble so badly constructed that its walls and ceilings are literally caked in shit and piss, a result of subpar plumbing in the upper floors.


The deal charged Custer Battles with the responsibility to perform airport security for civilian flights. But there were never any civilian flights into Baghdad's airport during the life of their contract, so the CPA gave them a job managing an airport checkpoint, which they failed miserably. They were also given scads of money to buy expensive X-ray equipment and set up an advanced canine bomb-sniffing system, but they never bought the equipment. As for the dog, Ballard reported, "I eventually saw one dog. The dog did not appear to be a certified, trained dog." When the dog was brought to the checkpoint, he added, it would lie down and "refuse to sniff the vehicles"


There was so much money around for contractors, officials literally used $100,000 wads of cash as toys. "Yes -- $100 bills in plastic wrap," Frank Willis, a former CPA official, acknowledged in Senate testimony about Custer Battles. "We played football with the plastic-wrapped bricks for a little while."


At the very outset of the occupation, when L. Paul Bremer was installed as head of the CPA, one of his first brilliant ideas for managing the country was to have $12 billion in cash flown into Baghdad on huge wooden pallets and stored in palaces and government buildings. To pay contractors, he'd have agents go to the various stashes -- a pile of $200 million in one of Saddam's former palaces was watched by a single soldier, who left the key to the vault in a backpack on his desk when he went out to lunch -- withdraw the money, then crisscross the country to pay the bills. When desperate auditors later tried to trace the paths of the money, one agent could account for only $6,306,836 of some $23 million he'd withdrawn. Bremer's office "acknowledged not having any supporting documentation" for $25 million given to a different agent. A ministry that claimed to have paid 8,206 guards was able to document payouts to only 602. An agent who was told by auditors that he still owed $1,878,870 magically produced exactly that amount, which, as the auditors dryly noted, "suggests that the agent had a reserve of cash."


When things went wrong, KBR simply scrapped expensive gear: The company dumped 50,000 pounds of nails in the desert because they were too short, and left the Army no choice but to set fire to a supply truck that had a flat tire. "They did not have the proper wrench to change the tire," an Iraq vet named Richard Murphy told investigators, "so the decision was made to torch the truck."


In perhaps the ultimate example of military capitalism, KBR reportedly ran convoys of empty trucks back and forth across the insurgent-laden desert, pointlessly risking the lives of soldiers and drivers so the company could charge the taxpayer for its phantom deliveries. Truckers for KBR, knowing full well that the trips were bullshit, derisively referred to their cargo as "sailboat fuel."

In Fallujah, where the company was paid based on how many soldiers used the base rec center, KBR supervisors ordered employees to juke the head count by taking an hourly tally of every soldier in the facility. "They were counting the same soldier five, six, seven times," says Linda Warren, a former postal worker who was employed by KBR in Fallujah. "I was even directed to count every empty bottle of water left behind in the facility as though they were troops who had been there."


Yet for all the money KBR charged taxpayers for the rec center, it didn't provide much in the way of services to the soldiers engaged in the heaviest fighting of the war. When Warren ordered a karaoke machine, the company gave her a cardboard box stuffed with jumbled-up electronic components.


In one deal awarded to KBR, the company's "indirect" administrative costs were $52.7 million, and its direct costs -- the costs associated with the actual job -- were only $13.4 million.


Like the expensive telephone-based disease-notification database approved for use in hospitals without telephones, or the natural-gas-powered electricity turbines greenlighted for installation in a country without ready sources of natural gas, the Basra Children's Hospital was a state-of-the-art medical facility set to be built in a town without safe drinking water.


Bechtel was given $50 million to build the hospital -- but a year later, with the price tag soaring to $169 million, the company was pulled off the project without a single bed being ready for use.


When civilian employees complained about looting or other improprieties, contractors sometimes threatened to throw them outside the gates of their bases -- a life-threatening situation for any American.
Robert Isakson, a former FBI agent who worked for Custer Battles, says that when he refused to go along with one scam involving a dummy company in Lebanon, he was detained by company security guards, who seized his ID badge and barred him from the base in Baghdad. He eventually had to make a hazardous, Papillon-esque journey across hostile Iraq to Jordan just to survive. (Custer Battles denies the charge.)


An Air Force vet, Skoug had come to Iraq as a civilian to repair refrigeration units and air conditioners for a KBR subcontractor called LSI. But when he arrived, he discovered that LSI had hired him to fix Humvees. "I didn't know jack-squat about Humvees," he says. "I could maybe change the oil, that was it." (Asked about Skoug's additional assignment, KBR boasted: "Part of the reason for our success is our ability to employ individuals with multiple capabilities.")

Working with him on his crew were two other refrigeration technicians, neither of whom knew anything about fixing Humvees. Since Skoug and most of his co-workers had worked for KBR in Afghanistan, they were familiar with cost-plus contracting. The buzz around the base was that cost-plus was the reason LSI was hiring air-conditioning guys to work on unfamiliar military equipment at a cost to the taxpayer of $80,000 a year. "They was doing the same thing as KBR: just filling the body count," says Skoug.

Thanks to low troop levels, all the military repair guys had been pressed into service to fight the war, so Skoug was forced to sit in the military storeroom on the base and study vehicle manuals that, as a civilian, he wasn't allowed to check out of the building. That was how America fought terrorism in Iraq: It hired civilian air-conditioning techs to fix Humvees using the instruction manual while the real Humvee repairmen, earning a third of what the helpless civilians were paid, drove around in circles outside the wire waiting to get blown up by insurgents.

AU-

I did read the article, did you read my 5:35? We don't do that kind of stuff, and those companies should be held accountable and the people responsible should be put in prison. The problem is finding someone who has the cajones to make an issue about it: every politician takes big $$ from the very companies that are doing this shit, and no one wants to kill the golden goose.

IMHO, the Government should require politicians who retire to spend two years going after these types of abuses, which would clean things up pretty quick.

For all those who support our troops, do you want the troops to be successful in the surge?

Posted by OohRah

Of course. But, without political progress it's all for naught. We should have the U.N. and every country in the region meeting daily with the Iraqi government to aid in that effort and pressure the Iraqis to make some progress quick, but so far we're stuck on Version 1.x of the same program.

The initial 'surge' time is over and political progress is going nowhere. The oil sharing deal just fell through, the Sunni's have walked out of the government, and we're paying the Sunni in Al Anbar not to shoot us. How is that real progress?

In perhaps the ultimate example of military capitalism, KBR reportedly ran convoys of empty trucks back and forth across the insurgent-laden desert, pointlessly risking the lives of soldiers and drivers so the company could charge the taxpayer for its phantom deliveries. Truckers for KBR, knowing full well that the trips were bullshit, derisively referred to their cargo as "sailboat fuel."

There's war profiteerig and then there's THIS kinda shit.

These people should all be in jail.

In an earlier time they woulda all been shot as traitors w/o too many objections.

Instead they're all getting fat and anybody who gets in trouble over any of it gets a pardon and a medal of freedumb.

And maybe a football of cash (or a hundred) just fer a keepsake.

Bush is a criminal.
The Iraq War is a criminal enterprise.
If you can't see that by this point yer eyes are closed with crazy glue or sommat.

Be Well.

I did read the article, did you read my 5:35?

ROC

Yes. All of us need to put pressure to end these abuses. We were told Iraqi oil would pay for the war and it's not. It's OUR money being handed out to a few. The profits are going straight into the pockets of shareholders and cronies. I was most sickened by how callously they use our troops to ferry empty trucks on dangerous roads, etc.

Every patriot ought to be livid and demanding heads to roll.

For all those who support our troops, do you want the troops to be successful in the surge?

It's a pointless question Oohrah.
The surge isn't permanent, it end in April or May. Whatever success the troops have between now and then will be undone.

Let me put it this way. Would you go to a football game and root for your team, knowing that they were going to forfit the game at halftime?

What's the point?

Oohrah, this is my take. Either we have a draft and put a million troops in Iraq for the next 20 years, or we withdraw completely.

Those are the options. Pick one.

Norm,
Is that a yes, then? A no?

See, I think those who in the US who want us to leave ASAP (for any of a variety of reasons) do not want the troops to be successful in the surge. Am I wrong?

Because if the troops are successful in the surge, then that represents progress. And progress means we're moving in a positive direction toward our end goal - a stable enough Iraq so that its gov't can get a foothold and hold its own against the bad guys who'd rather have chaos.

So, it devolved recently into a Petraous sliming... or other objection. We're in Iraq. Nothing can change that fact. Now that we've "broken" it, how will it be fixed? Will it really be better off (and our future more secure) if we leave without completing the mission? I don't see how it would be. Thoughts?

You are delusional OohRah the Iraq War was lost the very moment it started. This surge will not do any good. You expect Centuries of hatred to be quashed by us?? You want to stay and waste more lives for a lost cause how is THAT supporting the troops?? How is living in that Republican Denial doing the troops any good. DO YOU WANT MORE TROOPS TO DIE FOR NOTHING or do You want them to save what they can??

Larry

See, I think those who in the US who want us to leave ASAP (for any of a variety of reasons) do not want the troops to be successful in the surge. Am I wrong?

Yes. We HAD the 6 month surge. Iraq's government is no closer to reconciliation than it was when we invaded. In fact, they're further behind. The Sunni have walked out, and the oil revenue deal just went down the crapper. Al Anbar, who the WH tout every chance they get is 100% Sunni with no sectarian fighting and we're paying them not to shoot us.

Baghdad is quiter from ethnic cleansing as much as anything else. Formerly 65% Sunni, no 75% Shia.

Meanwhile 95% of the fighting is Shia on Shia, Shia on Sunni, Shia on America. Al qaeda has a tiny presence compared to that. We're fighting our 'friends' mostly while the Iraqi government sits on it's ass and Bush refuses to engage in just as massive a diplomatic effort involving the entire region to achieve political progress, the whole reason the surge was undertaken - to give the Iraqis space to get their acts together. What makes you think another year will make any difference OohRah faced with the facts?

Now that we've "broken" it, how will it be fixed?

It's beyond repair by us through military action alone. Write the WH and your Congressman and demand that Bush engage the region and the U.N. to find resolution to the political solution.

I cry a lot in this job... ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.

"Because if the troops are successful in the surge, then that represents progress."

From Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to Gen. Petraeus on 9/11/07:

"and by the way, let's clear some of the record on that -- those 18 benchmarks didn't come from the Congress of the United States. Those benchmarks came from the Iraqi government and this administration. Somehow it's the Congress dictated these benchmarks. Well, we didn't. We didn't."

The #1 goal was to give the Iraqi government "breathing room" to come together. They are, instead, further apart. By the administrations own definition, the surge has failed.

It's beyond repair by us through military action alone. Write the WH and your Congressman and demand that Bush engage the region and the U.N. to find resolution to the political solution. -Americanunity

That is what any administration other than this one would do, while acknowledging miscalculation and wrong decision-making.

But then this administration may be the only one that would have done what they did in the circumstances, and we know they do not acknowledge actual mistakes, just bad circumstances. They blame the Iraqis now. With reason the Iraqis blame us.

We ought to be out of that country by the end of 2007, but we are spending billions building military bases, of which we hear nothing from Bush and Cheney and Petraeus and Rice and Gates. Will the Democrats kindly have a debate about Iraqi bases, the funding for them, and what they are for?

"Leave (Iraq) ASAP...."

What a freaking riot. We've been there five years now. Soldiers who were thirteen in 2003 now die in Iraq.

Only a great leader can help Iraq. Bush will hand over US power (possibly to a woman or a black man) in 2009. He should then further his great legacy. Bush should move to Iraq and along with Cheney and friends and lead the entire middle east to peace.... going down as the greatest leader of all history.

It could happen..... he has a great start!! Plus Laura, Jenna and both Barbara's will look fantastic in a burkha.

The surge has worked, blah, blah, blah, stay the course, blah, blah, blah, don't cut and run, blah, blah, blah, give me another $100 BILLION for my war, blah, blah, blah, we are making progress, blah, blah, blah

-- President George W. Bush

Any bets Bush's poll numbers go down after this speech?

Thanks for the pre-transcript Chris. Now I can watch something else!

Hm. Bush's "Minority Report."

so now I hear that in his speech tonight Dumbya is going to announce a long term strategic relationship with Iraq. Kind of explains the permanent bases and the billion dollar embassy.
Though the right has denied it all along the truth was just as many of us believed, Bush had no intention of ever pulling the troops out of Iraq.
The 30 thousand he is talking about coming home in April were already coming home because their tours (15 month) will be up unless they further extend the tours. I swear anyone who still supports Bush at this point just likes being lied to. You have to be masochistic or something.

See, I think those who in the US who want us to leave ASAP (for any of a variety of reasons) do not want the troops to be successful in the surge. Am I wrong?

Oohrah, are you really that short sighted? It doesn't make any difference what I or anyone wants.
I want the troops to be successful in staying alive, in not getting blown up.

Everything else is meaningless because the Surge is not permanent.

Let me ask you a question. 6 months from now, when the Surge is ending, and all the fabulous progress is unraveling, will you still be singing the Surge's praises?

And yes it will unravel. If you noticed, the warlord in Anbar that we were bribing to be our friend was just blown up at the height of the Surge. And it likely wasn't Al-Queda.

I see no cause for optimism once the surge ends, and see no reason to champion it's very temporary success, beyond the lives of our troops.

Stay the course...Brawkkk!

Progress....Brawkkk!

Al Queda.....Brawkkk!

9/11.....Brawkkk!

Saddamm....Brawkkk!

General on the ground.....Brawkkk!

Troops coming home sometime.....Brawkkk!

Then here comes oorah with that lame bs of "wanting the Troops to fail".......

If I want to hear somebody lie to me, I'll call my ex-wife.

Good one, ARGH

See, I think those who in the US who want us to leave ASAP (for any of a variety of reasons) do not want the troops to be successful in the surge. Am I wrong?

Not to beat a dead horse into the ground or anything but Spud'll take a crack at this one too.

The surge was an artificial construct of over-lapping, overly extended tours that could not be sustained indefinitely.

Which is why Spud is mildly bemused whenever a talking head comes on the tube to tell Spud about how reccomendation fer bringing the troop levels back down to pre-surge numbers was some kind of indicator of success.

It's not a scuccess it's simply wot has to happen.

So stOOpid.

The essential argument here is this...

Is the American presence in the ME especially Iraq making the area more stable and secure or less stable and more radicalised?

Solution or problem?

Ooh-rah will argue that it's the former and Spud the latter there.

Be Well.

CC

Check out DOC SARVIS' piece I linked. I REALLY ties in the war with the larger agenda of a few.

IT really ties in the war ....

DOC

I will get to your article tonight or tomorrow. please read the links from AU and me re "The Great Iraq swindle" (my 8:36 p.m. post) We are trying to get everyone to read it as to the real motive behind the Iraq war.

I see Bush is using more soliders as photo ops in the background tonight as he tries to justify keeping his Iraq swindle going.

AU

We were on the same wave length at the same time :)

So what are the drinking rules for Dubya tonight?

And, don't forget to use closed captioning.


On the surge issue, do you want this surge to be successful? Yes/no. Even a yes, but,... Instead, look at the various answers. Most of you can't bring yourselves to support our troops' mission without loading caveat upon caveat.

When the surge is "over" there will still be violence. There will always be a level of violence and shakiness in that region, yet we're looking for a more workable environment - not perfection. And a workable environment entails a rooting out of the bad actors by both our troops and the local folks.

Were we to leave, magically, tomorrow... what would the region begin to look like and would it be in the longer term security interests of the US if we left immediately? As I said earlier, we've "broken" it, so it's largely on us to "fix" it to whatever degree that is possible. Is our leaving "fixing" things? I just don't think so. Thoughts?

CC

I learned some more HTML today. Since last night's lesson from Goatman on creating your own text in hyperlinks, I've to italicize and bold. Man, I'm getting to be a regular HTML wiz - I know how to do 3 things now LOL

:-)

OohRah

I support out troops 100% I support the mission they were given and the way they've been treated 0% All throughout this war or whatever you want to call it they've been given the short end of the stick by those who callously sent them into Iraq underarmend and underforced. Their armor may have improved, but they're still underforce by a factor of at least 3 for the mission they're being asked to bravely carry out.

The fact that Bush thinks a 3% payraise is 'too much' when they barely make enough to get by, and are now serving 3/4 rotations - 15 months there an 12 months home instead of 2 to 1 - should give you a clue that their Commander In Chief doesn't value them nearly as much as we do, except when he needs TV props and plays on patriotism to fight his war - a war 3/4 of America no longer wants us to fight, but yet he 'stays the course' without making any real diplomatic efforts at the political solution which everyone but the WH thinks is the ONLY way to prevent Iraq from decending into scorched earth chaos.

Then here comes oorah with that lame bs of "wanting the Troops to fail"....... - Frank

America is not mostly a nation of losers and quitters. We also want things right away. So when a conflict drags on without seeing sufficient "victories" along the way we can lose our edge as a public. After all, we haven't had terror attacks around here and all the fighting's going on in some desert. (Our son's biggest missed pleasure, outside of booze and women, is lying in grass - there is no grass around)

Seeing a successful surge is a "victory" along the way. Those victories rekindle our spirit that we will emerge victorious and provide a setback to those invested in our returning home regardless of completing the mission.

So people can support the troops to the extent that they don't want troops killed (ie: bring 'em home NOW) but that doesn't match up with hoping for the success of their mission. That's why I question people who say they support our troops - they aren't supporting what the troops are trained to do. And our troops aren't blind to that. They have Internet access and talk frequently with friends and relatives. They know the score. I hope people take time to seek out soldiers and tell them how much we appreciate them... and ask the soldiers how they viewed the situation.

AU

Good for you! I've been doing that for awhile now as you know 'cause I do a lot of linking and it sure is fun the first few times you get it down and working.

You can do everything with the print on your link title that you can do with the print anywhere. If I learn any new stuff (other than bold and italics) I'll pass it on to you. so far that's as far as I've gotten but it serves me well enough on here.

Well, Bush the puke is on in 5 minutes.

My elderly neighbor lady who's 85 just phoned me 1/2 hour ago to say:

"I'm going to watch HIM tonight [meaning Bush and she puts the emphasis on "HIM"]. You know, Chris, I can hardly stand to even say his name or watch his face."

hahahahaha Cracks me up -- no one can stand Bush.

OohRah

I support out troops 100% I support the mission they were given and the way they've been treated 0% All throughout this war or whatever you want to call it they've been given the short end of the stick by those who callously sent them into Iraq underarmend and underforced. Their armor may have improved, but they're still underforced by a factor of at least 3 for the mission they're being asked to bravely carry out - bring security to the country as policemen (formerly remove WMD's, bring democracy, yada yada).

The fact that Bush thinks a 3% payraise is 'too much' when they barely make enough to get by, and are now serving 3/4 rotations - 15 months there an 12 months home instead of 2 to 1 - should give you a clue that their Commander In Chief doesn't value them nearly as much as we do, except when he needs TV props and plays on patriotism to fight his war - a war 3/4 of America no longer wants us to fight, but yet he 'stays the course' without making any real diplomatic efforts at the political solution which everyone but the WH thinks is the ONLY way to prevent Iraq from decending into scorched earth chaos.

CC

America is smarter than they thought

Give her a kiss on the cheek from me and tell her my wife, who voted for Bush, turns the channel whenever he comes on. She has finally had it up to here.....

Time for Bush. Er, let's go watch the president, honey.

Hell-I know Lesbians who can't stand to see bush.....

I can't stand bush either. I hate picking My teeth after a "Feast"

Larry

Oohrah

Our troops are trained to fight wars. When you get an army for us to fight, then send in the troops.

The numbers of Iraqi units ready to "stand up" by themselves has been decreasing. How does Bush get away with claiming the exact opposite?

I'm drunk now from just taking a swig every time Bush has blamed Iran in his speech for the mess Bush has made in Iraq.

On the surge issue, do you want this surge to be successful?

Yes I want the surge to be successful. I also want the Cubs to win the World Series.
I give both an equal chance of happening.

But I consider the war in Iraq to be a bit more important than a baseball game.
I'm not going to be a passive cheerleader when I don't think things are moving in the right direction.

I want the Surge to be successful, but I know it will not be successful in the way we need it to be.
Wanting something to happen does not make it happen. That's what you and Bush do not understand.

If wanting victory was enough, the war would have ended 4 years ago.

The Cubs aren't winless for 99 years because the people of Chicago don't want them to win.

Okay -- one shot/swig for every time Bush makes mention of "9/11"

Your turn -- add another one on to the drinking list:

one shot/swig for every time Bush says ___________

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-09-13 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"one shot/swig for every time Bush makes mention of "9/11"

Damn, If you weren't an alcoholic before the speech, you will become one during it.

Thoughts as Bush speaks....

Outside forces? Iraqis are defeating themselves - outside interests fighting Iraq are minimal.

He was told we'd need many times the number of troops to provide security.

We're PAYING Al Anbar not to shoot at us. It's 5% of the population. They've walked out of the government.

The head sheik was just assassinated. We''ll see what happens. At least they're fighting to prevent Sharia Law, not because they're 'working with us'. If they were they'd rejoin the government.

Their quality of life is less than under Saddam.

Baghdad's violence has decreased in part because of ethnic cleansing that reversed the population from 65% Sunni to 75% Shia. Average Baghdadi's are afraid to go outside.

The 'gangs' are from our Iraqi 'allies' the Shia

Oops George, the oil deal just fell through

Yes. Our troops ARE perfoming bravely

The Iraqi army has 4500 soldiers that can operate independently

Fewer forces? All or nothing. 165,000 have only reduced violence to January levels. A 'drawdown' is neccessary as our Joint Chiefs say we cannot sustain that level. The 'drawdown' brings us back to where we were in March.

The police forces are some of the gangs doing the terrorizing and fighting with Shia militias as death squads in a grab for power amongst one Shia group or another

A successful Iraq will prevent the region from devolving into chaos. George, you destabilized the region all by yourself more than anyone in decades.

Our diplomats are not engaged with all the ME players in bringing them into the cause, nor are ME countries in the region putting pressure on elements within iraq to get it together.

The 'terrorists' will not take flights from Iraq to America to fight us here.

You don't want to come together with Congress, George. You want it 'my way or the highway' YOU refuse to compromise or take outside recommendations given you by many sources.

36 nations helping us? With what, 8000 forces maybe, including the British holed up at the airport in Basra? Maybe you're including kitchen workers from India and other 3rd world nations.

OK, read a letter from a family member of a fallen soldier who read you the riot act - pretty one sided George. You don't know the pain you've caused so many?

"He was told we'd need many times the number of troops to provide security."

According to Patraeus's book on counterinsurgency, the number of troops needed in Iraq were 600,000.

According to Patraeus's book on counterinsurgency, the number of troops needed in Iraq were 600,000.

Posted by Danforth

Yep. Shinseki, Zinni, and many others told him and Congress the same thing in the runup to war.

"Yep. Shinseki, Zinni, and many others told him and Congress the same thing in the runup to war."

What?!?!? Fire the traitors!

I meant told Bush the same thing .. 600,000

What?!?!? Fire the traitors!

Posted by Danforth

If my memory serves me correctly Shinseki and Zinni quote unquote 'retired' soon after their testimony

Sorry, AU...I was being snarky.


Anybody watching MSNBC? Huckabee looks like he just came off a three-day bender.

Rudy was just on CNN and McCain was on Fox--

They're all making the rounds.

Edwards is paying for his own speech--somewhere..

He should go to the NYT--I'm sure they will give him a discount like moveon...


Murphy

Sorry, AU...I was being snarky.

I caught the wit LOL I was pointing out that they were essentially 'fired' just as you suggested.

Sorry guy's, but the Democratic rebuttle was weak.

Bush said the same thing in his speech that the Dems have been saying--

Draw down--have our troops training more of the Iraqis and telling the Iraqi people to tell their leaders to do a better job.

But the Dems don't want to see it that way.

They attack a four star general and not one of the front runners denounced that dispicable ad run by moveon.org.

How predictable is that?

Murphy

They attack a four star general and not one of the front runners denounced that dispicable ad run by moveon.org.
Posted by MURPHY

Typical Lefty politics. Insult the Military.

Bush said the same thing in his speech that the Dems have been saying--

Yeah, I just heard that said that on Fox News.

BWHA!!!!!!!!!!

"Typical Lefty politics. Insult the Military."

Didn't think Donald ("You go to war with the Army you have...") Rumsfeld was a "lefty."

Hans

WisGod-
re: Typical Lefty politics. Insult the Military.

John Kerry, Max Cleland, James Webb, Murtha, Shinseki, Zinni, etc...etc., all veterans, all smeared by "typical [Righty] politics".

What's all this? Bush hanging the entire decision on Petraeus?

What a pathetic CiC.

BTW, Bush finally told us what the mission is:

We're staying to protect his legacy and because we're afraid to leave.

Yee haw.

John Kerry, Max Cleland, James Webb, Murtha, Shinseki, Zinni, etc...etc., all veterans, all smeared by "typical [Righty] politics".

Posted by Cooper

Where they on Capitol Hill this week reporting current events, or did you just wake up Rip Van Fucking Winkle?

Bush said the same thing in his speech that the Dems have been saying--

Draw down--have our troops training more of the Iraqis and telling the Iraqi people to tell their leaders to do a better job.

Bush proposes to "draw down" to the pre-temporary surge levels by next year. Not only was this the plan of the "surge" (which is why it is not an "escalation"), but without extended tours of duty even further, or without a draft, a "draw down" is unavoidable.

wisgod-
Hey, your party has a long history of smearing vets when they get in the way, so excuse me for seeing your outrage for the bullshit that it is.

wisgod-
Hey, your party has a long history of smearing vets when they get in the way, so excuse me for seeing your outrage for the bullshit that it is.

Posted by Cooper

Where was your outrage when Dirty Harry proclaimed the war was lost 4 years ago?

What's all this? Bush hanging the entire decision on Petraeus?

What a pathetic CiC.

BTW, Bush finally told us what the mission is:

We're staying to protect his legacy and because we're afraid to leave.

Yee haw.

Posted by YAV at 2007-09-13 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No shit?? Thats what that pile of shit said?? Man oh Man How much lower will that piece of shit sink. Can't be much lower.

Larry

Yav-
It used to be that when folks insulted Bush's policies they were "insulting the military", but now that no one believes a damned thing that Bush says, Bush hides behind his hand-picked general. And, of course, any criticism of this general is ""insulting the military"....

Bush proposes to "draw down" to the pre-temporary surge levels by next year. Not only was this the plan of the "surge" (which is why it is not an "escalation"), but without extended tours of duty even further, or without a draft, a "draw down" is unavoidable.

Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-13 10:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good speech by the President

Good speech impediment by the democratic response...did Jack Reed sound like Elmer Fudd or what?

According to Patraeus's book on counterinsurgency, the number of troops needed in Iraq were 600,000.

We needed a draft and 600,000 troops.
We got 130,000.

And when that got a temporary boost to 160,000 by fucking over the troops on their tour of duty length...

We're told that what we need to do is grab our pom poms and mindlessly bleat "Go Surge! Go Surge!"


Well sorry, I'm not doing it. You want to talk about insulting the military? What's insulting is when Bush fired the generals who knew how to win the war.

Wisgod-
re: Where was your outrage when Dirty Harry proclaimed the war was lost 4 years ago?

First, it wasn't "four years ago" (look it up). But second, my outrage was directed at the folks who lost the war- the civilian leadership that set the policy for the most egregious strategic fuck-up of my lifetime (thus far, but Bush does have over a year left).

"but now that no one believes a damned thing that Bush says, Bush hides behind his hand-picked general."
Posted by Pooper

I would suggest picking up a paper Friday morning. The headline will read: "Cooper is full of shit"

Wisgod,

The "war" was lost the moment we went in with grossly inadequate troop strength, when we left huge munitions dumps unguarded (no one could have forseen that those unguarded arms would have been looted, right?), when we left the borders wide open and when we sent our boys and girls into battle with sub-standard body armor and vehicles.

Where is your "outrage" over that?

Damn, but Bush is one lame mutha fuckin' Duck.

Uber lame, in fact.

"Return on Success"? Seriously? That's the best the Chimp can come up with? Wot's that? Some kinda nod to his crony war profiteering buddies on what kind of "return" Iraq is bringing to their bottom line.

The Surge was and is a false construct.
This "return" was and is inevitable.
Acting like it's some kind of reward fer a job well done is complete and utter bullshit.

Patreus himself states that the 80% of the solution in Iraq, the political part, is simply not getting done. His estimates fer required troop levels in Iraq, like all those who came before him, are much higher than anything he's seen or is likely to see. The ocst of the war is astronomical and cannot be sustained indefinitely. Beyond that the former cheerleader should hand in his pom pom fer doing such a crap job out there tonight.

Rhode Island Reed's democratic response to the shrub set the right tone. He nailed Bush fer not having any new ideas beyond his old and bad ones and sed that the Dem's plan made waaaay more sense which it does.

Rudy's response was a bit of an eye opener fer Spud. Literally, in fact. Spud never really noticed before but Rudeboy Ghouliani seems to have two distinct expressions on his face when attempting to make a sincere sounding speech.

Either it's his normal half-closed, heavy lidded reptilian stare or in his attempts to seem more human and believable he does this thing where he opens his eyes like that runaway bride chick.

Frigggin' hilarious thought Spud ...although to be fair, Spud did play the drinking game during Bush's speech and was more inclined towards seeing things in a funny light by the end.

Freedom? Glug! 9/11? Glug glug. Nukular? Gluggitty glug glug glug.

Then Edwards came on and showed a savvy take on the speech. Basically not buying into the bullshit and pointing out the many flaws in Dumbya's logic.

Then McCain was interviewed at some VFW gig or sommat doing his "No surrender" thing. Spud thinks McCain is still pissed fer having sat out most of the 'Nam conflict and wants another crack at winning over in Iraq.

So... the rethugs new mantra is "Return on Success"?

The new Dem mantra is "Rapid, Responsible Re-deployment"?
Hmmm...

Spud'll go with the second mantra there as the ultimate winner ...and it's not just cos Spud's a fan of alliteration either.

Spud's also a fan of the three R's as well.

Be Well.

Where was your outrage when Dirty Harry proclaimed the war was lost 4 years ago?

Outrage over what? What Harry said was the truth.

The war was lost 4 years ago when Bush fired the generals who told him we needed 600,000 troops.

Good speech by the President...

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-13 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

We should all take a moment to adjust to this totally unexpected bombshell dropped by Bowa.

"Good speech impediment by the democratic response...did Jack Reed sound like Elmer Fudd or what?"

No, actually he sounded like someone with a regional New England accent. Why would you belittle him for that?

Where is your "outrage" over that?

Posted by TreesGoneWild

I have no outrage. I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go. But I'm sure my good friends on the DR would think they are better strategist than 1, 2, 3 or 4 star Generals. Kind of sad.

Michael Ware reporting from Baghdad on CNN is panning this idiotic speech quite effectively from the ground there.


I see GW wants to make a long-term South Korea-type treaty commitment with a non-existant government on Muslim soil.

That means a quarenteed lfetime jihad to remove US troops from what they consider their holy ground.

The ME is not Asia. This NeoCon coup of our government needs to stop here and now.

GW is only interested in prolonging the occupation until he can get the F out of town and leave the mess to someone else.

And what is with Rudy Bushiani? Is he on drugs or something?

He looked like an evil troll who's eyes popped wide open every 15 seconds or so as if to show that he was actually conceice.

What is that about?

Posted by Pooper

I guess I'm missing the erudite and clever reference, wisgod, but then I'm not really up on my Latin or even my Shakespeare.

OK, that gets a FF, Cooper.

"We should all take a moment to adjust to this totally unexpected bombshell dropped by Bowa."

I, for one, will be unable to sleep tonight after such a startling revelation.

There should be an advisory or somewhat (sommat, in DethSpudSpeak).

Hans

"Good speech by the President"

I especially like the part where he told us in one breath that the people of Anbar Province were safe to work with the US and Iraqi forces.

Then in the next breath told us how the leading Sheik from that area who had been working with the US and Iraqi forces got blowed up real good.

conscious

(ok but my mouse batteries died and I am editing with my touchscreen and that always sucks)

Corky - I saw that exchange between Cooper and Ware.

All I can say is -

Wow!

Leave it to Corky to bring up Rudy. But don't you ever, and I mean ever say a bad word about Hillary. Just seek the positive and don't dwell on the negatives, right hypocrit?

I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go.

But WE not YOU did, bucko. I thought it was going to become a guerrila fight before we even got there.

But then again, I like to read.

"I have no outrage. I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go."

The ignorance-is-bliss defense.

Hans

Sorry, Bowa.

The only good speech by this president was on Sept. 20, 2001.

Remember those days? His approval ratings were in the stratosphere and the world was on our side.

So what happened?

did Jack Reed sound like Elmer Fudd or what?

Jack Reed:
Reed attended the United States Military Academy in West Point. Reed also served in the 325th Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division as an Army Ranger and paratrooper.

Way to insult the military Bowa, nice.

Corky sed...

And what is with Rudy Bushiani? Is he on drugs or something?

He looked like an evil troll who's eyes popped wide open every 15 seconds or so as if to show that he was actually concious.

What is that about?

Spud sed...

Rudy's response was a bit of an eye opener fer Spud. Literally, in fact. Spud never really noticed before but Rudeboy Ghouliani seems to have two distinct expressions on his face when attempting to make a sincere sounding speech.

Either it's his normal half-closed, heavy lidded reptilian stare or in his attempts to seem more human and believable he does this thing where he opens his eyes like that runaway bride chick.

Ha! Spud luffs this place!

The eyes haff it!

Be Well.

I have no outrage. I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go. But I'm sure my good friends on the DR would think they are better strategist than 1, 2, 3 or 4 star Generals. Kind of sad.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-09-13 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

He looked like an evil troll who's eyes popped wide open every 15 seconds or so...What is that about?

I noticed that too. Creepy. It must have been bad lighting at CNN, because when Rudy was on Fox, his eyes looked normal.

It's too bad I'm not some wacko conspiracy theorist, I could have really ran with this one.

But WE not YOU did, bucko.
Posted by Alexandrite

You missed your calling General. Who would have thought all those Battleship games would have made you an expert.

Bush -- his ENTIRE LIFE -- makes a mess and leaves others to clean it up. From is FDaddy to his Daddy's friends to anyone and everyone but himself.

WHY are the Democats just going to let Bush slither out of office in January 09 and not be held accountable for the biggest theft in U.S. history of stealing our money from the U.S. Treasury via reconstruction contracts in Iraq not to mention the worse foreign policy disaster (based on LIES) we have ever had?

WE NEED DEMS WITH CAJONES FOR A CHANGE.

Moveon.org attacked petraeus in quite a disgusting manner.

Admiral Fallon called him a sycophant and a little ass kisser. According to most of the thing I've read about David, he was probably right. Come on folks, we knew bush was going to pick someone who would agree with him at all times, and fire those who didn't.

Shinseki anyone?

I have no outrage. I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go. But I'm sure my good friends on the DR would think they are better strategist than 1, 2, 3 or 4 star Generals. Kind of sad.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-09-13 10:26 PM | Reply


HORSE SHIT BLOODY HORSESHIT Both Dubya's Dad and Dick Cheney knew beforehand how this would go. Dick Cheney especially until that fucker got money hungry and Oil Greedy. They knew this all beforehand why do You think they didn't go into Baghdad in 1991. All Dubya would of had to do is read His fathers book. Oh I am sorry Dubya doesn't read too good My bad. They bloody well knew It would be a clusterfuck of gigantic purportions. Don't fucking Kid Yourself.

Larry

Wisgod-
re: I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go.

Actually, some did. There was of course Shinseki, who stated that it would take "several hundred thousand" troops to secure the peace. He's no longer advising the President, of course, because he didn't tell the president what he wanted to hear.

So what happened?

We didn't find any WMD's is what happened.

You missed your calling General. Who would have thought all those Battleship games would have made you an expert.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-09-13 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't need to be a general to read history, or use common sense. If I'm such a dumbass, why did I get it right and you STILL don't get it WISGOD?

WISGOD

I didn't see anyone attack Petraeus.
Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I respectfully disagree, AU.

corrections:

no "F" in front of "FDaddy"

and "worse" should be "worst"

We didn't find any WMD's is what happened.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-13 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

They must be in Syria, right? lol.

I have no outrage. I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go

Don't bet on that.

Many people wrote about the inevitability of the current situation before the war.

Spud read this among other books that pretty much nailed it.

Published in Mar 2003.

Bush heard what he wanted to hear, and everyone else was marginalized and put out to pasture or forced out. It's the same as it ever was.

They must be in Syria, right? lol.

You don't need to be a general to read history, or use common sense. If I'm such a dumbass, why did I get it right and you STILL don't get it WISGOD?

Posted by Alexandrite

Oh my God. You are right. You predicted this 6 years ago. I stand in shame next to Alex. (and Chris Angel, both magicians).

Alex

Maybe they were transported by the drawings of the mobile weapons labs.

"I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go."

Oh my gawd! NOW the handle Makes sense: Wisgod is Condoleezza "no one could have predicted it" Rice!

It's interesting that those who have consistently "got it wrong" are still listened to as serious pundits and those who have been consistently right have been marginalized and smeared, both within the Bush administration and without.

WISGOD- You don't need a crystal ball to predict the obvious. The human condition has changed very little over time, all one needs is a history book.

One thing I didn't see coming: Bremer disbanding the baathist army and letting them keep their guns. That was a crackerjack move.

This was a clusterfuck of a speech. Bush presented very well, but the foundation of his speech? This is by far, the easiest speech to rip completely apart.

I have to hand it to Edwards. He's thrown down the gauntlet to Congress and to the other Democratic candidates.

-The eyes haff it!


Even freaked Bowa out!


-So what happened.

GW happened. Incompetent implementation of carefully drawn out NeoCon Strategerizing.

What we have with the GOP and Bush, or whoever they manage to get into office, is direct control of the military by a crony corporatist CinC.

Oh my gawd! NOW the handle Makes sense: Wisgod is Condoleezza "no one could have predicted it" Rice!

Posted by Danforth

Goodnight all. I see I've been bested by the party of "I told you so" AKA, the Left. Maybe someday, your Party will get to make a decision. (Heven help us when we surrender to the M.E.)

It's interesting that those who have consistently "got it wrong" are still listened to as serious pundits and those who have been consistently right have been marginalized and smeared, both within the Bush administration and without.

Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-13 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bill Krystol vs Jon Stewart. How odd that a comedian was more on the ball than a pundit. Well, not really. Thinktanks used to produce excellent out of the box thinking. Now they are little more than paid shills for whatever bullshit theories a presidential administration needs...and yes, I am referring to other admins as well.

I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go. But I'm sure my good friends on the DR would think they are better strategist than 1, 2, 3 or 4 star Generals.

I don't think I'm better than the 4 star generals. I simply listened to them. You know, the ones Bush fired.

Bush is the one who thought he was a better strategist than the generals, and we're all paying the price for it.

(Heven(sic) help us when we surrender to the M.E.)

Kill that strawman! KILL HIM DEAD!

I thought Edwards looked good out there too, managing to look Presidential in his own ad while the other candidates were in their nightshirts and shit. I think that is what John McCain was wearing.

Huckabee looked like a wino in the park, all unshaven.

If WISGOD thinks I'm a magician for my predictions over the years, he must think ZED is a Jesus Christ...Now there's a guy that knows his history.

May I make a simple suggestion for all of those who supported This Illegal Immoral and Unjust War. Stock up on Rollaids and Lava Handsoap. I would recommend at least 100 Semi loads full of each. You will surely need it for the Years to come.

Larry

Cooper- Cheney is the new "mindfreak"!

"Cheney did:"

Zingo, Cooper!

Hans

You can't afford me, WISGOD. If being bown by another man is your thing, go foot tapping in the men's room, get a gay masseuse, or go to a rest stop with 20 bucks and find yourself a brother.

One thing I didn't see coming: Bremer disbanding the baathist army and letting them keep their guns. That was a crackerjack move.

Posted by Alexandrite

To which Bush replied upon hearing that news, "I thought our plan was to not do that" (sic) Yet, Bremmer got the Medal of Freedom anyway. This is banana republic level stuff.

Cronies=good Non-Cronies=bad Money handed out to cronies even when they're complete fuckups.

All Bush needs is one of those sashes full of medals like Pinochet was fond of.

This is banana republic level stuff.

My very first thought was the Marx Brothers..

Yes, we have no bananas.

This is banana republic level stuff.

My very first thought was the Marx Brothers..

Yes, we have no bananas.

That was a good one, cooper. It didn't occur to me because I have a mental block regarding anything Cheney says. The words "bullshit" burn in my brain ten stories high when I think of that man.

We didn't find any WMD's is what happened.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-13 10:34 PM | Reply

Because Bush knowingly lied about them being there in the first place.

Must've been all those years of playing battleship that gave Cheney a clue in 94, right WISGOD?

Or maybe you just got caught being full of it again.

""Oh my God. You are right. You predicted this 6 years ago.""

Isn't it a bitch when even you can see the irony of your sarcasm.
I bet it is a real drag having to pretend you don't see the truth in the words of your opponents.
It must be horrible to pretend you can't see the tragedy of this unecessary war. It must be hard to accept your own portion of the responsibility, however small.
I really think many of the war supporters realized the truth tonight. Most will pretend that they still believe, a few will have the courage to admit they don't. Either way it won't change the disastrous outcome of Bush's WAr.
I don't think an intelligent person could have watched that performance and still believe that the president has a clue. Too bad soldiers will die while some still try to defend their political positions rather than try to deal with the problem at hand, namely George W. Bush.

W is God?

And NeoCondi is His prophet, eh?

"nobody coulda imagined"?

S'rsly?

Cheney did.

Game, Set and Match to Cooper.

It's interesting that those who have consistently "got it wrong" are still listened to as serious pundits and those who have been consistently right have been marginalized and smeared, both within the Bush administration and without.

Some people will always listen to folks who tell them wot they want to hearand don't particularily matter to them whether they are correct or not. Spud puts fans of Billy Kristol-Meth firmly into that category.

Yeah, Spud caught Kristolmeth on TDS the other night.

Bombing Iran?

"Not a bad idea" smirked the reality untethered wingnut.

Wotta conniving little amoral weasel, thought Spud.

Be Well.

That "dead certain" book is SCARY. It paints a picture of Bush being in charge more than we thought...and kind of being the total opposite of what he thinks he is.

W has no realistic sense of self, um...at all. He's delusional. Frightening stuff.

But according to the Bremer letters, Bush responded to the envoy's briefing that he was planning to dismantle the Iraq military with a big thumbs-up the following day: "Your leadership is apparent. You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence."

Cooper

I think I'm gonna be sick. I though it was bad enough Bush was 'out of the loop' on that one, but to know he actually handed off that decision to Bremmer, after letting Rumsfeld tell him what to do is enough to make anyone get a deep, sinking feeling.

Thanks for making me aware of that.

Because Bush knowingly lied about them being there in the first place.

ah yes the "bumper sticker " mythology of the Left "bush Lied Us Into War"...an accusation that will never be proved by this Democrat controlled Congress or any other for that matter.

because they can't. To do so would mean they would have to ignore all those comments and statements by both Republicans and democrats spanning two administrations which also claimed that Saddam had WMD's and was building more.

If Bush "knowingly lied" then so did Clinton and numerous others.

The sad truth is that the "conventional wisdom" at intel agencies around the globe re. Iraq and WMD's was just wrong. And the few that got it right, who look like geniuses in hindsight, were too small in number to sway the conventional, accepted and populist view that saddam had WMD's and was building and trying to get more.

Cooper

One or the other is lying. Either way, the 'decidership' was in Bush's hands. He should have ensured it didn't happen. If he wasn't aware just as bad.

Man.....

Hey bowa...tell it to the two retiring CIA officers that said bush knew there was no WMD, and that the intel he had was different than what he presented to congress.

The Times notes that the decision to disband the military is "now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents."

Did anyone catch the line about the Bathists now being allowed back into the government?

Are they finally admitting their mistake, finally trying to take corrective action? Well, better 4 years late than never.

BOWA

Whether or not he lied us into this war, he went in with totally insufficient force - even Petraeus said back then '600,000'

No one can deny that he's fucked it up worse than anyone could have imagined since then. There's no redemption I can find for him. He's unwilling to bend and that's caused us untold grief and hundreds of billions to boot with hundreds of bilions and thousands of lives yet to go.

"If Bush "knowingly lied" then so did Clinton and numerous others."

Anyone remember President Clinton (and numerous "others") ordering an invasion of Iraq?

Anyone remember President Clinton turning an invasion of Iraq into a real clusterf*ck?






Didn't think so.

Hans

ah yes the "bumper sticker " mythology

Kindergarden Kondoms?

Obama to Inavade pakistan?

Obama eats fetuses and rapes nuns?

I forgot your other 10 anti-obama hit pieces, most with headlines you "crafted" as one creates mudhuts out of excrement.

Alex

Maybe they were transported by the drawings of the mobile weapons labs.

Posted by TedBaxter at 2007-09-13 10:38 PM | Reply

Ok this is how it happened. The drawings of "Mobile Labs" came from a comic book given to Dubya by DIck Cheney. and much like one of the early 80's MTV Videos by A ha "Take on Me"Where the chick gets sucked into the comic strip. Well the big bad evil "Mobile Chemical Lab Truck" sticks out a Big Giant vacuum hose from the comic book into the Real World sucking up the supposed "REAL WMDs" and are now in the comic book Dubya has misplaced with all of His other comic books and He can't seem to remember where He misplaced it. See they are in the wannabe Iraq in that comic book and if only Dubya could remember where He misplaced it He could save His Legacy. IF ONLY.

Larry

The sad truth is that the "conventional wisdom" at intel agencies around the globe re. Iraq and WMD's was just wrong. And the few that got it right, who look like geniuses in hindsight, were too small in number to sway the conventional, accepted and populist view that saddam had WMD's and was building and trying to get more. - Bowa

Right, now it's the "sad truth".

Bowa you are truly in another dimension (but then so is our President tonight - clearly heavily medicated)

I am sick of the deceptions.

Outgoing CPA head Gen. Jay Garner spent hours on the phone trying to convince the WH to reverse the decision to disband and deBaathify the Iraqi Army of all but the ardent Saddam cronies. He was getting calls right and left from well intentioned Iraqi generals offering as many soldiers as needed to prevent violence and provide security. What was his reward? A one way ticket home.

I loved watch Petreous and Bush make asses out of the Dems this week.

And how do you like MoveOn.org??? Wow, how extreme can you get? Anyone here believe MoveOn?

BUT, but, Bowa,

Bush curtailed inspections and committed an atrocious sneak attack by American forces, just what he had promised those Congresspeople that voted to authorize his authority that he would not do.

And then we found that those who wanted more inspections were ultimately correct, and people like yourself were dead wrong.

Oh, that's right. It was only some troops who died, not anyone important like a Neocon.

""The sad truth is that the "conventional wisdom" at intel agencies around the globe re. Iraq and WMD's was just wrong.Olberman played a guy doing a take-off of that but as George Bush which was hilarious.""

FAce the fact BOWA, the sad truth is that the Iraq invasion was planned BEFORE 9-11. It didn't depend on intelligence about WMDs, that was just the excuse. WEapons inspectors told everyone there was no threat from Iraqi WMDs, especially not nukes, yet Bush used obviously false evidence of nukes to justify the invasion, invoking terms like "mushroom clouds" that he and his cronies absolutely knew were false. You can pretend that it was a failure of intelligence but it won't change the fact that intelligence was manipulated to make their case not used to decide whether to invade, that decision had been made and the intel was irrelevant. I swear you guys on the right just can't accept the fact that Bush and his administration played y'all for suckers. GEt over yourself and admit the truth. You and every other Bush supporter were suckers who fell for a line of bull shit. God, I bet if y'all ever do admit the truth Bush will be in trouble...cuz you guys will be pissed. Maybe that's why you can't, perhaps you just can't deal with what is going to happen when you do. I wouldn't want to be George W. Bush that day.

I loved watch Petreous and Bush make asses out of the Dems this week.

And how do you like MoveOn.org??? Wow, how extreme can you get? Anyone here believe MoveOn?

Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-09-13 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I would believe Moveon.org before I'd ever believe this Guy Horace.

My son is a US Marine in Iraq.

Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-03-05 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

he's a Marine. Going to Iraq in Summer. Now, please shutup. BTW, I didn't read the rest of your post. Was there anything important?
Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-03-18 11:10 PM | Reply

And how do you like MoveOn.org???

I don't. And petreaus wouldn't even say if doings in iraq made america safer! He wouldn't even confirm Bush's #2 talking point: We have to fight them over there..blah blah blah.

What a sad day for bushlovers everywhere.

he went in with totally insufficient force - even Petraeus said back then '600,000'. No one can deny that he's fucked it up worse than anyone could have imagined since then. There's no redemption I can find for him."

As Winston Churchill said, "War is a series of catastrophes leading to victory"

In any war, both sides make many many mistakes - and this one is no different. It will come down to which side has the will, the resolve, the resources and the ability to learn from mistakes and adapt to changing conditions on the ground that will lead to a measureable victory.

many democrats have argued that we have already been defeated, and that even if we were able to learn and adapt it is already too late.

Thankfully, they do not have the legislative ability to make this strategy for defeat for America a reality.

Watch Larry and Hans attack me personally because they're too weak to attack the argument

What argument? You haven't proven anything, just given two opinions:

1- Bush made dems look like asses

2- Moveon.org is extreme.


*yawn*

Thankfully, they do not have the legislative ability to make this strategy for defeat for America a reality.

Yep, the new Stratgey is to stay, lose lives and hand the war over to the next President. Bush said so tonight.

Be proud.

"War is a series of catastrophes leading to victory"

I guess Bush really does think he's Churchill. He's certainly more than adequately covered the catastrophe part.

In fairness, how many Presidents actually won a war that started in their Presidency?
Okay Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Johnson (not VN, one of his little ones), Reagan (sort of, if you count Grenada) Bush, Clinton come to mind, but other than them and probably a bunch of others with little wars in between. But against a force as powerful as deadenders and baathist die hards or guys in skirts and sandals in afghanistan?

btw, the folk who say the surge is working cause we're bribing the sunnis not to attack us are probably the same guys who got their lunch money taken away on a regular basis but tell people how tough they were in school.

I get a great big laugh out of Vernon, who tries to spin the Deciderer's bullshit even further.

The Dallas Morning News:
"Yet as he outlines his plan, critics say Mr. Bush is trying to have it both ways by taking credit for a troop reduction that has been envisioned since he first announced the surge on Jan. 10 -- and one that had to be carried out unless Mr. Bush was willing to take the politically unpalatable step of further extending soldiers' tours."

And that's THE BIG SPEECH in a nutshell. We HAVE to reduce troop strength anyway, or else continue to extend tours. Bush "paints a pig" by actually *gasp!* magnanimously stating the obvious: soon we have to go back to pre-surge levels. Other than that, there's no drawdown. None. In 48 hours, even the Texas trailer-park dittoheads will figure this one out.

He's certainly more than adequately covered the catastrophe part.

I don't disagree with that.

But I also realize that those "catastrophes" helped to evolve a strategy that is working now, and it is tragic that so many people continue to focus on the past mistakes and refuse to see that we have learned from thoise mistakes, adapted, and implented a counter-insurgency strategy that is making impressive gains.


And while political reconciliation is tenuous, the increased security provided by the success of this new strategy has allowed local governments to begin to flourish returning order to those areas.

Whether this is a short term aberration, or reflective of a long term trend leading to national reconciliation remainst to be seen. But it is reckless and irresponsible for democrats to want to declare defeat and pull out at this time.

The delusions of grandior won't help You Lokisfur. There will be no peace in Iraq Dubya assured that never happens. There was a program on just 2 nights ago that told of the reason for the vast Hatred between Sunni and the Shi ites. Back in the 600's AD. One of Mohammads Sons was supposed to get the next in line throne blessing. They were I believe Sunni Muslim and the Shi ites killed Him and his whole Family and the ahatred has never stopped since. So if You think We can somehow quash that hatred You are badly mistaken.

Larry

"FORWARD OPERATING BASE ISKAN, Iraq - Inside a brightly lit room, the walls adorned with memorials to 23 dead American soldiers, Lt. Col. Robert Balcavage stared at the three Sunni tribal leaders he wanted to recruit.

Their fighters had battled U.S. troops. Balcavage suspected that they had attacked some of his own men.

The trio, for their part, accused another sheik of having links to the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaida in Iraq. That sheik, four days earlier, had promised the U.S. military to fight al-Qaida in Iraq and protect a strategic road.

"Who do you trust? Who do you not trust?" said Balcavage, commander of the 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division. An hour later, he signed up some of America's newest allies.

U.S. commanders are offering large sums to enlist, at breakneck pace, their former enemies, handing them broad security powers in a risky effort to tame this fractious area south of Baghdad in Babil province and, literally, buy time for national reconciliation." (more)

btw, the folk who say the surge is working cause we're bribing the sunnis not to attack us are probably the same guys who got their lunch money taken away on a regular basis but tell people how tough they were in school.

NorthGuy

I have to hand it to Edwards. He's thrown down the gauntlet to Congress and to the other Democratic candidates.

Agreed. Spud caught that too.

No more blank cheques to Dumbya or the Dems are as culpable as Dumbya from here on in. Tie it into withdrawal or the Boy-King George don't get shit.

Right On John!! sed Spud rather loudly to his teevee.

(Spud was admittedly still half-cut from the previous Dumbya drinking game)

Grow a pair or get out of the fucking game, you safety dancing cowards!!

Spud paraphrases.

Yup, Edwards certainly looked more presidential at that moment than he ever has before to Spud.

Barack also had a right on assessment of the situation after the speech on CNN with Larry King (who, incidently, did not sound particularily healthy tonight fer some reason).

Basically, there was nothing new sed tonight, very little that was real and a lot of subject avoidance by the Chickenhawk in Chief.

Isn't "Return on Success" just "Stand up as they Stand down" in another form?

Dumbya thinks that by changing the brand of lipstick he's putting on the pig that he's still fooling most folks.

Note to Dumbya from Spud.

You aint.

Be Well.

"The president added that he might convert to Islam just to 'find out what it's like to be a man who wears a dress and a bonnet and dyes his hair like a girl.'"

Maybe he's already converted.

Because unless my eyes deceived me, Our Beloved Fuhrer's tresses were tricked out in a fresh coat of Just For Chimps, or something.

The old grey nightmare just ain't what he used to be, that's for sure.

Past your presidency?

Says who?

FRE-
Dems can try to pass legislation to defund the war. Even if it doesn't get the 60 votes in the Senate, senators will have gone on record regarding funding. Why won't your side take a stand? Seriously.

In 48 hours, even the Texas trailer-park dittoheads will figure this one out.

Posted by SamBarber at 2007-09-13 11:34 PM |

no they won't

they haven't figured out anything for the past six years, they won't now.

""If Bush sez 9/11, freedom, nuKular, or smirks then ya gotta drink. Is rule.""

That's just a recipe for drunkenness.

Posted by danni at


and liver damage.

a stable enough Iraq so that its gov't can get a foothold and hold its own against the bad guys who'd rather have chaos.


the government IS the bad guys, dont you get that y et?

Past your presidency?

It's The Decider's gift that just keeps on giving, and a sign of the contempt in which he holds everyone else with whom he shares his planet.

bringing the surge troops home.

and the local bed store just cut prices 50%, well after raising them 50%, yeeee haaa savings!!!!!!!!!!!!

I heard the speach and I thought it was good and I also suffered through the replies from dems...or should I say lies from the left.

reed sounded pretty sincere and we all salute his military service but at one point he was as guilty as blowjob billy when he gave us an out and out baldfaced FUCKIN LIE..........

he said that bush was spending billions in iraq instead of on childrens health care and that is absolutely false.....he knows it, dems know it and we know it...


and then on larry king he had pretty boy edwards and ANOTHER FUCKIN LIE.........

bush has never said sadaam was in on 9/11......and we havent either.,

its amazing how the smartest people in the world just dont seem to understand that iraq wasnt in on 9.11 but they are the front on the war on terror that the bastards started on 9/11...........they werent iraqi?????

nope.......but they were a part of the same large pile of shit called islamic radicals who are now calling for the take over of schools in the us and murdering children along the lines of the school masacre in that part of russia...chec something or other.................its called 'the perfect day' and it should scare some of you right out of your partisan hackery skins.....

"Past his presidency...."

Whether you like it or not. Furthermore, he'll be sleeping with your wife.

My theory for the last year is George Bush hates the United States. HATES us.

Bush was talking about a long term commitment in a relationship with the government? of Iraq. I believe he needs to check his constitution, you know, that piece of paper, because I believe it says he needs Congressional approval for such a treaty, and very rightly so. It is unlikely that the Dems will allow such a nonsensical drain of American resources to be committed just to try to prevent Dumbya from having to accept his rightful blame.

""The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the ratification of treaties.""

It would also be interesting to watch the Senate hearings that would go along with any attempt to pass such a treaty.

I have no outrage. I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go.



You are wrong.

""he said that bush was spending billions in iraq instead of on childrens health care and that is absolutely false.....he knows it, dems know it and we know it...""

What are you talking about????
Isn't Bush spending billions in Iraq????
You mean those billions couldn't be used for other needs like children's health care???

""I have no outrage. I don't think you, I or anyone else could have predicted how this type of war would go.""

Obviously someone hasn't seen the Dick Cheney 1994 comments about what would happen if we invaded Iraq.

The sad truth is that the "conventional wisdom" at intel agencies around the globe re. Iraq and WMD's was just wrong. And the few that got it right, who look like geniuses in hindsight, were too small in number to sway the conventional, accepted and populist view that saddam had WMD's and was building and trying to get more.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-13 11:04 PM



the few? like mohammed al baradei who said

NO EVIDENCE that iraqs were building nukes, in any way or any form.

NO EVIDENCE.

ahhh its just the head of the UN nukular inspection team, some fringe figure.

NO EVIDENCE.

Danni,
It's a bogus argument. That we're spending $$ in Iraq is really not related to whether we spend XX on XX other project. I could make the same argument for funding of, say, public broadcasting. Why not spend that money for XX? See? It's a circular argument and a waste of time.

Frankly, if Dems are so bent on ending the war, put defunding up for a vote. Any answer as to why they won't even try? They have the House votes (don't have 60 in the Senate) and can at least get senators on record in a cloture vote. But they won't do it. You're a smart cookie. Don't focus on what you won't/can't change (Bush) and instead focus on the side where you have influence. How long will you tolerate inaction on the part of Dems who campaigned on ending things?

""Frankly, if Dems are so bent on ending the war, put defunding up for a vote.""

Actually, they don't even have to put it up for a vote. All they have to do is nothing. If they don't bring a bill to the floor to vote on then the funding would stop. The fear though is that Bush is crazy enough to leave the troops in Iraq without the funds to keep them supplied with what they need. He basicly holds the welfare of the troops over the heads of the Democrats in Congress.
What would people like you say if they cut off funds and then he kept them in Iraq anyway???

My son is a US Marine in Iraq.

Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-03-05 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

he's a Marine. Going to Iraq in Summer. Now, please shutup. BTW, I didn't read the rest of your post. Was there anything important?
Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-03-18 11:10 PM | Reply



Larry

Posted by LarryMohr



larry, come on, Last Americans son was IN iraq on March 5, was being shipped home and was going BACK that summer, get with the program.

FRE-
Dems can try to pass legislation to defund the war. Even if it doesn't get the 60 votes in the Senate, senators will have gone on record regarding funding. Why won't your side take a stand? Seriously.

Posted by OohRah
'


keep that in mind when y ou are insulting the dems for wasting time passing non-veto proof bills

er wait they did this 6 months ago

ahhh short term memory loss.

"...they are the front on the war on terror that the bastards started on 9/11...........they werent iraqi?????"

No, they were Saudi.

"he said that bush was spending billions in iraq instead of on childrens health care and that is absolutely false.....he knows it, dems know it and we know it..."

On the contrary...you're pretending that a dollar isn't a dollar isn't a dollar. We're going to eventually have to pay for all this, whether it's a trillion to shore up Social Security/Medicare or a trillion to fix the infrastructure or a trillion for Boy George's Big Middle Eastern Adventure. This is a basic Econ 101 concept, usually taught as the theory of Guns or Butter. When Bush asks for $50 billion for Operation Iraqi Liberation, and threatens a veto of $21 billion for cops on the street and children's health care because it's too expensive, we see the theory play out in real life.

Bottom line, literally, Boy George is telling us we can't afford cops here because we need to pay for cops over there.

BLT writes:bush has never said sadaam was in on 9/11......and we havent either.,



Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

On March 18, 2003, SNIP

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


"...take the necessary actions against... those nations.... who planned, authorized, committed or aided ... September 11, 2001."

pretty official document that letter was btw.

TRU-
Did they? If so, I stand corrected. I thought the Dems brought up timetables for withdraw. Do you have any evidence Dems in the House and Senate actually attempted a vote on defunding our troops? And, what was the outcome in the House? I realize the Senate would require 60 votes to vote on it. But at least the senators would be on record.

Was the defunding part of a larger bill the Pres vetoed? Please straighten me out.

"Frankly, if Dems are so bent on ending the war, put defunding up for a vote. Any answer as to why they won't even try? "

No party, Republican or Democrat, wants to hand the opposition a campaign issue on a silver platter. Congress is ultimately a political animal, and bringing it up with absolutely no chance of passage would be foolish. We all know this would be turned into political fodder, with the side trying to bring the troops home safely excoriated by the side who got them into this mess in the first place.

Dan-
You are correct. Yet, the real club (if the Dems are serious) about putting a stop to the war is to defund it. Their constituents supposedly want it and, if I'm to believe what I read from the DR, most Americans want it to end. So, if it's so popular an issue and Bush is so unpopular, where is the political will & courage to do what's right? At least right in Dems' eyes.

And, to your point, Dems would LOVE for Bush to call the war off. That would stick Reps with defeat instead of Dems. From a political standpoint, Dems are hamstrung. The sad part is that Dems are continuing to do what they can to smear anyone associated with policy and strategy in Iraq.

rebuttal BLT?

oohrah, actually I believe you are correct, the timetables were the sticking point, of course that is similar to defunding the war but technically you are correct and MY short term memory failed me.

""That would stick Reps with defeat instead of Dems.""

So how many American soldiers are you willing to let die to prevent the Bush administration from having to take the responsibility for the war they started, they conducted, they lost????

You still didn't answer my question about the funding.

If the Dems did cut the funding yet Bush kept the troops in Iraq anyway (which is probable) what would you think about that????

It's easy to try to shift the blame to the Dems but someone has to act responsibly and if they fear Bush would keep the troops in Iraq regardless if they are funded or not then they are forced to approve the funds.

"It's easy to try to shift the blame to the Dems but someone has to act responsibly and if they fear Bush would keep the troops in Iraq regardless if they are funded or not then they are forced to approve the funds."

Danni,

How dare you ask for responsibility from "the party of responsibility"?

power went out and everything went kaput..

wonder why?

doc sarvis went through an entire lifetime, it seemed, anyway/.
glossilalia........

what the fu....

gooden doc........get it....get it....wanted to use that for awhile, but it was a good while before you had a goodun...doc......get it

for the rest of you...its a play on doc gooden.....get it...okay.......



BLT writes: bush has never said sadaam was in on 9/11......and we havent either.,


Bush hasnt SAID it in a while since getting more information......is that better...OF COURSE...IF your source is correct and not lying like they do when they pull this bullshit about spending on iraq and not for childrens health care..

and danni or whoever it was that disputed my remark on that subject.....

he might not want to spend our money on health care for "children" who are 26 and still at home suckin on their momma's teets......perverbial teets I should say........but the bill for children who might REALLY need it is still going to get through as long as it doesnt waste money like the provision I mentioned...........

If you reveiew Richard Clarks testimony at the 9-11 Commission it is obvious that Bush wanted to blame Iraq for the attack even though he was informed there was no connection. The fact that the attack on Iraq was planned pre-9-11 sort of makes it ridiculous to pretend Bush actually believed that Iraq had any connection to the 9-11 attacks.

"The sad part is that Dems are continuing to do what they can to smear anyone associated with policy and strategy in Iraq."

There's a policy? There's a strategy?

The only one I've seen is Bush's "strategy" of using our bravest as cannon fodder while he tries to shovel this fiasco off to the next President. He's so desperate to avoid all blame, he's willing to sacrifice our money and our blood so he and the Republicans can blame someone, anyone else. Disagree with anything? You're losing the war for us. Actually speak up? You're giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Anything and everything to get the blood off their hands. Never mind that the neocons have prosecuted these wars exactly as they've chosen since day one.

Sorry, Lady MacBeth...that damned spot doesn't come out.

BLT the points about money really boil down to the simple fact that if you piss away hundreds of billions of dollars in a stupid war in Iraq then we won't have that money to spend elsewhere.
Is that concept to complicated for you???
If so, then I worry your own personal finances may be quite a mess.

BLT is not going to respond.

"not lying like they do when they pull this bullshit about spending on iraq and not for childrens health care.."

Guns or Butter, BL2. Read my link from above.

Why do you insist on reposting debunked economic theory which wouldn't pass an Econ 101 midterm?

We're still in Germany and the war ended in 1945!
We're still in Korea and the war ended in 1953!
Betting that American troops will be in Iraq in 2009 is a safe bet. Clinton's one year for troop in Kosovo passed long ago.

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH




Bush was required BY LAW to provide that letter.

Bush links Iraq to 9/11

If that link did not exist and Bush knew it he was lying.

if that link did exist, than well everything else that have said is a lie.

Danforth says: The only one I've seen is Bush's "strategy" of using our bravest as cannon fodder while he tries to shovel this fiasco off to the next President. He's so desperate to avoid all blame, he's willing to sacrifice our money and our blood so he and the Republicans can blame someone, anyone else.

That is exactly what I got from the speech last night.

It was also a turning point for me. I'm now for an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, as quickly as possible. Something I didn't think I'd be hearing myself saying.

I can't see throwing more lives and money at Iraq to save Bush's ego.

Truth, that letter is powerful stuff.

Unfortunately, it won't fit on a bumper sticker, so the wingnuts will ignore it (as they have for four-and-a-half years).

either he lied now and commited an impeachable action

or he is lying now and I have yet to researchit but I would assume that his current lying is still impeachable.

ahh fuck it is just the law.

ayyyy yup holdthepoint.

BLT the points about money really boil down to the simple fact that if you piss away hundreds of billions of dollars in a stupid war in Iraq then we won't have that money to spend elsewhere.
Is that concept to complicated for you???
If so, then I worry your own personal finances may be quite a mess.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-14 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



danni........as I said.....reed in his rebuttal said that bush is spending billions on the war but doesnt want to spend anything on health care for children and that is a friggin lie.......its the same old democrat fear mongering....trying to keep the blacks on the plantation and the bums on the street and the poor in the poorhouse...

BLT is not going to respond.

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-09-14 09:40 AM

hey dickweed.......I have answered every friggin post you have questioned me on and even tried to come to the middle on the discussion....which only proves that comrpomise or even looking at all sides of an issue isnt in the liberal playbook...

and I WONT respond to this as earlier the power went off and had to reboot and now when a thread gets to 300 posts, my antique takes too long

its also lunch time and I cant miss that....not on fridays...

shiela with the tattoe just above her crack is working on friday lunch.......and I am sure that you will EXCUSE me for that................

tattoo

you say tattoe
I say tattoo

lets call the whole thing off.....

hey truth...

since you can come up with all of these documents.

would you please come up with the iraqi freedom act.......signed by blowjob willy in october of 1998.......

and lets read all about that as well.......

my odds are 9 to 5 that you cant....I mean wont come up with it...........

will read it later....must go.......

It is nice that Bush has finally admitted he can't win the war, though. A little honesty, no matter how tardy, from this WH is appreciated.
Just think how fucked we'd be if Bush had faced an enemy with any resources....

he might not want to spend our money on health care for "children" who are 26 and still at home suckin on their momma's teets......perverbial teets I should say........but the bill for children who might REALLY need it is still going to get through as long as it doesnt waste money like the provision I mentioned...........

Posted by bushlovertwo


Anecdotes and BS pulled out of your ass, as usual, "perverbial" or otherwise.

Vermin!! Party over Country still?

Posted by briwo at 2007-09-13 02:25 PM | Reply |

re-read his posts carefully, its funny vs batshit insane.

Small fucking world, isn't it?

No shit.

The author of Merchant of Death sed last night on the Daily Show that Bush had made it illegal fer the US Gov to deal with the notorious gun runner and all purpose "Taxi Driver" VB, a coupla years ago and also that he has since then turned a blind eye to Victor Bouts involvement with KBR etc.

Then this morning this article?

Still, Lee Wolosky, a former National Security Council official who tracked Bout, says it's "seemingly inexplicable" that the U.S. government could have been "doing business with an international criminal organization."

Seemingly inexplicable until you consider the rampant war criminals in charge at the moment and then it makes nothing but sense.

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS all ignored this story aparently to the point where Spud had to find out about it on TDS.

Anybody who claims the MSM has a "liberal" bias rather than a pro-corporate, pro-government, pro status quo one simply aint paying attention at all.

Be Well.

missionaccomplishfickedupbeyon
dhiscapabilitiestodoanythingab
outsohewantstomakesureeveyoneg
oestohellwithhimonthisone.

Well you righty tightys ought to get yaseves ober ta da reeeecrutin stashun and get us sum mor bodies to thow as yer favorite cause.

"If the Dems did cut the funding yet Bush kept the troops in Iraq anyway (which is probable) what would you think about that????" - Danni

What evidence supports your contention it's "probable?" Has there been precedent for this? Or is it just cause Dubya's a tool in your eyes?

Assuming it passes with a veto-proof majority, then Bush would be forced to pull them out. It can't and wouldn't happen overnight, so I suspect there would be some sort of "we'll fund the exit through the next 3 months" or something of some sort.

Do I think Bush would or could leave soldiers out there without food and bullets (is that what you're implying?)... the answer is no. He'll get 'em home and the Dem party would be severely tainted for years to come.

But see, the Dems don't have the balls to go down that path FOR POLITICAL REASONS. The soldiers would come home - Bush can't leave them there without $$. So on the one hand you'd have the picture of Dems pulling the rug out from underneath our troops... and if Dubya kept them there Dubya would take the heat for playing politics with the troops, who the Dems have cut off at the knees.

Dems are backed into a corner. The frat boy Bush (even without Rove wispering into his ear) has done it again. Why aren't you fuming at the people on your side of the aisle? They've done virtually nothing but blather and snipe. Act like a leader if you're right and defund the war.

Oohrah the Dems don't have to do anything to cut the funds. They don't need any vote at all. They control all the committees and don't have to send a bill to the floor, thus no vote and no funds.
So, they do have the power but suspect Bush would, like I said before, keep the troops in iraq and hope to force the Dems to fund the war by letting the troops suffer. It would end up being a big showdown with the troops caught in the middle and the Dems don't want to go there. I don't blame them, I blame Republicans who don't even believe in the mission any more but still won't desert the president even though they know troops are getting killed unnecessarily.
And btw, I have been fuming at the Dems, especially Nancy Pelosi.

*****Bush: Iraq 'Extends Beyond my Presidency' ****

......even conducting his presidency was beyond his presidency.........

And btw, I have been fuming at the Dems, especially Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by danni

Speaking of fuming, I think Pelosi's been inhaling some opium fumes.

2/3 of iraqi school age children DO NOT attend school

She needs to inhale something that will give her a back bone.

Well I'm glad to see the surge is working, the troops doing such a great job, thanks for their service...Last year the violence was out of control due to a bomb attack by Bin Laden's clan on a Muslim holy site. Locals are starting to take control of their own country.

But as always, people make this so political, for example, after the President's speech, the former military Dem was talking about the 9 month surge didn't work. What's he talking about? The surge wasn't fully completed until July, the public was informed about the surge back in January but that didn't mean the surge was already in place...This is what I mean by making something political rather than practical.

And if people think it will take 3 months to bring over 100,000 troops home, they have another coming, it takes many months. It took from Jan to July just to get 30,000 more troops...

This political debate reminds me again about the war with the Serbs...Where is the massive body bags Clinton said there were, where are the WMDs in Iraq the Dems declare. The Serbs have been at war with the Muslims for 100s of years, the two Muslim sects have been killing each others for many years...The Serbs were not a threat to national security, Iraq wasn't a threat to national security, Clinton needs an exit plan, Bush needs to pull out the troops...Different wars, same agruements.

"Making something political rather than practical...."

Mike, God bless you, you're probably a decent chap. But you act like Bush is little Miss Innocent on this subject rather than the cynical bastard he's proven himself to be.

If "practical" were something Bush is into, Bush and the rest of us wouldn't be where we are now.

Maybe it's getting old to say this---But, then again there are still people out there like you, Mike----

Bush couldn't have done a more brain-dead, less-than-practical, less-than-serious, imaginatively-perverse job of fighting in Iraq than if he were being paid by the enemy to do so.

Think 1919 World Series.

"It would end up being a big showdown with the troops caught in the middle and the Dems don't want to go there." - Danni

Looks like we'll have to just disagree.

So, if I understand your thoughts... the Dems value & support the troops so much that the Dems want them to come home immediately... but they fear that by doing their part (cutting off funding) the devious Bush will leave the soldiers in the field, forcing a showdown? And that someone will "blink," but in the meantime soldiers will die of something??? Starvation, lack of ammo?

Real weak on the part of Dems. It's a cover for not doing what it takes political courage & patriotism to do, (at least if you listen to those on the left) which is to defy our Commander in Chief and get the troops home NOW.

Where have you been for 6.5 years under Bush?

Hell yeah he'd sacrifice our Soldiers to protect his "legacy" and hand this cluster off to the next Pres.

He's doing that NOW.

Yav,
Your team finally has the ball (they won the last election) and can materially do something besides just talk. Yet your team seems content to run three dive plays and punt. Why?

Are on to a new talking point from the left? We (the Dems) aren't going to try to defund the war because Bush will do something stupid. So we're going to keep the status quo, keep complaining, and yet DO NOTHING to show we care for the troops!

That's rich, since a few weeks back you were going to show you care for the troops by bringing them home. Looks like Dems want it both ways. Why not step up to the plate and do what you were elected to do? How long can Dems expect support if they won't act decisively?

As in that great philosopher Meatloaf's song, the gal says, "what's it gonna be, boy? Yes or no."

You want to bet the Troops' lives, Oohrah?

Over politics?

You are a hell of a Republican.

Bowanator-

Bush lied and people died.

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, Ritter publicly argued that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). He became a popular anti-war figure and talk show commentator as a result of his stance.

Scott Ritter was a chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998.

Not everyone believed the lies of the Bush Administration contrary to your repeated attempts blow that smoke up our butts.

Information is power and the Intell was obviously slanted to prove GWB's contention that Iraq was a threat.

Iraq was never a threat to America. And Bush lied.

To "Shrubbie"

We know asshole.

A member of the American public.

that extends beyond my presidency

TRANSLATES TO:

WOW Dick! What a whopper of a mess! Let's smoke a joint and clear brush in Crawford. Did you hear that! The Brinks truck is coming! The Brinks truck is coming! Tell them to park in the rear, as usual so as not to draw attention.

If we did solve the Iraq mess, then the American people would probably want us to accomplish other stuff, too. This is so much easier!

Yav,
Your team finally has the ball (they won the last election) and can materially do something besides just talk. Yet your team seems content to run three dive plays and punt. Why?

Right now the team owner (Bush) is a complete moron who nixes any play called by the coach

AU,

OMG! Bush is Al Davis!