The War on Terror Cannot Be Won?

[Bubbles]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush&cid=694&ncid=716

OK, libs, lick your chops and type away.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Total victory? Virtuallly impossible. Have to take out the state-sponsored terrorists, and all the groups. But as long as there is one person who wants to cause great public harm there is always the threat. Anyone remember Oklahoma City? The Unibomber? The Tylenol product tampering murders of the early 1980s? It doesn't take a Muslim Extremist to commit terror. The absoute we can do is be so strong and secure that it discourages others from trying. That is what must be done, that wasn't being done well before 9/11/01.

[Secretariat]

How do you even respond to this? Billions spent on a non-winnable war.

Why didn't we limit ourselves to the people responsible for the 911 disaster?

I mean this is such a mess. We certainly aren't fighting Hezbolah or the Chechens.

"I decided a year ago that he cannot win the war on terror," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, at a news conference in New York organized by Democrats.

....

"To suggest that the war on terror can't be won is absolutely unacceptable," said Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

....

"First George W. Bush said he miscalculated the war in Iraq (news - web sites), then he called it a catastrophic success and blamed the military," said John Kerry (news - web sites) spokeswoman Allison Dobson. "Now he says we can't win the war on terror. Is that what Karl Rove means when he calls for steady leadership?"

We can win the Cold War, we can win against the Nazis, the Japanese, but we cannot win against a bunch of radical Islamic terrorists?

This guy would be a joke, if it wasn't so sad.

[Lefty]

We are sec, we are. People like you just refuse to face the truth. The war against terrorism can't be won in the sense there will be no surrender. We fighting a brainwashed people who will give their lives for an ideology that believes if you are not a muslim fundamentalist you are an infidel that needs to die. France is starting to find out they can't just not participate in the war and get a "pass" by the terrorists. We are not fighting a country we are fighting religious zealots. We will be fighting this war forever just like we are fighting the war on cockroaches. That's grim reality and that's why we must keep electing men like Bush.

[JustRalph]

The President is right. A terrorist can fight his or her own war anytime they want. You have to remove the incentive for terroristic acts. Bush has said this before. He was on that theme when he said this isn't a war that can be won. It will be a continual fight forever..........the president once again is right and most of it went right over the Libs heads..........as usual

[Secretariat]

Uh..Jr..then why did GW just say a little back we're winning the war against the terrorists.

C'mon, which is it. This is kind of a "nuanced" answer. Is it yes or no? Are we winning the war on terrorism or not? And if you say "yes' we are then you are contradicting what the President just said (at least today or yesterday, but then again not last month). But if you say "no" then we've just spent billions of dollars in an unwinnable war with more to be spent "perpetually" since it cannot be won.

I just want a simple yes or no?

[JustMissed]

1. Muslems need to install the concept of separation of religion and state.

2. Muslems need to realize that Mohamed was a warrior/prophet and his doctrine of "convert or die" is not appropriate for modern times.

3. Muslem men need to get jobs to keep themselves busy. Every time I turn on the TV they are standing or jumping around the streets. What is that about?

or

If they don't clean up their act pretty soon, I suspect that God is going to get really pissed at them and kill every f***ing one of them.

Hope they will see the light on their own. Hate to see a whole group of people get wiped out, but hey, I'm getting pretty tried of their crap.

Just my take on things,

JM

[Secretariat]

“The war on terror will not end in a draw, it will end in a victory, and you and I will see that victory of human freedom.”

-George W. Bush, in a speech at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (July 12, 2004)

……
Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

-George W Bush, in an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show (August 20, 2004).

Bush vowed to stay the course in the war on terror, saying perseverance in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.

Which is it?

[dav4463]

It is just like "we can never make the highways completely safe"....that doesn't mean we quit trying....we still repair roads, enforce speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc..........and we make progress.

[Lefty]

We're winning in the sense we have stopped many attacks before they happened; we have arrested and killed many terrorists and we have cut off a lot of their funds. We're winning but the game is a long one and may never fully end. So sec, why don't you and the rest of the libs give up on this game of semantics?

[lsbets]

Sec, after your previous post in another thread, I have to wonder if anyone will give any credibility to anything you say, or just view you as a tool of the Kerry campaign. Can you guess what my vote would be? The next time you quote from the Kerry camp e-mails, at least attribute them instead of trying to pass them off as your own. Call Joe Biden, ask him how important it is to properly attribute quotes.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I just want a simple yes or no?

You're joking, right? After what WE just went through on another thread YOU want a yes or no answer??? :eek: :eek:

You've got balls, I'll give you that. But that's about it....

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
You're joking, right? After what WE just went through on another thread YOU want a yes or no answer??? :eek: :eek:

You've got balls, I'll give you that. But that's about it....

lol...ahhh..so now you don't want to give a simple yes or no...I see...you felt fine deriding my answer in the other thread, but now when asked to give a yes or no you equivocate...

thank you. Apparently there are shades of gray to many issues, and occasionally nuance is necessary...thank you for that....

[Steve 'StatMan']

We've made huge progress! But as long as one lone ranger ever gets a bug up his ass, then no, it can never be over. But you must take care of 99.9999999999% of them, and make life really difficult for the 0.00000001% left. (Remember, nearly 10 Billion people in the world, up to 10 Billion minus one potential terrorists.) Hunt down and stop the organized groups, and make it difficult on the 1-3 person individual groups via more security, survailance, etc., so that if they don't commit suicide with their attack, at least they can be identified and apprehended..

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by lsbets
Sec, after your previous post in another thread, I have to wonder if anyone will give any credibility to anything you say, or just view you as a tool of the Kerry campaign. Can you guess what my vote would be? The next time you quote from the Kerry camp e-mails, at least attribute them instead of trying to pass them off as your own. Call Joe Biden, ask him how important it is to properly attribute quotes.


Isbets,

They are in quotes.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
lol...ahhh..so now you don't want to give a simple yes or no...I see...you felt fine deriding my answer in the other thread, but now when asked to give a yes or no you equivocate...

thank you. Apparently there are shades of gray to many issues, and occasionally nuance is necessary...thank you for that....

But I didn't give you an answer. I didn't even reference your question. What I did do is criticize you for asking for a simple yes or no no matter WHAT the question was, since you couldn't find it in your soul to provide me with a similar courtesy.....

So....don't put words in my post. I didn't address your question at all, one way or the other. Not one bit. Not one. Got it?

[lsbets]

Attributed to no one, but thanks to JR, we know where you get your material. I believe he called it right when he said you had Terry McAuliffe's hand up your butt - does it get difficult to walk when he moves his fingers?

[JustRalph]

Hey Sec

PA answered for me. go back and re-read it. Unless you hear that "Bing-Bong" with more mail from Terry and the Thugs who are beating cops in NY. ..........

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
But I didn't give you an answer. I didn't even reference your question. What I did do is criticize you for asking for a simple yes or no no matter WHAT the question was, since you couldn't find it in your soul to provide me with a similar courtesy.....

So....don't put words in my post. I didn't address your question at all, one way or the other. Not one bit. Not one. Got it?

Excellent. Then you are willing to provide the yes or no answer then?

[lsbets]

Sec, I heard that Terry has really boney fingers with large knuckles, is that true?

[ElKabong]

I heard this soundbyte and thought he might have had another slip of the tongue. However...If you saw it (partially replayed on nightline), it wasn't like he threw up his hands. He emphasized the word "IT". He could have said "you'll never get rid of cockroaches" and had teh same meaning.

What GWB said, and how the voice inflection came thru, was a sensible response. He didn't say "we're losing", he didn't say "we're not going to win", he said we may never 'end it'.

What we can do is what we're doing now which is meet "IT" head on, off our shores. It'll be like this for years. You can say this "movement" began in 1979, escalated in Beirut in 1983, and has gained momentum ever since. It was about time someone (in this case, GWB) said "enough is enough", and decided to be proactive.

By the time you reach the 'latest age' of draft eligibility, Bubbles, you'll be called to serve. Doesn't matter who wins this election, that's going to happen someday. Has to.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by lsbets
Sec, I heard that Terry has really boney fingers with large knuckles, is that true?

Don't know Is, never met the lady. Why? Looking for a date?

[ElKabong]

And then you had Johnny Edwards on Nightline tonite saying 'we can "end it" by realigning our Intel, and putting an emphasis on Human Intelligence'......

Funny stuff....I hope he and Kerry bring this up in the debates. GWB and Cheney will tee em up and knock em outta the park on this comment by bringing up Kerry's "no" voting record on Intel the past 19 yrs. We've needed to better fund our Intel capabilities for years.

[Equineer]

Bush almost lost my vote, but I view his latest statement as a ray of hope. While credibility issues distract Kerry, the timing is perfect for Bush to veer back towards reality. I think Bush has the trust of the American people (which is Kerry's weakness), and trust will be needed to turn things around. Right now, I think Bush (like Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs) is having second thoughts. In the past, Bush has shown the courage to admit mistakes, regroup, and look for new answers. He angered a lot of staunch Republicans in Texas by reaching across party lines when he thought opposition ideas were both good and sincere.

By comparison... yes, Kerry admitted that Viet Nam was a strategic disaster... but only after that view became the popular view.

In any case, we need a wake-up call back towards reality. We need a new strategy without giving up on our determination to succeed.

While Iraq has dominated the headlines, the situation in Afghanistan has quietly deteriorated... the government that we installed has failed to unite Afghanistan... except for the capital city of Kabul, the country is back in the hands of Muslim clerics, drug kingpins, and tribal warlords.

Now, after a much more intense campaign in Iraq, there is no good end in sight. Iraq as a Western-style democracy is, and always was, a pipedream. The hearts and minds of the Iraqis belong to clerical leaders who detest our Western culture. An Iraq that resembles other Middle-East regimes seems imminent unless we quadruple our occupation forces and face up to the reality of imposing military rule for many years (like we did in Japan). Also, while a vigorous de-nazification program worked in Germany, where Germans were forced to sign affidavits denouncing Hitler's Nazi beliefs and policies in order qualify for identity papers that restored their civil liberties, it is difficult to imagine that Iraqis would denounce their religious leaders since the Iraqis (unlike the Germans) have the sympathy and support of more than a billion other Muslims.

Starting with a clean sheet of paper... we need to formulate a new plan for a new century!

[Bubbles]

Originally posted by ElKabong
By the time you reach the 'latest age' of draft eligibility, Bubbles, you'll be called to serve. Doesn't matter who wins this election, that's going to happen someday. Has to.

Oh, very possible. Now WHERE I'LL BE is another question.

(Faint sounds of "O Canada" play in the background.) ;)

Seriously, I imagine a lot of other people my age are thinking about the same thing. And IF the draft is reinstated (Big if), this thinking might turn into doing by a bunch of people, before the first birthday has even been called. The only way to counter that is if the US closes borders with Canada, and that's not going to happen.

Those who say a draft is needed are full of it. It'll cause more harm than good for the U.S. for the above-mentioned reason.

[Equineer]

Bubbles,

Let's hope for the best, but the numbers are not favorable for avoiding future military drafts. Age and dwindling sign-ups have greatly depleted our reserves. Since 1991, almost 600,000 potential military reservists have opted for veteran's medical disabilities instead of becoming weekend warriors. We are stretched awfully thin right now... and are beginning to call up units for a 2nd time within three years. This is a dilemma no matter who gets elected.

[Secretariat]

Equineer,

I appreciate your intelligent post. I do disagree about trust in Bush. His promise was to go after and bring to justice the culprits of 911. The radical Al-Quada. Not to engage in nation building in Iraq or to enforce democracies on other countries with occupying forces.

The problem with Bush's statement is that the War on Terror keeps changing according to his definition. From the capturing of the al quada responsible for 911 to vengeance against Hussein for weapon inspection issues, to liberation of the Iraqi people, to WMD's, to inserting democracy in Islamic countries.

The War on Terror should have been called the War agaisnt Al Quada since they are the ones responsible for 911 by their own admission and according to this WH and the Pentagon. Certainly, it should be possible to hunt down a bunch of fundamentalists when we brought down the Third Reich and won the Cold War. The problem is we have been distracted with the Iraq event, which has taken us away from our true mission which is to get Bin Laden and Omar and stop the funding of Al quada. For example, General Meyers testified that while we were fighting in Iraq a massive poppy crop was harvested in Afghansitan and exported which,"as he said" , will most likely find its way into the coffers of the Al Quada. When pressed how this could happen his reply was the British were responsible for security of the poppy fields. So in other words, the main funding source of the Al Queda is now the fault of the British? GW said they would stop the funding to Al quada but here is one example where the US chose not to even participate, and blamed our biggest ally to boot for accountability.

You are right Afghanistan is in trouble, and so is Iraq. Bush is like a fighter on the ropes holding on that nothing is going to happen in either of those countries or here before election day. I don't think that engenders a sense of safety or security. It has created a socieity of fear based on a bunch of guys who loaded some planes with 3.00 box cutters. Even if Bush were to be elected we will have four more years of the same -massive deficits, massive discretionary spending, more deaths, more worldwide terrorism, and more yellow alerts, and eventually terrorsim on our shore. Because he has engendered hatred of America abroad, and until someone new is in power, it is going to take a long time to undo the damage he has done and begin the healing process.

This administration shows one failure after another. They are good cheerleaders I'll give them that. Bush did have good training in that at Yale.


Perhaps he was right about one thing. As President ,he cannot win the war on terror. May be the first honest thing he has ever said.

[Secretariat]

Ooops, Bush has just flip flopped in one day...now he says that the war on terror can be won. I guess that sort of contradicts all those posts yesterday defending his comment on on the war cannot be won. How you feel about that "ray of hope'" Equineer?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush_24

[Steve 'StatMan']

We can "Win" a victory over a single group, but similar to the Japanese fighters of WWII after the Empire of Japan had surrendered, and the war was "declared over", some, either isoltated and who weren't aware, or those that were adamant and fought to their capture or death, there is no final "Win" until the last one is defeated.

Yes, Al Quida can be defeated. But you still must be constantly prepared so that no one group EVER catches us by surprise like 9/11/01. It doesn't have to be another Muslim Extremist group. We must assume that, to some degree, we will always be at risk, and therefore must always look to our security. The Pre-9/11 U.S. obviously was not really safe at all. We were hockey goalies thinking we didn't need a mask and an athletic cup. We were familys putting lighted candles on our Christmas trees.

[Lefty]

Bush and the Repubs are engaged in a war on terror. Sec and the rest of the Dems are engaged in a war of semantics. They learned their lessons well from the master parser, Bill Clinton.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Hope you are learning what "in context" and "out of context" means.
There is a world of difference between people hearing a blurb on the O'clock news and the whole story.
Bush's enemy is terrorism. The Demos' enemy is Buxh.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Ooops, Bush has just flip flopped in one day...now he says that the war on terror can be won. I guess that sort of contradicts all those posts yesterday defending his comment on on the war cannot be won. How you feel about that "ray of hope'" Equineer?It disappoints me... but he probably took his original statement, by mistake, from a draft of his election victory speech (when he can finally start asking the American people to face reality).

Where do so many in this forum find reasons to think we are winning the war on terrorism? I see stuff that makes no sense!

Terrorists killed/captured? We've spent $300-billion to kill/capture less than 50,000 people who truly hate us. That works out to more than $6-million per kill/capture. At the same time, the number of people who hate us has increased manyfold times 50,000. Hatred breeds terrorists, and the numbers are stacking up against us at an alarming rate.

No big domestic attacks since 9/11? From a terrorist point of view, one attack did the trick. Why should they actually attack the U.S. again until we stop squandering our resources? World opinion tilts in their favor if they don't attack us while the world watches violence in countries where we send our troops.

I will vote for Bush because he must now realize that our current strategy is failing. If Kerry gets elected, he could flounder for several years before he gets it! I am trusting that necessity will eventually dictate a winning strategy in the war on terror. Having already failed, I think Bush will face reality sooner than Kerry and a new administration.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Equineer
It disappoints me... but he probably took his original statement, by mistake, from a draft of his election victory speech (when he can finally start asking the American people to face reality).

Where do so many in this forum find reasons to think we are winning the war on terrorism? I see stuff that makes no sense!

Terrorists killed/captured? We've spent $300-billion to kill/capture less than 50,000 people who truly hate us. That works out to more than $6-million per kill/capture. At the same time, the number of people who hate us has increased manyfold times 50,000. Hatred breeds terrorists, and the numbers are stacking up against us at an alarming rate.

No big domestic attacks since 9/11? From a terrorist point of view, one attack did the trick. Why should they actually attack the U.S. again until we stop squandering our resources? World opinion tilts in their favor if they don't attack us while the world watches violence in countries where we send our troops.

I will vote for Bush because he must now realize that our current strategy is failing. If Kerry gets elected, he could flounder for several years before he gets it! I am trusting that necessity will eventually dictate a winning strategy in the war on terror. Having already failed, I think Bush will face reality sooner than Kerry and a new administration.

Good points. Let's see Al Quida confirmed as striking Moscow jets, and Hamas bombing in Israel today despite building a wall around thier country. Are we going after Hamas or Hezbollah or the Chechens? No. They are terrorists. And one struck an ally who spies on us to boot.

The issue I take umbrage with that you state is "Bush must now realize that our current strategy is failing."

Well, I am not hearing that from him or any Republican. If he does beleive that than he certainly is hiding that from the American people. You state Kerry could flounder for years. Maybe he could. But WE KNOW Bush HAS BEEN floundering for years as your own figures attest. GW Bush is afraid to face a question from Helen Thomas at a press conference. Why do you think he would have the courage to ever face reality?

[Bubbles]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Good points. Let's see Al Quida confirmed as striking Moscow jets...


Were they truly confirmed as the ones who did it? If so, post the link. I'd like to see what evidence they have beyond the fact that SOME terrorists blew up planes.

[Secretariat]

I stand corrected. Putin says a link between Al Quada and the Chechens are being probed. I may have heard it wrong on CNN Headline News.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=4&u=/nm/20040831/wl_nm/russia_dc

[Equineer]

Secretariat,

Supposedly, the Bush team has a post-election plan to get out of Iraq, but the spin will be that we didn't fail although no ominous WMDs were found, no solid connection to 9/11 was confirmed, and no Iraqi democracy was created.

Many insiders expect that Laura Bush will float hints of this in her speech at the Republican convention, urging American women to trust her husband to get us out of Iraq with dignity. Sort of like saying, things didn't work out exactly as we hoped, but we can all be proud that we stood brave and tall after 9/11, and sending that message to the terrorists justifies our actions (and mistakes).

Of course, the "world is better off without Saddam" will resonate and make it easier to move on to a new course of action.

[Secretariat]

Equineer,

I remember Richard Nixon promising in 1968, a just and honorable end to the war in Vietnam. We were there years after, until we got our asses out of there on helicopters. I don't want to see the sme thing happen. I'm not real fond of these secret plan type of talks. I mean I think it was Rumsfeld who said, we know exactly where these WMD's are, and George Tenet, it's a slam dunk. Well I'm sick of basketball analogies, especially after the Dream Team's performance at the Olympics. They talked big too, but performed pretty darn poorly.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Equineer
Secretariat,

Supposedly, the Bush team has a post-election plan to get out of Iraq, but the spin will be that we didn't fail although no ominous WMDs were found, no solid connection to 9/11 was confirmed, and no Iraqi democracy was created.

Many insiders expect that Laura Bush will float hints of this in her speech at the Republican convention, urging American women to trust her husband to get us out of Iraq with dignity. Sort of like saying, things didn't work out exactly as we hoped, but we can all be proud that we stood brave and tall after 9/11, and sending that message to the terrorists justifies our actions (and mistakes).

Of course, the "world is better off without Saddam" will resonate and make it easier to move on to a new course of action.

Originally posted by Secretariat

Equineer,

I remember Richard Nixon promising in 1968, a just and honorable end to the war in Vietnam. We were there years after, until we got our asses out of there on helicopters. I don't want to see the sme thing happen. I'm not real fond of these secret plan type of talks. I mean I think it was Rumsfeld who said, we know exactly where these WMD's are, and George Tenet, it's a slam dunk. Well I'm sick of basketball analogies, especially after the Dream Team's performance at the Olympics. They talked big too, but performed pretty darn poorly.

you guys are just talking to yourself........so please consider getting a room or using a telephone.............or email..........

Oh that's right.........gotta keep that email connect clear for the marching orders..............

[Equineer]

Originally posted by JustRalph
you guys are just talking to yourself........so please consider getting a room or using a telephone.............or email..........

Oh that's right.........gotta keep that email connect clear for the marching orders.............. I take it that you're a Kerry guy like Secretariat... but I will still vote for Bush.

I thought Laura Bush was masterful in her speech... Norman Rockwell couldn't have painted a better appeal to voters. If she forces the Democrats to trot out Theresa, you guys don't have a chance!

However, I would like to consider my vote as the one that cancels out Secretariat's vote because I can comprehend what he posted and where we disagree. You, I'm not so sure about! :) :)

[JustRalph]

nope........not a Kerry guy........just givin Sec the hard time he deserves........he can't go a day without me..........

[Tom]

How do you even respond to this? Billions spent on a non-winnable war. <1>

Why didn't we limit ourselves to the people responsible for the 911 disaster?<2>

I mean this is such a mess. We certainly aren't fighting Hezbolah or the Chechens.

"I decided a year ago that he cannot win the war on terror," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, at a news conference in New York organized by Democrats. <1>

....

"To suggest that the war on terror can't be won is absolutely unacceptable," said Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. <1>

....

"First George W. Bush said he miscalculated the war in Iraq (news - web sites), then he called it a catastrophic success and blamed the military," <3>said John Kerry (news - web sites) spokeswoman Allison Dobson. "Now he says we can't win the war on terror. Is that what Karl Rove means when he calls for steady leadership?"

We can win the Cold War, we can win against the Nazis, the Japanese, but we cannot win against a bunch of radical Islamic terrorists?

This guy would be a joke, if it wasn't so sad.

Wow Sec, you must be very unhappy with Obama.

<1> "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/24/obama_victory_not_necessarily_the_goal_in_afghanis tan.html


<2> ormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> "So he has issued a new directive on counterinsurgency operations, telling his troops in writing: "We must change the way we think, act and operate."

"Protecting the Afghan people - many of them living in impoverished villages - is now more important than killing the enemy, even if that means taking more risks."




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/24/60minutes/main5335445.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Obama must be too busy to bother with this war......

Asked how often he talks to the president, McChrystal said, "I've talked to the president since I've been here once on a VTC."

"You talked to him once in 70 days?" Martin asked.

"That's correct," McChrystal replied.

<3> "In other words, for much of the past eight years, the U.S. has been sowing the seeds of its own demise."

[lsbets]

Wow Sec, you must be very unhappy with Obama.

<1> "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.


Hirohito did not come down to sign the surrender with MacArthur. What a rutabaga that Obama. :lol: :lol:

[46zilzal]

How and anyone have a war against a process?

Couldn't win that any faster than one could win a war on manufacturing.

[Show Me the Wire]

Good points. ................................................
.................................................. .......................................
....GW Bush is afraid to face a question from Helen Thomas at a press conference.....

An Arab with high heeled shoes :lol: :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

Terrorism is a process like manufacturing. Really? :bang: : :bang: :bang: