Iraq war to be over by 2009

[Bobby]

per Dick Cheney. The insurgency is in its "last throes" of fighting. :D

new intelligence :D

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/index.html

[Secretariat]

Thanks for the post Bobby. Now that's laughable. An expert who has never faced an "insurgent" in his life. it's only goign to take us another four years according to Cheney to get the job done. How long was WW II? Cheny's statement is like saying after Hitler invaded Poland that Germany was in the "last throes", and that it would only take Germany four more years to defeat them. What an idiotic statement.

[JustRalph]

Thanks for the post Bobby. Now that's laughable. An expert who has never faced an "insurgent" in his life. it's only goign to take us another four years according to Cheney to get the job done.

Just one question........how many insurgents have you faced? You seem to feel qualified to spout off about it. Let us apply the same requirements to you. You ever held a gun on anyone? You ever been shot at? If not,.......under your own set of guidelines you need to shut up.

I might surmise that the Vice President is privy to info that you are not. He receives briefings daily from sources that you could never dream of having. So I would say that maybe he is more qualified on the subject, than let's say "YOU!"
Including Al Franken and the rest of your ilk.

[hcap]

Well if bush and cheney were handicappers, would you give much weight to their picks? Remember the PR episode where the master handicapper prances around a few miles of the coast, on an aircraft carrier, and proclaims "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended"
US deaths at that time around 160. Now over 1600.

How about another handicappin' insight?...
"This is gonna be a cakewalk"

Or the alltime deby pick by the ole' hanicapper rummy. ..

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

Who ya gonna believe?

[Suff]

Just one question........how many insurgents have you faced? You seem to feel qualified to spout off about it. Let us apply the same requirements to you. You ever held a gun on anyone? You ever been shot at? If not,.......under your own set of guidelines you need to shut up.

I might surmise that the Vice President is privy to info that you are not. He receives briefings daily from sources that you could never dream of having. So I would say that maybe he is more qualified on the subject, than let's say "YOU!"
Including Al Franken and the rest of your ilk.

That is one view. A viable one.

However so is:

The polls are telling them they need an end game for mid-term republican senators & congressman.

What I hear...and I do listen. Is the same things I heard two years ago. Thats all fine and good. Progress in 2004 is progress in 2005. However, I have a tingly sensation its not all pie & ice cream like they'd like me to believe.

I think, they'll redefine winning. Winning , looks to me like this.

When we leave...

The people we like will have the Power and Weapons. The people we don't like will have little power and some weapons. They'll fight it out to the death and an American President in the year 2065, will be apologizing for what we did.

Maybe it had to be done... I'm not arguing that. But what we done, aint pretty.

[Secretariat]

Just one question........how many insurgents have you faced? You seem to feel qualified to spout off about it. Let us apply the same requirements to you. You ever held a gun on anyone? You ever been shot at? If not,.......under your own set of guidelines you need to shut up.

I might surmise that the Vice President is privy to info that you are not. He receives briefings daily from sources that you could never dream of having. So I would say that maybe he is more qualified on the subject, than let's say "YOU!"
Including Al Franken and the rest of your ilk.

Unfortunately JR, I have under both your questions.

My point was that this is a man who is saying the insurgency is in the "throes of defeat" and then proceeds to saying that will begin withdrawing in 2009, five years from now. I'm not going to get into your unquestioning loyalty to Mr. Cheney's military service record. I just would like an intelligent response at the oxymoron provided by Cheney's in Bobby's link. I stand by my assertion, it's laughable.

[JustRalph]

Unfortunately JR, I have under both your questions.

My point was that this is a man who is saying the insurgency is in the "throes of defeat" and then proceeds to saying that will begin withdrawing in 2009, five years from now. I'm not going to get into your unquestioning loyalty to Mr. Cheney's military service record. I just would like an intelligent response at the oxymoron provided by Cheney's in Bobby's link. I stand by my assertion, it's laughable.

See, this is the difference in you and Suff. Suff makes a clear post with clear points and opinion. You however tap dance your way into the thread once again. Are you wearing a plaid suit and the kind of hat those guys at Shakey's pizza used to wear? All you need is your Dixieland band ............
http://www.pcma.ca/vvilleperformers.jpg

[PaceAdvantage]

Polls.....LOL

Who exactly are these guys polling? Why are you guys putting so much stock in polls? I thought they didn't mean anything? They certainly didn't mean anything on November 2, 2004.....and Gallop was the worst.....

[ElKabong]

I dunno, PA. The girl who got tatoo'd by a red Mercedez Benz hood ornament might have a point. That Zogby feller went from "it's Kerry's election to lose" in August, to "Kerry will win, by our polling numbers" in late October. And don't forget the exit polls that were calling Florida for Kerry by noon on election day.

More and more, you can't trust the polls taken. More "shaping" goes on in these things than imaginable.

[hcap]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/01/the_last_throes_of_truth_in_iraq/

... Soon, the number of US soldiers who have died in the ''free" Iraq will surpass the number who died dismantling the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. The two-deaths-a-day average suffered by the US-led forces is the same as during the period from when Bush stood under the banner ''Mission Accomplished" until the handover. The number of Iraqi police and guardsmen who have been killed is 880 this year alone, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. At the current pace, this year's deaths will easily outstrip the prior 1,300.

Yet Bush says, ''I'm pleased with the progress." If the Iraqi people have already dealt the insurgency a serious blow, as Bush claims, or if it is in the final throes, as Cheney claims, one shudders to consider what Iraq will look like if they are wrong.


I would assume according to cheneys logic, that if the number of casulities increse-which is a distinct possibility-we will be out sooner than 09??.

The only thing in the "final throes" is this administrations credability.

[Bobby]

[url]
The only thing in the "final throes" is this administrations credability.[/b]

I think you just hit the nail on the head. Credibility. And no one hardly ever points it out either. They catch clinton in a lie about his affair and try to impeach him. BUT when lives are at stake over in IRAQ, it's ok to lie, to stretch the truth, to manipulate the people. IRAQ might as well have nuclear weapons - that's what they made folks believe.

Cheney: We're in the last stages of the insurgents being a problem. yeah right. church lady might believe you but not me. Sugarcoat it for us Dick.

[PaceAdvantage]

You guys are wasting time here. You should be out organizing "Million Man Marches" on the Capitol with the theme "Impeach Now"

Now get crackin!

[wonatthewire1]

We've created a situation where Iraq is in an all out civil war.

Yes, we created it > solving that issue is another challenge althogether > one that I don't necessarily feel confident that this administration is capable of solving.

Not that any administration would be capable of viable solutions though either...

When it was determined that there was no concrete exit plan nor any real determination of how to successfully transition the power to the Iraqis > we were going to be there for a long time...no surprise at all.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think 2009 is a safe date. I say it will be over much sooner than that.


Wonatthewire, are you telling me there is no transition of power to Iraqis currently in progress? The vote was a mirage?

Weird.

[wonatthewire1]

There was a "transition of power"...

And there is a civil war > that is hardly a receipe for "success" > are you buying the "story" that we are there to liberate the Iraqis?

Or are you looking beyond the present into the future?

There is nothing "weird" about it > the only reason why Bosnia "worked" out was the division of the former Yugoslavia > without that, you'd have exactly the same situation there as in Iraq presently.

It actually is simply stating a fact, there will be civil war there until there is just as repressive a military presence that Saddam had...

It has nothing to do with "them being animals" and everything to do with historic, ethnic differences > ones that have been forged over the centuries.

What do you suppose will be occurring once the US actually leaves? And remember we invaded a country with the "military we had, not the one we wanted" > we are hardly in control of the country at all...that should be evident to anyone following the daily carnage in the country.

In reality, we, as citizens, can discuss the situation all we want to > but you'll notice that there are very few real "solutions" floated by any of the pundits > here or in the media. It is interesting to see the same lack of planning in business organizations > how many times have any of us been on the short end of a decision that someone else makes, despite all the contrary evidence of the success of that endeavor?

My guess is that the US establishes and maintains military bases in stategic parts of the country well beyond 2009 > much to the chagrin of a world that we are becoming increasingly isolated from. That would be to contain any threat that the Iranians will pose in the future...

Think a bit about why the administration is pushing so hard for the Bolton nomination (with respect to world armies, debt ratios, and isolating the Chinese and the Russians on the world stage). Sometimes "we" citizens are not thinking of the "big picture" because we are arguing about semantics about whether the Iraqis are free or not and if Saddam held a real threat or not. Those are just small pieces of a very big puzzel.

[Tom]

"Maybe it had to be done... I'm not arguing that. But what we done, aint pretty."

Suff, that is the exact sentiment I have whenver I think about our liberating Europe in WWII. If we had it to do over, I would be against it. I would leave them to Hitler and fortify our borders.
I would never give up the "fireworks" over Japan, though, That was just too damn meaningful to have never happened.

[Tom]

"My guess is that the US establishes and maintains military bases in stategic parts of the country well beyond 2009 > much to the chagrin of a world that we are becoming increasingly isolated from. That would be to contain any threat that the Iranians will pose in the future..."

We would be stupid not to. The best place to be is a short sotrie from your enemies. We build fast airstrips all across the Pacific to take out Japan. We have more than enough history to know that Iran and N Korea are in fact evil empires and can NEVER be trusted. The military option is inevitable. There is no way e will ever be able to trust these rouge nations. Sad, but war with them sooner or later is in the cards. You can't ignore cancer and hope it will remiss.

[JustRalph]

My guess is that the US establishes and maintains military bases in stategic parts of the country well beyond 2009 >

I hope so.........that would be great.

[PaceAdvantage]

we are hardly in control of the country at all...that should be evident to anyone following the daily carnage in the country.

Hmmmm...I would have to vehemently disagree with this quote. Iraq isn't Maine. It's a fair sized country, especially as far as the Middel East goes. These isolated attacks get all the press, and make things seem like they are worse than they really are.

Read some of the stuff lsbets posted when he was there, and read other first hand accounts. These paint a much different picture....one where we are IN control of the country, very much in control. Pockets of resistance and isolated attacks will occur, but to say we are hardly in control of the country is just plain wrong.

[NoDayJob]

:lol: I went to Korea in 1950---and we're still there. I suspect we'll be in Iraq at least 55 years from today. :lol:

NDJ

[NoDayJob]

You guys are wasting time here. You should be out organizing "Million Man Marches" on the Capitol with the theme "Impeach Now"

Now get crackin!

I have a feeling that before too long President Bush may be in the same situation that the late President Nixon found himself in. Perhaps another resignation? It all depends on the economy.

NDJ

[wonatthewire1]

Just as you said > its a big country...

One of my co-workers is there right now > unfortunately, he's in the medical field and sees the other side of things...

We just pray that he makes it home in September > I know his wife and daughter miss him and our place of work is not the same without his input and vision...

[hcap]

2009?
A predDICKsion by Dick.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041029-14.html

Vice President and Mrs. Cheney's Remarks in Sioux City, Iowa
Sioux City Convention Center
Sioux City, Iowa
October 28, 2004


They will do everything they can to disrupt the process up to those elections in January because they know that once you've got a democratically elected government in place that has legitimacy in the eyes of the people of Iraq, they're out of business. That will be the end of the insurgency.

[I]Unless he meant 2009? :rolleyes:

[lsbets]

Honestly PA, I am just plain tired of telling people that while Iraq is a very dangerous place it is not nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be and we have made some amazing progress there. Why am I tired of it? Because the replies I get back are either insulting or condescenging. There are people who really do not care if there is good being accomplished, they want us to lose in Iraq because if we win they have to eat crow. So, they refuse to acknowledge what the majority of returning troops have to say, and refuse to look beyond the headlines and analyze what is happenning.

But, I figured PA would like this link, its from a Major in Baghdad:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010615.php

"Good things are happening here in Iraq. While the political process moves forward, the enemy has shifted to more eye-catching attacks, and the television film crews are all too happy to oblige them and then broadcast all that is not going well to those back home. I already wrote about the Al-Jazeera television crew that followed the terrorist car bomb cell around Baghdad, but I will focus on the Western media. The traditional media obsession with bad news was apparent to me when I flew home for some R&R last month. I began conversing with a BBC TV personality who happened to be sitting next to me as the C-130 buffeted through the windy skies."

[hcap]

An argument can be made that things aren't as honky dory as you claim.
But my point is rather that almost all predictions, leading up to the war, and specifically during the occupation have been wrong.

And spinning does not fully explain it.

[lsbets]

An argument can be made that things aren't as honky dory as you claim.
And spinning does not fully explain it.


Thank you for proving my point hcap! Hunky dory?! Who the f ever said that? Better than it is portrayed to most people - without a doubt. But, it is not worth the argument to me, you want to believe with all your heart that we are losing and will lose, go right ahead, I am confident that in 10 years one of us will be proven right, and I would say I have at least a 75% chance of being that one.

[Bobby]

Hmmmm...These isolated attacks get all the press, and make things seem like they are worse than they really are.


that's SUGARCOATING it. Right out of Dick Cheney's playbook.

These are terroists acts. Terrorists acts are reported around the world wherever they are without prejudice. This is not a conspiracy.

If carbombs, rockets being fired, 25 cops a day killed in NYC do you think it would be reported in a manner that makes things seem like they are worse than they really are?

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sugarcoating anything. I'm providing balance to extremes. The extremes that say we "hardly control the country" and "Bush should be impeached"

Honestly, I don't know why I bother losing the ounce of energy it takes to type to you guys. Nobody's mind will ever change here.

[46zilzal]

Suicide attacks outpaced car bombings almost 2-to-1 in May, according to figures compiled by the U.S. military, The Times and other media outlets. In April, there were 69 suicide attacks, more than in the entire year preceding the June 28, 2004, hand-over of sovereignty.

The frequency of suicide bombings here is unprecedented, exceeding that of Palestinian attacks against Israel and of other militant insurgencies, such as the Chechen rebellion in Russia. Baghdad saw five suicide bombings in a six-hour span Sunday.

[ljb]

I'm not sugarcoating anything. I'm providing balance to extremes. The extremes that say we "hardly control the country" and "Bush should be impeached"

Honestly, I don't know why I bother losing the ounce of energy it takes to type to you guys. Nobody's mind will ever change here.
As a poster from the "other" point of view I agree with some of what you say here. First i think we are in fact "hardly in control of Iraq" But since congress seems to be getting their gonads back and have demonstrated so by refusing to suck up to Bush and his cronies, impeachment is not needed. And I also agree with you about changing anybodys mind here.
lsbets,
Define win.

[NoDayJob]

You ever held a gun on anyone? You ever been shot at? If not,.......under your own set of guidelines you need to shut up.


Hopefully, not too many of the posters on this forum have had combat experience. Believe me, it ain't no Sunday picnic. It's pure luck to be a survivor.

NDJ

[hcap]

Terry Moran and Scott McClellan:

Q Scott, is the insurgency in Iraq in its 'last throes'?

McCLELLAN: Terry, you have a desperate group of terrorists in Iraq that are doing everything they can to try to derail the transition to democracy. The Iraqi people have made it clear that they want a free and democratic and peaceful future. And that's why we're doing everything we can, along with other countries, to support the Iraqi people as they move forward....

Q But the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: The Vice President talked about that the other day -- you have a desperate group of terrorists who recognize how high the stakes are in Iraq. A free Iraq will be a significant blow to their ambitions.

Q But they're killing more Americans, they're killing more Iraqis. That's the last throes?

McCLELLAN: Innocent -- I say innocent civilians. And it doesn't take a lot of people to cause mass damage when you're willing to strap a bomb onto yourself, get in a car and go and attack innocent civilians. That's the kind of people that we're dealing with. That's what I say when we're talking about a determined enemy.

Q Right. What is the evidence that the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: I think I just explained to you the desperation of terrorists and their tactics.

Q What's the evidence on the ground that it's being extinguished?

McCLELLAN: Terry, we're making great progress to defeat the terrorist and regime elements. You're seeing Iraqis now playing more of a role in addressing the security threats that they face. They're working side by side with our coalition forces. They're working on their own. There are a lot of special forces in Iraq that are taking the battle to the enemy in Iraq. And so this is a period when they are in a desperate mode.

Q Well, I'm just wondering what the metric is for measuring the defeat of the insurgency.

McCLELLAN: Well, you can go back and look at the Vice President's remarks. I think he talked about it.

Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?

McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve....

[Bobby]

do I hear DAMAGE CONTROL? SPIN SPIN SPIN

Good post hcap.

[Secretariat]

I understand McCain said today it will be most likely 10-20 years of a presence in Iraq needed. Yet Cheny said we are in the "last throes"...like all wars..easy to get in..difficult to get out...and man, they always cost..both lives and money..

[PaceAdvantage]

I heard we'll be there for the next 200 years....yup, that's what I heard....

I also heard Bush is a vampire and will live forever, and that he will suspend the Constitution in 2008 so that he can be our beloved leader until the end of time.....

Is it no wonder that the folks in Massachusetts are smoking more pot than the rest of the country??? Those liberal bastards.....LOL

[wes]

Those liberal bastards.....LOL


Do they really rate that high??????????????LOL

wes

[Tom]

I heard we'll be there for the next 200 years....yup, that's what I heard....

I also heard Bush is a vampire and will live forever, and that he will suspend the Constitution in 2008 so that he can be our beloved leader until the end of time.....

Is it no wonder that the folks in Massachusetts are smoking more pot than the rest of the country??? Those liberal bastards.....LOL


This is true.

[hcap]

PAI also heard Bush is a vampire and will live forever, and that he will suspend the Constitution in 2008 so that he can be our beloved leader until the end of time.....Duh, the repubs have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment, ya know the one that confines the President to two terms.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:


Now your finally getting it :bang:

[hcap]

Of course bush must actually be re-elected in 2008, but that represents a mere technicality, considering election fraud is becoming a neocon high art. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[hcap]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm

"Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

[hcap]

. . . No district of Baghdad, with Iraq's highest concentration of troops, is remotely safe. And a rare drive outside the capital last week showed how anarchic the hinterland has become. To move concrete blocks for a new checkpoint near a base at Taji, 15 miles from Baghdad, American troops blocked the main highway north for two hours with tanks, troop carriers and Apache helicopters circling overhead. In an 80-mile round trip, it was the only sighting of Americans, though the blight of war was everywhere. For mile after mile, the highway was strewn with rusting hulks of blown-up cars and trucks, with huge bomb craters beside the road.

From todays sunday times
Baghdad bureau chief John Burns

Yeah last throes.

[JustRalph]

The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

Then the Dems should be very happy. You guys have been praying that bad things happen for years.

The problem with Mr. Hagels assessment is that the kill ratio is about 75-1 and there are lots of good things that are happening, that are not being reported.
The fact that he thinks "we are losing" just illustrates how out of line his rhetoric is......and people can see thru it...........

[Tom]

No, we have already won.
We hve removed Sadamm. That was our goal.

We area now helping Iraq overcome terrorists.

[hcap]

JRthe kill ratio is about 75-1
Let's see we lost over 1700 american boys and girls.
75 x 1700=127,500. So we killed 127,500 terrorists?
I don't think so

Go back to your DOD propaganda for further clarification.

Kill ratio, another mindless simpilfication from a limited military mindset. What about the number of Iraqi civilians? And the effect that has on generating more Iraqi insurgents? Terrorists in the region? Instability is worse not better. The rest of the world thinks we have a collection of loonies at the helm.

Rummy said a while back there is no metric to measure, how effective killing the insurgents will be. The thought then was missing some details. Now we know by some in the military, that eliminating 1 may breed up to 12 more.

How come he didn't bring up kill ratio, then as a "metric"?? Because it is useless, except maybe to reassure those who have to go out and fight.

Try suggesting to bush announcing official kill numbers as he trots out his new PR campaign to calm the fears of close to 60% of americans who now think the war is going to hell in a hand basket. Shades of Vietnam. The pentagon did that during Vietam. The public will not be reassured now, as it was not then

JR you should really read up on asymetrical warfare. The weak terrorist attacker has the advantages of selectivity and surprise; the defender must prevent attacks on many fronts.

Only option soon will be to nuke em. If we nuke em the kill ratio would go thru the roof.

Win the battle and lose the war.
Hagel gets it. You don't.

The reality is that we're losing in Iraq. Just like Vietnam. Just like the French in Algiers. Only real solution is to internationalize the occupation to provide at least a veneer of legitimacy. Next solution is to impeach bush. Will return the veneer of legitimacy to our government. Of course cheney and the rest of the war party will also have to go.

Removing Saddam was not the goal as Tom "slim pickens" sugests
No, we have already won.
We hve removed Sadamm. That was our goal.
We area now helping Iraq overcome terrorists.WMD's and ties to Osama was the game plan. And the terrorists are not in the "last throes" as ole' grimace head cheney babbled on about.

[JustRalph]

the kill ratio this week is 75-1, Fallujah was over 50-1.........it is never constant.....and I won't argue the numbers. But during the major offensives it is this high.

The fact that you worry about "breeding more terrorists" is where we differ. They will always find a reason to hate us........and therefore kill Americans because of the their core values. We are the great satan.......end of story. Overwhelming force and killing as many as possible is the only effective strategy. And it will go on for generations to come. Unless we pull the big trigger.......

[hcap]

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if “the Bush administration fairly can be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult this commitment will be?” Rice responded:

The administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.

Duh, to build support for the war the bushies told us that the conflict in Iraq will be short and affordable. You all remember the "cakewalk"?

Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03:

My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly. . . in weeks rather than months

Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03:

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

Former Budget Director Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03:

The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid…


Actually Bush said that the *War on Terror* would be a generational commitment – not Iraq. Of course now that Iraq is breeding terrorists like flies, I guess codasliza is technically correct. Another bait-and-switch from the bushies.

BTW, anybody see osama bin laden?? lately

[hcap]

JRThe fact that you worry about "breeding more terrorists" is where we differ. They will always find a reason to hate us........and therefore kill Americans because of the their core values. We are the great satan.......end of story. Overwhelming force and killing as many as possible is the only effective strategy. And it will go on for generations to come. Unless we pull the big trigger........ Sounds like the spin on the "gooks". The "japs". The "jerries". The slimy sub humans of all wars that were then "our enemy". Read Orwell and of the evil genious-villian Emanuel Goldstein.

Yeah there are bad guys. No question. But Iraq reads like bad PR. From the first chapter to the current installment. Like the old saturday morning movie theatre serials. Episode # 22. Dr Evil and his Islamic henchman? The script is amatuerish the actors suck. Don't buy into it. If you do, you are probably sitting in the first row. Like a five year old eating up the fantasy like your artificially flavored popcorn. Move to the back of the theatre for some perspective. Then you will see 911 is not IRAQ

Osama attacked us. 19 mostly Saudis flew the planes. You cannot eliminate another 911 by eliminating a people. The Israelis will not be able to stop suicide bombers unless there are discussions and peace. Or they could nuke em. The Brits had to broker peace with Ireland, or they had to nuke em. The US could not stay in Vietnam and had to settle, or could have nuked em.
In all cases nuking or total devastation was not an option.

Overwhelming force is a dead end in the long run. Yeah so we invaded a country with a broken military 1/1000 the size of ours. So what? We can't hold the territory. If we continue to force our way into similiar misadventures our repution as "the great satan" will only grow. Producing huge numbers of terroists and insurgents. And yes it will be a perpetual war you predict. Destroying ourselves in the process.

But the american people are tiring of losing their kids. The video game war has become real with real deaths. There will be no more military recruitment successes. And there will be no draft. It may be that war is no longer possible. As we knew it. This not the cold war. This is not WWII. This is a new reality. Warfare ain't what it used to be. Overwhelming force is no longer the answer practically, unless we are willing to go nuclear.

[J-bred]

What about the number of Iraqi civilians? They're not Americans (and thus not human), so it doesn't matter.

Next solution is to impeach bush.
That is only the first step. After impeachment comes a trip to the Hague to be put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[lsbets]

They're not Americans (and thus not human), so it doesn't matter.


That is only the first step. After impeachment comes a trip to the Hague to be put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.


Please expound, I could use a good laugh.

[hcap]

Impeachment for lying about a blow job? Pales compared to lying about a war of choice.

Real Repubs have to grow some balls and recognize the loonies for what they are. Depends on how bad bush does as he continues in his role as "THE WAR PRESIDENT". He may provide some more rope for the hanging.

My feeling is that impeachment should have occurred right after his infamous 60th annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner. Where he joked about WMD's.

....Bush looking under a piece of furniture in the Oval Office, at which the president remarked: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."

....After another one, showing him scouring the corner of a room, Mr Bush said: "No, no weapons over there," he said.

....And as a third picture, this time showing him leaning over, appeared on the screen the president was heard to say: "Maybe under here?"

Maybe up his lying ass? I agree with J-bred. The Hague could play tapes of the dinner for the jurists. Crimes against the 1700 that have died so far.
Slam dunk

[Tom]

They are not humans, but you want to try Bush for crimes against humanity???

Uh, are you planning on runnning in '08? You are starting to sound very Kerry-ish! :lol:

[lsbets]

Hcap, I hate to break your little heart - but, I think I will. Your precious Memo - its not the origional. No one has the original. It was retyped and destroyed according to the journalist who retyped it and destroyed the origional. So, no one knows whether it is authentic or not. Forget that it doesn't really say anything - everyone except the lunatic fringe already sees that, but there is no way of knowing whehter it is authentic or not! Dounds like CBS broke the story or something.

And on to war crimes, my question was serious, and again, you cannot give a serious answer. Here are my questions to you and J-Bred:

What war crimes should Bush be charged with and tried for?

Since "I was following orders" is not an acceptable defense when it comes to war crimes, do you both then also feel that the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who actually carried out whatever war crimes you feel happenned should also be tried? I know - of course not - you are against the war but you support the troops. Well, then your war crimes argument holds no water. If you think war crimes have been committed than the ones who actually carried out those crimes should be tried, but no, you guys support the troops. :lol:

[J-bred]

Those who give the orders to commit mass murder and crimes against humanity should be tried as such.

And don't lump me in with weasels like Kerry and the other Democrats, who gave approval for and are complicit in these crimes that were committed. I'm Green Party all the way.

And if anyone asks me if Iraqis are better off with Saddam gone, I will answer a clear NO. Or you can ask an Iraqi if being murdered by George W Bush is better than being murdered by Saddam Hussein (with the assistance and blessing of the United States of course).

[J-bred]

The Iraqi freedom fighters are merely doing the same thing that any patriotic American would do if his country was invaded and his family killed by a gang of murderous thieves. The same murderers who sold Saddam the weapons and poison gas he used against his own people, with our blessing.

[NoDayJob]

The Iraqi freedom fighters.

:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:

Gotts to buy me a new hernia truss!

NDJ

[lsbets]

J- bred - nice grandstanding, now please answer my questions:

1) What war crimes have been committed

and

2) If war crimes were committed, shouldn't the people who carried out those acts be tried for committing the crimes?

Interesting phrase you use "Iraqi Freedom Fighters." It speaks volumes about who you are. Do me a favor - your avatar leads me to believe that you are from NJ - cruise through Ft. Dix and tell the guys in a demobilizing unit that the "freedom fighters" are only doing what any American would do. I'd put good money on you riding out in an ambulance.

PA, I don't know where you keep finding these guys, but they get better and better all the time.

[wonatthewire1]

I can understand your potificating on this subject > I too object to the waging of this war and the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq...

But, we are small pieces in the overall picture of the world. And arguing on these pages is a fruitless endeavor. Not only are you trying to persuade people who have no interest in what your are posting, you also only show one side of the arguement...

Perhaps a better approach would be to improve your own small piece of the world in which you live. Volunteer to clean up a park, teach English, anything that you do in a positive direction will be a benefit to someone. Posting about the administration's lies and cover-ups (of which every administration has done and will continue to do forever) doesn't solve anything. :bang:

I wish that I could tell you that pulling out of Iraq will solve everything and that the reasons that we are there are noble ones. But I cannot. Creating permanent bases in Iraq means that "we" are planning to stay indefinitely > and without any reasoning coming from our own government, "we" are being told a lot of different things > even the reasons for going into Iraq have changed several times > therefore, there is no logical reasoning that has been forthcoming from any corner of our government.

This is not reassuring, but at the same time, there is little that we can do except at the ballot box and perhaps, we can change a larger part of the world in the near future.

[Secretariat]

Interesting quotes by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel today:

"Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes."

"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

I guess Hagel's just another liberal now.

[Tom]

The Iraqi freedom fighters are merely doing the same thing that any patriotic American would do if his country was invaded and his family killed by a gang of murderous thieves. The same murderers who sold Saddam the weapons and poison gas he used against his own people, with our blessing.

Uh, the ones that took over the Iraqi governemtn by force and murdered hundreds of thousands of citiens was SADAAM HUSSIEN, and the so-called freedom fighters are the remnants fo his Republican Guard - the ones who took over and ruled wtih tyrany for three decades. your second sentence says it all....SADDAM used the gas on the Kurds.
The freedom fighters are the brave Iraqi's facing death to becom esoldiers and police to try to rebuild their country - after legal and fair elections. The frist ones in decades.

Where do you read your news, Mad Magazine? Good God man, you are one dillusional dude. What edition of the koran do YOU read at night?

[lsbets]

Hey Sec, what do you think of J-Bred's comments? I know he hasn't hit the DNC talking points, but do you have an opinion as to his charictarization of "freedom fighters"?

[Secretariat]

Hey Sec, what do you think of J-Bred's comments? I know he hasn't hit the DNC talking points, but do you have an opinion as to his charictarization of "freedom fighters"?

Actually, I was more interested in your response ot Chuck Hagel's comments. As you know I was a strong Kerry supporter, and still am. J-Bred states he is not, and sees the aggression differently than I do. That's his perogative. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I do agree with him and Chuck Hagel in that Bush has created one helluva mess.

[lsbets]

Chuck Hagel is a politician. I don't think too many politicians know what they are actually talking about, and on this subject, Chuck does not. I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you why, it wouldn't be worth it, but I believe in 10 years history will prove me correct.

I thought you supported the troops Sec? Someone has accused us of committing war crimes (well, he accused Bush, but Bush could only order, so the logical extension is that out servicemembers committed them). You have nothing to say about that? Where is the support for the troops, or is PA correct and in many cases it is only lip service.

[hcap]

LSbetsHcap, I hate to break your little heart - but, I think I will. Your precious Memo - its not the origional. No one has the original. It was retyped and destroyed according to the journalist who retyped it and destroyed the origional. So, no one knows whether it is authentic or not.
there are quite a few principals in this case who either wrote or received these memos and therefore have absolute knowledge of whether or not they're genuine. The first memo, for example, was written by Matthew Rycroft and distributed at the time to David Manning, Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, Peter Goldsmith, Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, Richard Dearlove, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, and Alastair Campbell. So far, not a single one of these people has claimed they're fake.

Here's Tony Blair himself on May 1, the day the first memo was published:
In a Sunday morning television interview, Mr. Blair did not deny that the meeting took place in July 2002, but he recalled that "subsequent to that meeting, we went the United Nations route," seeking a resolution in November 2002, calling on the Iraqi government to disarm.

Here's Knight Ridder on May 5:
A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.
Here's the Washington Post on June 12:

Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.

Give it up. They're real. As far as war crimes? If the impeachment determines that we were lied to, and tricked into an unecessary war, the liars are guilty of war crimes. Not the people who went to war believing the liars. Unless atrocities were commited under the geneva convention and other international codes.

[J-bred]

1) What war crimes have been committed

Illegal war of aggression
Mass murder of innocent civilians
Targeting civilian population centers
Use of banned weapons

2) If war crimes were committed, shouldn't the people who carried out those acts be tried for committing the crimes?

If their actions were illegal, yes.

Interesting phrase you use "Iraqi Freedom Fighters." It speaks volumes about who you are. Do me a favor - your avatar leads me to believe that you are from NJ - cruise through Ft. Dix and tell the guys in a demobilizing unit that the "freedom fighters" are only doing what any American would do. I'd put good money on you riding out in an ambulance.

If you mean they would resort to violence because I exercised my right as an American citizen to speak out against atrocities committed in my name, then it says a lot more about them than it does about me.

your second sentence says it all....SADDAM used the gas on the Kurds.

Which was sold to him (and the use approved of) by whom????? You know the answer. So we've replaced poison gas with napalm and cluster bombs. Whoopee!

And arguing on these pages is a fruitless endeavor.

True... but it is fun getting under the skin of the pro-war fascists. And if you look at the definition of the word "fascism" in the dictionary it describes America in its current state. All I can do is spout off on these forums, sit on the front porch with an ice cold Budweiser, and watch as this once great nation that was built on the principles espoused by great men such as Thomas Jefferson get flushed down the toilet of history by war criminals and greedy corporations. Enjoy the ride. :sleeping:

[lsbets]

Let's see J-Turd - you have people who are sturggling to build something resembling a democracy. They were told if they go to the polls to vote they'll be killled, yet they defied those threats and voted in larger numbers than we do in our elections. And you call the people who threatened to kill those who would go and vote "freedom fighters" - you are clueless.

Now, onto your list of war crimes:

What mass murder of civilians? Please tell
What targeting of civilian population centers? Again, please tell
And finally, what banned weapons?

You can call me a pro war fascist if you want, that doesn't bother me a bit. I welcome this argument with you, because every time you open your mouth you reveal your ignorance. So, come on, show me how much you know - give examples, I want specifics. Give me details on our war crimes.

And just so no one missed the key thing he said (to me at least) in his post:

He feels American servicemen and women should go to jail for committing war crimes.

What a moron. :faint:

[Bobby]

, but I do agree with him and Chuck Hagel in that Bush has created one helluva mess.

Yea, one helluva mess. Lots more lives still to be lost. Hundreds of billions of $ still to be spent.

To me its like, is it really worth it?

good news from Iraq: How about Saddam likes to eat cheetos and doritos?

[Secretariat]

Chuck Hagel is a politician. I don't think too many politicians know what they are actually talking about, and on this subject, Chuck does not. I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you why, it wouldn't be worth it, but I believe in 10 years history will prove me correct.

I thought you supported the troops Sec? Someone has accused us of committing war crimes (well, he accused Bush, but Bush could only order, so the logical extension is that out servicemembers committed them). You have nothing to say about that? Where is the support for the troops, or is PA correct and in many cases it is only lip service.

I post a Republican politician's remarks (Hagel) from the Foreign Relation committee and you dismiss these as "He's just a politician." Well, he's a politician who "supported" the war and has hence made some observations quite differently today, just as GOP Congressman "Freedom Fries" Jones from NC. Legislators from the GOP are starting to ask questions and you can't just push that aise as if it is Ted Kennedy talking. This is a Bible Belt Congressman who strongly supported the war, and a mid-west Senator who has gone out of his way to support the war. Now, all of a sudden, they don't know what they're talking about when they dare to question the President's rosy assumptions, and attempt to tell their constituents they've been buffaloed? You're so "bushified" I see you actually beleive his lies.

As to J-Cap's comments - i guess you ddin't read my reply to you.

"I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I do agree with him and Chuck Hagel in that Bush has created one helluva mess."

As to the war crimes issues, there "have" been war crimes committed such as at Abu Ghraib. They've been documented and people have been sentenced. Just as Calley was in Nam. There have been violations of the Geneva Convention at Gitmo. In fact not giving POW status to the Taliban is a violation of the Geneva Convention as the WH's own page has pointed out that members of the Taliban are entitled to POW status, but Al Quada is not. There have been "fragging" cases in which members of our military have been "murdered" by our own troops, and of course there is the Tillman incident whose family has met with untruths after untruths. There are estimates of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians who have been killed in this war, the people we are supposedly liberating. This in a very short time. There have been without questions war-crimes committed by some, and the WH policy has been called into question by the Downing Street memos on the legitimacy of the war's initiation. None of this has anything to do with whether I support the troops and it is simplistic to say so. I've attended funerals of returning servicemen, I make contributions, and I attend VA hospitals to visit troops. Yesterday, on Father's Day I stood at the grave of a boy who was killed over there at a VA cemetery. Simply, becasue we vehemently disagree with the policy of "democratizing the Mid-East via force", and Mr. Bush's meglomania, don't confuse that with lack of support for the personal commitments of 99.9% of the troops over there.

[lsbets]

Sec - if you notice, I post that I don't trust politicians all the time. You seem to be offended that I don't agree with Chuck Hagel, so you attempt to dismiss me as being "Bushified". You are so far over the edge you can't even tell how far you've gone. I base my views on my own personal experiences and those of my friends who are still there. So, Chuck Hagel is wrong - sorry to offend you by not agreeing with him, but hey, its my right.

Sorry bud - most guys I know would hope that people would stand up defend US troops against charges of committing mass murder. That was one of the accusations - mass murder, and you list a few incidences which you guys try to define the war and therefor the actions of our soldiers. How about just simply saying accusing US soldiers of committing mass murder is outgrageous and I do not stand behind those statements? You are so politicized that you can't do the right thing because it might make your overall arguments weaker (when in reality all it would do is give you some much needed credibility). So, in your case I am confident in saying you do not support the troops. You might think you do Sec, but you do not. Not a bit, and I don't think too many soldiers would see your response and say "Yeah, this guy's in my corner."

[JustRalph]

Abu Graib, War Crimes? Get serious......some of those guys and gals were out of line. But I don't consider what they did War Crimes.......Oh my......."somebody took a picture of me while some ugly G.I. Gal pointed at my Holy Muslim Weiner".........give me a break.

That denigrates those who were victims of War Crimes. Ask if those in the Nazi concentration camps think the prisoner's at Abu Graib, or Gitmo for that matter, are being "abused"

Iraq is a country where the government tossed you in a wood chipper if they didn't like you.......come on !

The Al Quada guys are different. They are not a sovereign country and they are not a party to any treaties or the Geneva Convention. They cut the heads off Americans and such. I wouldn't care if they were tossed into the ocean as shark food. War Crimes.....? ??? Get real...........

[Secretariat]

Isbets,

While I respect your service, you are not the only serviceman who has been to Iraq. I've spoken to returning servicemen who have quite a different perspective of what is going over there. And when legislators like "Freedom Fries'" Jones and Hagel say things are going poorly I tend to agree with their larger assessment than that of a single soldier's experience.

I'm sorry I didn't state my disagreements with J-Cap the way "you" liked, even though I did say I disagreed with many of his comments, and thatI supported 99.9% of troop actions. You are "bushified". You've agreed on this board with every thing he has ever did or said. This despite the Downing Street memos, and members of his own party deserting him. Whether you beleive it or not, I support the troops. I've no time for whether I state something the way you "want" me to say it. I think for myself, and not for J-Cap or you.

And JR, whether you want to beleive the actions at Abu Ghraib were war crimes or not, the military tried people for war crimes, and convicted them. I guess a case of Pentagon activist judges. See ,it doesn't matter whether you consider them war crimes. They were convicted of war crimes. And by the WH own admission (on thier site) Taliban, but not Al Queda members are entitled to POW status and hence entitled to Geenva Convention status.

I am not one who beleives that troops are mass responsible for mas murder or war crimes, but I do beleive that our policy in this war is a disaster, and agree with Chuck Hagel on his comments. Making the US a world cop with the intent of "democratizing" the world is a deficit buster, and a foreign relations nightmare.

[lsbets]

Sec you are so far gone you're hopeless. I've seen more criticism of Bush from those who you think are "Bushified" than praise for Bush. But, to you, there is no explaining how someone doesn't fall for the brainwashed bullshit you put out in your DNC talking points. You're a tool, with George Soros' and Howard Deans hands taking turns pulling the strings to make their little puppets move.

Like I said, I'm not going to argue the war with you, its pointless. I am confident in 10 years events will prove me correct, and you will still try to say I'm wrong.

I have to ask you though - what war crimes were the soldiers from Abu Grahib convicted of? I know they were convicted of violations of the UCMJ, but what articles that they violated referenced war crimes? I never read the specific charges against them, so I don't know. Please oh great and knowledgable Sec, you have a link for everything, do you have a link to what exactly referenced by Article number they were found guilty of? I assume that you do because you said they were found guilty of war crimes, so I also assume that you know what they were charged with actually means.

Also Sec - remember, when you refer to the Downing Street Memos, how about you refer to them as the unverifiable, possibly forged documents that only one man alive publicly claims to have seen and he says he destroyed them. I know you hated it when the whole CBS thing fell apart on you, its gotta sting knowing that the memo thing is about to unravel too. But, just like the CBS thing "It doesn't matter if its real or not, it sounds real." You remember that? A journalist with an agenda, forged documentation, and anonymous sources? How many times is that snake going to bite you?

[lsbets]

Here ya go Sec, said better than I can (referencing Durbin this time) about the phony "support the troops" rhetoric:

Judging from the way he’s dug himself in, Dick Durbin, the Number Two Democrat in the US Senate, genuinely believes Gitmo is analogous to Belsen, the gulags and the killing fields. But he crossed a line, from anti-Bush to anti-American, and most Americans have no interest in following him down that path.You can’t claim (as Democrats do, incessantly) to “support our troops” and then dump them in the same category as the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. In the hermetically sealed echo chamber between the Dem leadership, the mainstream US media, Hollywood, Ivy League “intellectuals” and European sophisticates, the gulag cracks are utterly unexceptional. But, for a political party that keeps losing elections because it has less and less appeal outside a few coastal enclaves, Durbin’s remarks are devastating. The Democrats flopped in 2002 and 2004 because they were seen as incoherent on national security issues. Explicitly branding themselves as the “terrorists’ rights” party is unlikely to improve their chances for 2006.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/06/20&ID=Ar00800

[JustRalph]

conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault, and indecent acts. These are UCMJ violations. Or article 134 violations stretched into whatever the military prosecutor's could come up with. War crimes violate "international" law. Violations of the Geneva Convention are also considered war crimes. But Al Queada doesn't fall under the Geneva convention.

Some of the crap they did was borderline torture.......but most was less than what we normally consider war crimes. Far be it from me to accuse you of inflating the charges to fit your agenda..............

[Secretariat]

conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault, and indecent acts. These are UCMJ violations. Or article 134 violations stretched into whatever the military prosecutor's could come up with. War crimes violate "international" law. Violations of the Geneva Convention are also considered war crimes. But Al Queada doesn't fall under the Geneva convention.

Some of the crap they did was borderline torture.......but most was less than what we normally consider war crimes. Far be it from me to accuse you of inflating the charges to fit your agenda..............

I got news for you JR..borderline torture is a war crime. Indecent acts, maltreatment of detainees, assault are war crimes. The military tribunal does not label them war crimes, but they are according to the Geneva Convention. The people held at Abu Ghraib were NOT by any stretch of the imagination all Al Queda. They were Iraqi citizens and hence entitled to POW status. This is old news. The WH has already confirmed that Abu Ghraib inmates were entitled to POW status. The WH has confirmed that the Taliban are entiteld to POW status. Their argument is that Al Queda is not entitled to POW status. The problem is that some people are members of the Taliban AND Al Queda. That is where the problem lies.

By your own post above in essence, you are confirming that war crimes were committed upon POWS.

This is NOT the issue though. The issue is one of policy, not as Isbets like to portray it as anyone who opposes the Bush Doctrine of "world democritization whatever the cost" as being someone who is non-supportive of the troops. We've been down that path in threads before. He's wrong in my opinion, although I sincerely beleive he sees the conflict in a noble way - a liberation of Iraq from a despotc dictator.

I don't have time to get into a pissing contest with him about it, because we'll never agree. In my opinion he's wrong. He sees me as wrong. There's no middle ground between us on this. I accept that. He can choose to believe I don't support the troops, but under my POV, I do. What the heck is the point trying to convince him he's wrong. He's from Texas and supports anything Bush says. That's his right. As he states that history wil prove him right. I think history will prove him unequivocally wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

[lsbets]

Sec, I've asked you before - if history proves me right will you admit it? You never answered when I asked before.

Wher the f do you come up with I support anything Bush says? Man, you are delusional. I liked him better than Kerry. You loved Kerry more than his own mother does. You can't see beyond your man crush on John Kerry. Wake up dude. I support the war in Iraq, I support very little of Bush's domestic agenda - I've said this time and again, you just choose not to hear it, whatever, it must be hard to walk around with George Soros's hand up your butt controlling your every movement. One small example of where I vehemently disagree with Bush is the border. I've been pretty vocal on here saying that I plan on spending the month of October on the border with the minuteman project. Bush is opposed to that project. Hell, I've even invited Suff and he's agreed to come. Why don't you join us? Stop spouting off and do somthing, help us protect our borders. Heck, let's have a PA border patrol come October. If we're near El Paso we can head to Sunland for simulcasting. Call it Saratoga Southwest.

[Tom]

"Illegal war of aggression
Mass murder of innocent civilians
Targeting civilian population centers
Use of banned weapons"


You got it right, J....these unexcusable crimes will be punished and the scoundral who committed them will have justice served on him. Saddam Hussien will pay for theses crimes! :rolleyes:


Get a life! :bang:

[ElKabong]

Isbets,


And JR, whether you want to beleive the actions at Abu Ghraib were war crimes or not, the military tried people for war crimes, and convicted them. .

You're really nothing but a slimey piece of shit, Sec.

You say you support the troops yet you post up this trash. You make a big deal out of putting underwear on prisoners heads, or putting them on a leash. Tell me something Sec..., why are you hammering away on our own people for treatment of POWs, yet you don't post your disapproval of Americans being killed, then beheaded, then burned, then hung to a bridge, then shot at. It certainly leads one to wonder which side you have chosen to back.

You can scoff at "you're either with us or against us" all you like, but in times of war you have to pick a side and stick with it. Looking at your posts in this thread it's easy to see where your allegiance lies.

[Secretariat]

Elk,

Look at the picture you post as an avatar, and tell me who is a slimey piece of shit.

Your post is not even worth responding to with that kind of crap. If someone put something like that up with Bush I imagine PA would say something. Let's see if he responds in kind as he should.

[JustRalph]

I got news for you JR..borderline torture is a war crime. Indecent acts, maltreatment of detainees, assault are war crimes. The military tribunal does not label them war crimes, but they are according to the Geneva Convention. The people held at Abu Ghraib were NOT by any stretch of the imagination all Al Queda.

come on Sec...........they were fighting along side Al Queda, you dancin now

[PaceAdvantage]

If someone put something like that up with Bush I imagine PA would say something. Let's see if he responds in kind as he should.

Oh come now, that's happened LOTS of times on here...mostly using the written word.....

And for the record, I don't like ElKabong's avatar and am asking him to change it within 24 hours, or I will have to get rid of it myself. He has some posts in the horse racing section, and as we all know, political talk and political avatars are not welcome in the horse racing section of this board....

[46zilzal]

You can scoff at "you're either with us or against us" all you like, but in times of war you have to pick a side and stick with it. .

No you don't..., especailly when the entire conflict is a fib..you sit back and wonder at the stupidity of the American people (as a whole) in buying into all the baloney! As more and more folks (and lots of bystanders) get butchered and maimed, it is getting even MORE ridculous.

[hcap]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2005/tt050621.gif


46zilzal is correct. A lie brought to you by our fearless leader and the MSM.

Your either with the lie or against the lie?
The whole framing of the argument is propaganda on steroids.
There is no war, no "war president". No war on drugs.
No war on cancer. No war on terror. Slogans. Propaganda.
1984 for the dumbed down, run incompetantly by wanabee big brothers.

The preznit and his slumping approval ratings and growing worries about Iraq, launched more PR to defend the war..

His pitch saturday during his weekly national radio address, telling the US sheeple "the country went to war because the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001."

Bait and switch

"Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."

Return of flypaper.

[lsbets]

Sec, funny that you are so bothered by Elk's avatar (which I do not like) but you don't seem to be bothered at all by Dick Durbin's comments. Hmmmm.

[ElKabong]

zil,

Who cares what you think? Much like felons here, you don't have a vote in American elections. And, the fact you don't stand for much in your life comes as no surprise really.

Sec,

If Kerry in a nazi uniform repulses you, so be it. Imagine what family members of an American POW felt when Kerry slimed his way into their lives and layed it on them thick that by spilling their guts out in his book (the one with an American flag upside down on the dust jacket), his son might be freed, or given concessions in the NVN prison. I posted that POWs account of Kerry using the POWs family for his own gain. That behavior is ok with you? Go ahead and defend him all you like, chump.

You showed no negative feelings towards that, yet someone in our military puts underwear on some insurgent's head and you call it a war crime. That's where you're at. Why don't you dig up all the posts you've put up about your disapproval of Americans being beheaded and tortured? How many of those from you?? Not many....Then look at your posts about "war crimes" involving underwear over heads and putting someone on a leash (oooh, forget beheadings...now there's torture, the underwear thing!). Not hard to see which side of the fight you put your energy behind.

little girl,

Iraq shot at our airmen on recon missions. The 9-11 report has 66 pages that mentions Iraq and their ties with terrorism. That's enough for me so take your reproduced Downing memo, roll some homegrown in it and smoke it. No one gives a flip about it. If you wish to believe Hussein didn't violate UN sanctions by the dozen, sanctions layed on them b/c they invaded a nation, then destroyed some of their natural resources and environment upon retreat, be my guest.

[Secretariat]

Sec, funny that you are so bothered by Elk's avatar (which I do not like) but you don't seem to be bothered at all by Dick Durbin's comments. Hmmmm.

Isbets,

Please show me where I stated I was not bothered by Durbin's comments. I am not responsible for Durbin's actions or comments (which by the way I was bothered by despite Durbin's quoting of Amnesty International's observations at Gitmo). However, Elk decided "ON HIS OWN" to make such a post. I can guarantee if anyone posted such a picture of Bush in an SS uniform here there would be talk of banning them from the board.

As to Elk I have no respect for the man and put him on my ignore list (the only one here I've ever done that to) as I have no time for his ignorancy so whatever he said who cares.

[ElKabong]

Sec,

Who needs respect from someone who harps on American's "war crimes" (underwear on heads) for political points?

You will berate Americans at will if it fits your slant.....The first post I ever made on this board was directed towards you. You don't have ideas. You have agendas. You tried to attribute a dead man's quote as if he were still alive (one of Kerry's swiftys), hoping no one would know the quote was 5+ yrs old, and thus putting Kerry in a better light.

You're disgusting.

[JustRalph]

http://www.thecampaignstore.com/images/products/Photo227.GITMOsticker.jpg

order yours here..........

http://www.thecampaignstore.com/store/itemdetail.asp?id=227&rname=MAF

Stand Up for Our Troops at GITMO with the “I Love GITMO” bumper sticker!

In recent days the liberal media and left-wing politicians have defamed the men and women of the Armed Forces who are stationed at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center by accusing them of improper behavior and conduct.

These shameless people in the “Blame America First” crowd are providing aid and assistance to our enemies abroad by suggesting that American troops are acting improperly and mistreating Islamic terrorists and suspected terrorists.

The truth is – the terrorists and suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility are treated better than American prisoners who are incarcerated for minor offenses.

Consider that a typical meal for a terrorist detained at GITMO is:

<LI class=style3>Orange Glazed Chicken <LI class=style3>Rice Pilaf <LI class=style3>Steamed Peas & Mushrooms
Fruit Roupee
By comparison, our troops stationed at GITMO are served a vacuum packed MRE (Meal Ready to Eat). We can’t serve MRE’s to the terrorists, and you want to know why? Because Congress has declared that if we were to serve an MRE to the terrorists and suspected terrorists detained at GITMO, it would be considered “abuse.”

On Ramadan the terrorists and terrorist suspects being held at Guantanamo are given lamb with honey and dates. They are also given prayer beads and prayer oil.

ALL OF THIS PAID FOR BY U.S. TAXPAYERS

As Congressman Duncan Hunter noted, "if you did that for American GI's - if you had a call to prayer five times a day - the ACLU would sue on the basis that we violated the separation between church and state

[Bobby]

no, I don't blame the troops. Prison is not supposed to be a country club. I think they should keep em locked up in gitmo. I really don't care how there treated.

However, I do blame Bush. There wuz no real reason to start the war to begin with. Every premise about IRAQ they had wuz WRONG. That "slam dunk" stuff George Tenet said on Iraq having WMD wuz wrong. Yea, Saddam wuz looting the country but so what? All these big corporations here in the US are looting the American worker and family - the enrons, the tycos, the walmarts, the exxons, the halliburtons. All getting govt handouts in 1 way or anotha.

[Suff]

all the bullshit aside.. glazed chicken and that nonsense...


America conquers Afghanistan... Farmer 1 tells USA that Farmer 2 is a Terrorist. Had been working with the Al Queda. USA picks up Farmer #2 and ships him to GITMO. Farmer#1 moves onto Farmer#2's land. Having a great time for himself. Meanwhile Farmer#2 rots.

Happens and happen (ed) everyday, of Every War until a Country named the USA changed all that with things called due process and human rights. Gotta have it. Fear nothing when your right. Secrets thrive in the dark, but die in the light.


Gotta have a system..... You gotta give people basic human right of answering the charges against him.

Koran? Underwear? Glazed chicken? Give me a F'n break.

[46zilzal]

zil,Who cares what you think? Much like felons here, you don't have a vote in American elections. And, the fact you don't stand for much in your life comes as no surprise really.

Tired of stating this but MY PASSPORT is the same as yours

[46zilzal]

People have a "stance," or position only on things that matter to them. If one does not care about the tires that formula one drivers are allowed to use, whether the "runaway bride" has to pay for her police search, or whether the new Star Wars movie has too much violence or not.......that is NO different to taking sides in this, or any other conflict.

I would be much more interested in misuse of the whip on young horses than any TRUMPED up war ANYWHERE ON EARTH. Whether I am with the rutabaga or aggin' him, it would not matter to the outcome

[hcap]

Kabonglittle girl,

Iraq shot at our airmen on recon missions. The 9-11 report has 66 pages that mentions Iraq and their ties with terrorism. That's enough for me so take your reproduced Downing memo, roll some homegrown in it and smoke it. No one gives a flip about it. If you wish to believe Hussein didn't violate UN sanctions by the dozen, sanctions layed on them b/c they invaded a nation, then destroyed some of their natural resources and environment upon retreat, be my guestYou have to be either the most stubborn, or the most dense stepford lackey on this board. I understand why Sec has choosen to ignore your lunacy.On the other hand, I find you are always there to provide a wee chuckle or 2. I do find that I waste too much time trying to wake you from your slumber, but hey what are friends for??

One of the memos. The disclosure of previously secret British memoranda from 2002, the year before the United States and Great Britain invaded Iraq.

"It seems that President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were discussing ground battle plans, and for the immediate future, the U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force would increase their activity while patrolling a "no-fly zone" over Iraq. In March 2002, no bombs were dropped; in August, 14.1 metric tons fell on Iraq.

There were two reasons for this. One was to soften the Iraqi air defenses to make an invasion safer, should it come to that. The other was to provoke Saddam Hussein into retaliating against the British and American warplanes, thereby providing a rationale for an invasion.

If the other side doesn't fire first, there are ways to make it appear that way. In 1898, tensions were rising between the United States and Spain over Cuba, considerably abetted by lurid accounts of Spanish misrule in the American press. On Feb. 15, the USS Maine blew up while anchored in Havana harbor.

Recent dispassionate investigations blame the explosion on accumulated gas emanating from the coal in its bunkers, but at the time, the cause just had to be a Spanish mine or torpedo, and Congress soon declared war.

Woodrow Wilson, with whom Bush is often compared, began arming merchant ships in early 1917. That got the Germans to fire the first shots; the Kaiser's U-boats sank three merchant ships on March 18. Wilson summoned Congress to a special session, and got a declaration of war on April 2.

In more modern times, there was the Gulf of Tonkin incident. President Lyndon B. Johnson wanted some congressional support for American military operations in Vietnam. On Aug. 4, 1964, the USS Maddox might or might not have been attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats when it may or may not have been in international waters.

Never mind those uncertainties; the Johnson administration presented it as an attack on our flag, and on Aug. 7, Congress overwhelmingly gave Johnson the authority to "take all necessary measures to repel armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0621-31.htm

Need I remind you we lost no planes or airmen. Meanwhile we killed over 300 Iraqis. Humanitarian no fly zones? Your ass must be doing your thinking.

Humanitarian? Just like ole' grimace head cheney keeping gitmo up and rollin' while halliburton gets another contract to build A/C there.
Hey whats 30 mill between friends?

[JustRalph]

KabongYou have to be either the most stubborn, or the most dense stepford lackey on this board.

Them's fightin words!

[Suff]

political avatars are not welcome in the horse racing section of this board....

More rules.... :faint:

[Suff]

Them's fightin words!

I've found Elkie a man I can do business with. But when him and face paint get going , then Sec jumps in, ....you see his dark side.... :jump: :lol: :bang:

[JustRalph]

I've found Elkie a man I can do business with. But when him and face paint get going , then Sec jumps in, ....you see his dark side.... :jump: :lol: :bang:

kind of sounds like one of those old tag team matches on TV late at night in the 70's........

[PaceAdvantage]

More rules.... :faint:

Blame boxcar....you remember him, don't you? That's when I first implemented the "no politically motivated avatars in the horse racing section" thing...

[lsbets]

Here an interesting Op-Ed titled "There's Progress in Iraq." Its a good read:

"Elections were held in January, on schedule. Three months later the Transitional National Assembly endorsed the transitional government. The dominant parties have begun inclusive negotiations, in which outreach to Sunni Arabs is a major theme. A large number of Sunni groups and parties are now working to make sure that their voices are fully heard in the process of drafting a new constitution, and that they participate fully in the referendum to approve it and the elections slated for December.

Indeed, just last week an agreement was achieved to expand the committee drafting the constitution to ensure full participation by the Sunni Arab community. This agreement, which the United Nations helped to facilitate, should encourage all Iraqis to press ahead with the drafting of the constitution by the Aug. 15 deadline."

"As the process moves forward, there will no doubt be frustrating delays and difficult setbacks. But let us not lose sight of the fact that all over Iraq today, Iraqis are debating nearly every aspect of their political future."

"There are, of course, those who wish to exacerbate communal tensions and prevent the emergence of a democratic, pluralist, stable Iraq. They seek to capitalize on the serious difficulties faced by ordinary people, and to exploit popular anger and resentment to promote hatred and violence. Their work is seen on the streets of Iraq every day."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001176.html

Read the whole thing. The author is Kofi Annan. Based on this piece, he seems to understand more of what is happenning there than most of our politicians and almost all of the media here at home.

[ElKabong]

little girl,

When Iraq began to attempt to down our recon missions back in 1998 is when we began retaliatory strikes. I'll remind you Clinton was prez then. Unlike you, I back our CIC's decision to nail the enemy when called for. It has nothing to do w/ politics for me. You, otoh.....

I won't paste your 35 paragraph rubbish this space. It's late at nite and people would fall asleep. I'll grant you this, tho. As cranky and bitchy as you are now at your tender and ignorant age, you'll be hell on wheels when you hit menopause.

[ElKabong]

Here an interesting Op-Ed titled "There's Progress in Iraq." Its a good read:


Read the whole thing. The author is Kofi Annan. .


Good stuff.

[ElKabong]

Elk,

Look at the picture you post as an avatar, and tell me who is a slimey piece of shit.

.


The avatar was Kerry's face! :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

KaKabongWhen Iraq began to attempt to down our recon missions back in 1998 is when we began retaliatory strikes. I'll remind you Clinton was prez then. Unlike you, I back our CIC's decision to nail the enemy when called for. It has nothing to do w/ politics for me. You, otoh.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5220248-103685,00.html

Guardian
Ministers were last night asked to explain the circumstances in which the RAF participated in a spectacular increase in bombing raids on Iraq in apparent defiance of Foreign Office legal advice.

"It did not take very much to work out that the increase in bombing bore no relation to the protection of Iraqi citizens in the north or the south of the country," Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said referring to the ostensible reason for the "no-fly" zones. He told the Guardian: "The obvious explanation was that air defences were being degraded deliberately and that any provocation by the Iraqi military would be met with a disproportionate response".


...After months of inactivity,* RAF bombers dropped nearly 5 tonnes of bombs on Iraq in May 2002,* the time the US decided to lay the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq. In September 2002,* the RAF dropped more than 20 tonnes of bombs,* according to official figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats.

A message brought to you proudly, by a little girl with painted face
Wake up kabong !!

*note: DUH!!

:sleeping:
:sleeping:

[hcap]

Hey KaKa,

Jeremy Scahill. The Nation,
RE: huge air assault in September 2002.

“Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace,” Scahill writes. “At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist.”

DUH!!

[ElKabong]

little girl,

Why is it every time I bring up 1998 (when GWB was not the prez), you redirect the rant of yours to the Bush era? I'll try this with you one more time, ok. Read it and comprehend it. During the Clinton era we nailed Iraq with airstrikes, and I am/ was behind the actions 100%. It's not "political" with me, it's a matter of defending our military members lives.

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

date-December 29, 1998

action-Iraqi missile batteries fired on U.S. aircraft over the northern "no-fly" zone.

retaliatory action-The Allied warcraft returned fire and destroyed the Iraqi air-defense battery.

and

date-December 30, 1998

action-Iraqi missile batteries fired on U.S. and British aircraft over the southern "no-fly" zone.

retaliatory action-The Allied warcraft returned fire and destroyed the Iraqi air-defense battery.


As for the 2002 strikes, I'm cool with it. I brought up the 1998 firings on our airmen. To me, the 1998 actions of Hussein against us is one of many reasons to invade, conquer, and throw Hussein out to allow the Iraqi people free elections and a chance to live free. If that causes you misery, so be it.

[Tom]

So far, at least 12 prisoners released for Gitmo were picked up AGAIN, on the battlefield in Iraq, waging war on us.

[Steve 'StatMan']

If at least 12 of those SOB's went back to war against us knowing full well they could end up in Gitmo again, then the treatment given at Gitmo can't be that G.D. bad, now can it?!

[Suff]

If at least 12 of those SOB's went back to war against us knowing full well they could end up in Gitmo again, then the treatment given at Gitmo can't be that G.D. bad, now can it?!

Obvious concern is having a guy that can really hurt you, that slips through some how and comes back to bite you.

I don't think we know much about what criteria they're using to hold a guy or release a guy. Couple of things to think about

It's not the witness protection program. If they go back to Klan's or Tribes where thier livelyhood is at stake.....?

It's a conflict of reasoning that we describe them as battlefield captures, but don't designate them prisoners of war.

The missing ingredient isn't to release anyone...Thats not the goal. Hold them if you have to. The missing ingredient is that we as citizens (through out Reps) don't know exactly what they're doing.


I'll give you another from the spy files. They very well could have GPS tracking in some of these guys they release. They could know exactly what they're doing. They're hoping one of them will lead to a group. Perhaps.

[Tom]

"I'll give you another from the spy files. They very well could have GPS tracking in some of these guys they release. They could know exactly what they're doing. They're hoping one of them will lead to a group. Perhaps."

Good plan if they do it.
But I am sure Sec would object to that, too.

[hcap]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050622/pl_nm/security_iraq_cia_dc_1


Iraq is now a terrorist training ground, CIA says

Wed Jun 22, 2:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The
CIA believes the
Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s
Afghanistan war that gave rise to
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, a U.S. counterterrorism official said on Wednesday.

A classified report from the U.S. spy agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of deadly skills, from car bombings and assassinations to tightly coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, the official said.

Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.

But the May report, which has been widely circulated in the intelligence community, also cites a potential threat to the United States.

[hcap]

Originally babbled by KaKabonglittle girl,
Why is it every time I bring up 1998 (when GWB was not the prez), you redirect the rant of yours to the Bush era?
Well for starters Clinton did not invade Iraq. Bush did.
Clinton only lied about sex, not war.

The DSM that I qouted ...

"The obvious explanation was that air defences were being degraded deliberately and that any provocation by the Iraqi military would be met with a disproportionate response"...After months of inactivity, RAF bombers dropped nearly 5 tonnes of bombs on Iraq in May 2002, the time the US decided to lay the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq. In September 2002, the RAF dropped more than 20 tonnes of bombs, according to official figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats.

So our fearless leeder, was goading Saddam into making a mistake and retaliating, and softening up his AA and radar.

300+Iraquis dead, thousands of Iraquis injured.
Not one plane or airmen lost in 10's of thousands of no fly missions.
Btw, I was not in favor of billy boy supporting the NFZ's
Nor was I happy with his war adventures. But compared to the dress- up flyboy running the show now, Clinton was a military genious.

[hcap]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2005/tt050623.gif

HeHeHe.
Then hire the impeachment lawyers.
Then sell the crawford ranch, cause The Hague don't give time off for good behaviour.
HeHeHe.

And don't expect any help from "turd blossom"

http://hoffmania.blogspot.com/RoveThumbNose.jpg

He has his own problems.

[PaceAdvantage]

You guys are all talk. When are the hearings scheduled to start?

[lsbets]

DO you notice how ever since it came out that the memo was not authentic and no one could verify its contents, it has dropped out of the headlines. Anyone else notice that?

[Tom]

Dan Rather doing some work on the side during his retirement? :D

[Secretariat]

DO you notice how ever since it came out that the memo was not authentic and no one could verify its contents, it has dropped out of the headlines. Anyone else notice that?

Not sure what you're talking about. See below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

[lsbets]

Sec - that MSNBC piece was from June 14th! Today is the 24th. It came out at the end of last week that the "DSM" could not be verified. Come on, where has it been in the news since it came out that this might be another Dan Rather special? Nowhere - no one wants to touch it now when all you have is the word of a reporter and "anonymous sources". I hate to disappoint you, but you have to find something new to hang your hat on, the DSM has sunk like a stone.

[Secretariat]

Sec - that MSNBC piece was from June 14th! Today is the 24th. It came out at the end of last week that the "DSM" could not be verified. Come on, where has it been in the news since it came out that this might be another Dan Rather special? Nowhere - no one wants to touch it now when all you have is the word of a reporter and "anonymous sources". I hate to disappoint you, but you have to find something new to hang your hat on, the DSM has sunk like a stone.

You must be listening to Rush or something.

Michael Smith who broke the story published an aritcle in the Times today so the story isn't dying. Scott McClellan said this today when asked about DSM:

"MR. McCLELLAN: I think Prime Minister Blair addressed this very issue. They were memos relating to the United Kingdom and he addressed the issue in a news conference"

Well, Mr. Blair has NOT denied that the memos are authentic, and in fact Straw has spoken about the issues in it. I realize you want Dan Rather to be involved in this, but this is conservative MSNBC and that is why I posted a link (what 10 days old?). Hardly, ancient...

I see we lost 6 more American soldiers in Fallujah today - 3 American women, with 11 wounded American women. This one day after Casey testifies that Fallujah is under control to the Senate.

I'm not going to rehash the Iraq debate with you, but to try and equate the DSM with Rather and the Bush AWOL story is abusrd. There is no connection. Across the pond Blair has not challenged the legitimacy of the memos, and as McClellan said for the WH today, Blair addressed these issues at a news conference. Now you can argue that the memos don't ask for a full scale Iraqi invasion pre-UN vote and pre-Congressional, but your hope that they are not authentic certainly flies in the face of Blair's comments.

[lsbets]

Sec, it sounds like you're gloating that we lost soldiers today. I really hope you're not.

[Secretariat]

Sec, it sounds like you're gloating that we lost soldiers today. I really hope you're not.

Gloating?!!! I'm disgusted and saddened. How in the world do you read my post as gloating?

I'm pissed and angry that Casey can make such a bold statement to the Senate and we can lose three women and have eleven wounded in a supposedly "secure" situation. gloating...gimme an f..ing break!

[Suff]

This is one of those.... It makes to much sense questions.

If we have 135K US Troops in Iraq, and we have trained nearly 100K Iraqi troops, does'nt that mean we now have 235 Uniformed Military Personnel fighting the insurgency?

Would'nt it follow that less attacks should be occuring?

[lsbets]

Gee Sec, maybe Casey understands what is happenning there just a little bit better than you do.

[Secretariat]

Gee Sec, maybe Casey understands what is happenning there just a little bit better than you do.

Well, you couldn't tell from what happened today, or from General Abazaid's testimony.

[Tom]

If I hear one more time that Bush will not set a timetable for getting out of Iraq I will puke. He is just spinning the whole issue. I don't want a timeline, I want a list of milestones - what SPECIFIC events, A,B,C need to happen before we get out?

He won't give you these either, because he doesn't know what they are.

He doesn't even want to be notifeid when the White House might be under attack! Don't interupct his bike riding - with something so trivial as an attack!:faint:

[46zilzal]

Newsview: Bush Losing Support for Iraq War

Associated Press

President Bush is casting about for ways to turn the tide of
public opinion on Iraq. He is running into a growing level of skepticism,new strains in Republican unity and more frequent comparisons to the Vietnam conflict of almost four decades ago.

I don't think anybody will be able to watch that speech without wondering where is the banner saying `Mission Accomplished" said Anthony H. Cordesman,
an Iraq expert and former Pentagon intelligence official.

At a White House meeting on Friday with Iraq's interim prime minister, Bush said he would not lay out a U.S. withdrawal strategy or bow to pressure
from war critics. "I'm not giving up on the mission," Bush said.

[Tom]

This is one of those.... It makes to much sense questions.

If we have 135K US Troops in Iraq, and we have trained nearly 100K Iraqi troops, does'nt that mean we now have 235 Uniformed Military Personnel fighting the insurgency?

Would'nt it follow that less attacks should be occuring?

Suff, what is happening over there is that thousands on NEW insurgents are flowing into Iraq over the Syrian border. Bush is "border-challenged" as we all know :rolleyes:

So just think of these new attacks as being committed by "guest insurgents!"

[wonatthewire1]

thousands on NEW insurgents are flowing into Iraq over the Syrian border

So are there more "terrorists" now in 2005 than there were before 9/11/2001?

Just askin'...

[Tom]

Yes, many more. But prior to 9-11 they were not simply "innocent" citizens, either. They have opportunity now that they didn't have before.

Terrorism is not a small, limited "club" - it is a culture that is growing.

That we are killing them a hundred at a time is good compared to how many we have been killing earlier in the year, but bad compared to how many we could be killing if we were get serious about the war on terror.

Frankly, just color all of Sorry Arabia and Pakistan as being all terroists. We know Bin Laden is being protected by Pakistan, but we still treat them as an ally. I guess that part about harboring terrosits was speech filler and not really policy.

[Suff]

Suff, what is happening over there is that thousands on NEW insurgents are flowing into Iraq over the Syrian border. Bush is "border-challenged" as we all know :rolleyes:

So just think of these new attacks as being committed by "guest insurgents!"


From Todays NYTimes. Sunday 6-25-05. Side note.... What do you think the Print edition of the SUNDAY TIMES cost? $4.50! 4 dollar fiddy for a paypa!

The issue of troop levels is so delicate that the commanding officer here, Col. Stephen W. Davis, refuses to allow their true numbers to be publicly released. If insurgents learned the figure, he says, it would pose a safety risk for his marines. He does acknowledge what is widely known - that most of the 300-mile border with Syria, a major entry point for foreign militants, is unguarded, and the most important crossing point, in Husayba, a town near the Euphrates River, has been closed for seven months because troops simply cannot control the flow
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/international/middleeast/26karabila.html?

[46zilzal]

thousands on NEW insurgents are flowing into Iraq over the Syrian border

So are there more "terrorists" now in 2005 than there were before 9/11/2001?
the rutabaga gave them a cause "if you build it ...they will come"

[JPinMaryland]

Over by 2009? Hey didnt you get the memo? NBC news just said it might take 10 or 12 years! They said it twice, interspersed it with footage of Rumsfeld talking but still I did not catch a source for the 10 or 12 year figure.


Did anyone see a source on that?

[JustRalph]

as long as they are fightin over there........they aren't fighting over here. Remember, they tend to kill 3000 a shot when they do it here............

[wonatthewire1]

The "12 years" is a direct quote from Rumsfield available in this article from today:

http://tinyurl.com/b5eou

At $900 million per week; that would effectively bankrupt the country and not allow for effectively deterring the N Koreans and the Iranians and the Chinese from carrying out their plans for the future...

It'll be an interesting time > though I don't think there is a politican alive that can pull it off in the long run...take care to eliminate all of your debts > its going to be a rocky ride! :(

[Tom]

From Todays NYTimes. Sunday 6-25-05. Side note.... What do you think the Print edition of the SUNDAY TIMES cost? $4.50! 4 dollar fiddy for a paypa!



50 cents more and they gotta put in past performances!:D

[46zilzal]

The Bush team sent in too few troops to fight the war leading to today's chaos and rising deaths of Americans and Iraqis. Terrorists are "pouring in" to Iraq.

Basic living standards are worse than a year ago in Iraq. Civil war is perilously close to erupting there. Allies aren't helping much. The American public is losing its trust in President Bush's handling of the conflict.

And Hagel's deep fear is that it will all plunge into another Vietnam debacle, prompting Congress to force another abrupt pullout as it did in 1975.

"What we don't want to happen is for this to end up another Vietnam," Hagel told the legionnaires, "because the consequences would be catastrophic."

[Bobby]

yea, the Bush Administration is really spinning hard these days

Cheney: insurgents in the "last throes" of fighting

Rumsfield: 10-12 more years to finish off the insurgents. The US probably gone by then? I doubt it. Not completely. We'll still be in Kuwait for sure.

Bush: planning a major speech about IRAQ per CNN

SO WHERE DOES THIS administration stand? VP says one thing. Def Sec says another. Wonder what Bush will say?

[46zilzal]

Wonder what Bush will say?
well if he were Pinocchio I would keep the camera far back from him!

[46zilzal]

your fearless leader speaks like this:"The relations with, uhh -- Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh -- because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know -- European values, they're universal values. And those values -- uhh -- being universal, ought to be applied everywhere."
-- Dubya goes "values crazy" in press conference with EU dignitaries, White House, Jun. 20, 2005

this is the kind of clown that leads????

[PaceAdvantage]

All this bellyaching is unbecoming.....

[46zilzal]

There is a CLOWN at the helm reminds me of a character form the movie CLUELESS

[JustRalph]

There is a CLOWN at the helm reminds me of a character form the movie CLUELESS

I am sure you meant to use the word "from" and not "form"

Jesus Christ PA! Is this the kind of knucklehead you allow to post on this board? This asshole can't even spell...........Take away his right to speak and lead, right now!

Better than that.........stand him up in front of 75 Dickhead reporters who are all out to make him say something he will regret........then make him SPELL!

[46zilzal]

weak..eveyone makes typo's

[46zilzal]

........Take away his right to speak and lead, right now!

still trying to figure out this line. typical of folks when there is dissent: get rid of them!!!

or could it have been a dreaded TYPO??

[JPinMaryland]

RUmsfeld actually said 10 or 12 years? Gee, on the one hand I have to give the guy some credit for actually being forthcoming, on the other hand what the fawwwww???


"US still around in 10 years." Oh sure, we'll still be here. We are after all the lone super power. No one's gonna knock us off right away.

[Tom]

Jesus Christ PA! Is this the kind of knucklehead you allow to post on this board? This asshole can't even spell...........Take away his right to speak and lead, right now!



Uh, Jr, can I talk to you for a minute...privately? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

[Suff]

I am sure you meant to use the word "from" and not "form"
then make him SPELL!

JFK could read 1400 words a minute. However his spelling was atrocious. His spelling was so bad, that from college through his Presidency he typed every single piece of written communication.

I like to follow in the footstpes of Great Irish Liberal Democrats!

[JustRalph]

Uh, Jr, can I talk to you for a minute...privately? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

come on! Suff, you telling me you didn't get it either............

Tom.....I don't even know what to say............:D

[46zilzal]

(CNN) -- The number of Americans disapproving of President Bush's job performance has risen to the highest level of his presidency, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

According to the poll, 53 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's performance, compared to 45 percent who approved.

The 53 percent figure was the highest disapproval rating recorded in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll since Bush became president in January 2001.

OR, Most Americans Dispute White House Assessment of Weakened Insurgency, Post-ABC Survey Finds

By Richard Morin / Washington Post

A majority of Americans reject claims by the Bush administration that the insurgency in Iraq is weakening and are divided on whether victory over the insurgents will have a major impact on terrorism elsewhere in the world, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Barely one in five Americans -- 22 percent -- say they believe that the insurgency is getting weaker while 24 percent believe it is strengthening. More than half -- 53 percent -- say resistance to U.S. and Iraqi government forces has not changed.

[PaceAdvantage]

weak..eveyone makes typo's

You didn't get the joke, did you? Just proves the point that you guys need to get out more, and have a little fun.

[hcap]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/The_unofficial_war_U.S._and_Britain_led_massive_ai r_campaign_before_Iraq_war_be_0627.html

...starting in late May to June of 2002 a flurry of activity began both in the United States and in the Middle East. In what appears to be an admission of covert activity, chief allied air force commander Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley divulged in a little-noticed quote in the New York Times that US/British aircraft flew 21,736 sorties between June 2002 and March 2003.

Moseley said that some 600 tons of munitions were dropped before the official start of the war, targeting 391 locations and/or installations.

..The nine months of allied raids “laid the foundations” for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.

...GlobalSecurity.org, a military defense group, raised concerns about the air strikes when they mushroomed in early 2002, though their worries produced few press reports.

The group saw the strikes as a means by which the U.S. could degrade Iraqi defensive capabilities, and as a precursor to a declared war.

“It was no big secret at the time,” GlobalSecurity.org director John Pike told RAW STORY. “It was apparent to us at the time that they were doing it and why they were doing it, and that was part of the reason why we were convinced that a decision to go to war had already been made, because the war had already started.”

http://rawstory2.com/images/bombings.GIF

[Kreed]

What will 43 say to us? More lies? Probably. Just what this country cannot
endure & still hold its head high. Just sound bytes / pre-programmed rehearsed
infoTainment yacking. THINK. Suppose a budding journalist, so excited with
the thought of appearing in print or on the Public Airwaves, just CONS us
once again, urging us to BUY this product or ACCEPT this idea etc etc. Now
its all planned out of course. Is the idea good for us? The product better than
marginal? IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THESE GUYS. Then, again, maybe its a
longshot, but could 43 Level with us just this once?

[46zilzal]

but could 43 Level with us just this once?
NOT in his nature

[46zilzal]

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

[ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]

[Bobby]

2nITE

He will give us a "clear strategy" in Iraq per CNN. :D

This is what everyone has been waiting for 4 like 2 years.

[46zilzal]

Even as they expressed continued support for Mr. Bush and his goals, influential Republicans said Karl Rove and the White House political operation have been slow to shift from campaign mode, with its base-energizing positions, to an approach that allows for more compromise and increases the probability of Mr. Bush signing legislation that directly addresses the everyday concerns of voters.

"The tone has been too much of a permanent campaign," said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker. "When you're the minority, you need to fight. When you're the governing majority, you need to produce."

[46zilzal]

AMERICAN MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 1743
AMERICAN MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 13074
source: antiwar.com

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS (MINIMUM): 22582
source: iraqbodycount.net

[Tom]

2nITE

He will give us a "clear strategy" in Iraq per CNN. :D

This is what everyone has been waiting for 4 like 2 years.

Don't hold your breath - he will tell us nothing of any improtance and will only piss off a lot of people doing so. He has nothing to say because because he has no plan.

First question - outside terrorists are flowing in ver the Syrina border - hjo wwill you protect it and stop the influx of terror.

First answer - Huh?

(This guy has serious problems with borders - ours, Iraq's Alabama's - what state was he supposed to be in again?)

Must have flunked geography.

Break of the DVD's tonight - I've got Survivor, First Season. Now, richard Hatch had a more detailed plan then Georges does! :D

[46zilzal]

Don't hold your breath - he will tell us nothing of any improtance
First question - outside terrorists are flowing in ver the Syrina border - hjo wwill you protect it and stop the influx of terror.

watch out Ralph has put on his teacher's robes and correcting for SPELLING, not content

[46zilzal]

Platitudes upon more platitudes......wish I had counted the number of times he used the word FREEDOM. Needs a thesarus. we are PREVAILING????

Reminds me of Judge Judy's book "Don't tell me it's raining while you're peeing on my leg.".... or the woman who goes to see her son marching with other troops, and while he is out of step she proclaims "Look at all those other fellows who are OUT OF STEP."

George "Go home and take all that WASTED $$$$$$$ and help your own country."

[Kreed]

Of course, you are 100% right. Wasted Billions. This administration blows
huge bucks then skimps ... but in general, it was a B- Political speech.
Nothing at all new. No Timetable. No metric of success. Vintage Bush.
Swagger (thats ok) BUT no punch. On a very different but sad note, my
firm has decided to downgrade its investment in the USA. We are in big
financial trouble & that will become more apparent --- and yes, what a waste
when you cater to religious uneducated zombies & neglect that Money is really
the driving force to everything.

[JustRalph]

what a waste when you cater to religious uneducated zombies & neglect that Money is really the driving force to everything.

A very sad statement................probably more truth than fiction.........and I am sure you make this statement in a more broad economic context? On a personal level ( as in a credo to live a persons life by) I think it would be most untrue.........

[PaceAdvantage]

watch out Ralph has put on his teacher's robes and correcting for SPELLING, not content

You still don't get that post, do you? It wasn't about spelling at all....I thought you were more clued in than this....

[46zilzal]

afraid you will have to SPELL IT OUT TO ME

[dav4463]

Hey why don't we just give up and do what the rest of the world wants us to do ? Let's cater to everybody else and forget about our own people. Let's just bow down to the dictators of the world and make sure we call France or somebody to make sure it is OK to stand up for ourselves. If we get attacked, let's just try to reason with them and apologize for them having to attack us. We need to understand their frustrations.......Let's just appoint a figurehead with no power to go to the UN and say...the US is at your mercy, do with us what you will.......Is that what we want ?

[Suff]

Hey why don't we just give up and do what the rest of the world wants us to do ? Let's cater to everybody else and forget about our own people. Let's just bow down to the dictators of the world and make sure we call France or somebody to make sure it is OK to stand up for ourselves. If we get attacked, let's just try to reason with them and apologize for them having to attack us. We need to understand their frustrations.......Let's just appoint a figurehead with no power to go to the UN and say...the US is at your mercy, do with us what you will.......Is that what we want ?

I don't understand your reasoning....as a matter of fact , it is opinions like this that make me question exactly what we are doing. Perhaps if your not to busy, or offended you can expound on your points?

Hey why don't we just give up and do what the rest of the world wants us to do ?

I interprut this to mean, the reason we should stay at WAR is because people (countrys?) don't want us to? IS that a Reason for War? That strikes me as a stubborn view. It also assumes that Billions of people, and 100's of countrys are simaltanously wrong.

Let's cater to everybody else and forget about our own people.

Who is this "everybody"? And how would altering course be catering to them? Do you mean Europe? France? And again, if the data suggests a course change might be beneificial, then not doing it, simply because it is in line with detractors is also a stubborn way to do business. Further, at this time I fail to see how the IRAQ situation benefits "our own people"?

Let's just bow down to the dictators of the world and make sure we call France or somebody to make sure it is OK to stand up for ourselves.

No single , or combined force on the planet is or has been more dominate than the United States of America has over the last 100 years. Your putting us in a posistion where you make us sound like Victims? That we've been unable to forward our agenda, and our security in todays world. When in fact , America, and its priorties are the single most dominate force in more human Beings lives, since Rome. Bowing down? I don't see it. We DOMINATE everywhere we stick our toe.

I ask questions....and these questions sometimes make to much sense to me... so I post them. Honestly, to see if if anyne else thinks like me. Can I ask you a question?

Bush says he does'nt want to set a Timetable for Withdrawal? Correct?
The reason he gives is that the Insurgents will just wait us out. They'll know we're leaving in one years, or two years time. I say... GREAT! That gives us two years of No attacks to build thier infrastructure, train thier army, build thier Poltical system , and win the hearts and minds of the Fence sitters?

Does'nt that make sense to you? Two years of No dead Americans? Tow years of no "30 iraqi" killed?

I must be stupid... this makes to much sense to me

[PaceAdvantage]

If it results in no attacks during that time period, then it makes perfect sense. I just don't see how one can assume the insurgency will lie dormant during the time remaining until troop exit.

Here's an interesting question:

The hatred for George W. Bush by his detractors has been more than evident ever since the election of 2000. This was before 9/11, before Iraq, etc. etc.

This man was CLEARLY despised by many, many folks before ANY of the major events of his Presidency EVER took place.

With that being said, do you guys honestly believe that the conflict in Iraq would be looked upon with as much negativity as it currently is by the anti-Bush crowd if he had been a more "likeable" President at the start of his administration?

I know this might sound offensive to some, but I believe the situation in Iraq (from the negative side) is being way overblown, precisely because there is a built in hatred for Bush that has existed since Bush/Gore 2000. I don't believe an honest discourse of this war can exist until that bias is removed, which is apparently impossible.

[Bobby]

Yes, I think you are right PA.

Too much built up resentment for him on inauguration 1/20/00. The reason, of course, is that he lost the popular vote in 2000, yet the SUMPREMES gave him the election. So that's understandable in a way.

[wonatthewire1]

If I may...

I know this might sound offensive to some, but I believe the situation in Iraq (from the negative side) is being way overblown, precisely because there is a built in hatred for Bush that has existed since Bush/Gore 2000.

There are a few "other" reasons for the disparage on the other side beyond simply "hating" Bush (if I recall correctly and please feel free to correct me > Clinton wasn't exactly loved by the "other side")...

1. We invaded a country without being attacked by that country (nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, doesn't count)

2. We have been given numerous "reasons" for this invasion and those reasons have changed whenever the prior reason was determined to be unfounded (see Iraq's nuclear program, WMD's, etc.)

3. We were originally told that "Iraq's oil would pay for the war effort" > how many barrels have been pumped and put into the reconstruction of Iraq?

4. Our troops are not properly supplied to do the job ("You go with the army you have, not the one you wished you had" > strange, when planning an invasion don't you think they'd do it right)

5. There are no concrete plans being proffered by the administration

6. Osama is still at large

7. We've compromised our standing in the world and other countries (like China) are stepping up their efforts to gain economic

These were just off the top of my head :eek:

So, yes, it is a difficult job to "sell" the country on the Iraq war and yes, we as a country are responsible for that coming to being > whether we voted for the current President or not...

The message he is giving is getting old > even the people who love him where I work were commenting on this today.

Yes, the rhetoric is getting pushed up by both sides > there is a Congressional election in 2006 > they are all just getting revved up :rolleyes:

The 2 that bother me as an independent? Numbers 4 and 6.

[46zilzal]

well put

[PaceAdvantage]

But doesn't really address my point....just another rehash of well worn criticisms...

[JustRalph]

Yes, I think you are right PA.

Too much built up resentment for him on inauguration 1/20/00. The reason, of course, is that he lost the popular vote in 2000, yet the SUMPREMES gave him the election. So that's understandable in a way.

Your hypothesis is invalid. He won the election under the system that has been in place for 200 years. The Supremes enforced the law. As written. If your hypothesis was valid, the fact that he won the popular vote last year would allow him much greater admiration. It doesn't. There have been several investigations into the election of 2000 and all have found that Bush won. Fair and square. The law was applied and the system worked. Yet you still cling to this tired assumption..............it is the normal divide that exists and has for years. It is much more acute today..........and the tide is changing.

[wonatthewire1]

You asked the question and those are the answers...no refutations?

Sorry if the answers are "rehashed" though many feel that the President should get a new speechwriter, the last one he had quit in January of 2002...

Enjoy! :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

The only question I asked was if the anti-Bush crowd would be hammering as hard at the negatives if it wasn't GWB at the helm, instead of a more "likeable" President. I think the negatives are blown way out of proportion.

I didn't actually ask for a RELISTING of the negatives....oh well...maybe I could have written my thoughts more clearly so that they were better understood....

My bad I guess...and what's with the laughter icon? There really is nothing funny about this...

[JPinMaryland]

You're asking a hypothetical that no one can answer. You might as well ask what would happene if Secretariat and Dr. Fager squared off? Or what would happen if Citation didnt have osseolets?

If there was an answer to your question, what would it matter? We are where we are at this pt. in time. I dont see how answering hypotheticals help us much. Clinton caught a lot of criticism for the Lewinsky missiles as well as the bombing of Serbia. ANd he was more popular than Bush.

Maybe that helps answer the question maybe not.

[wonatthewire1]

DNA on a blue dress (Clinton)

"no new taxes" (Bush I)

"make my day" (Reagan)

Double digit interest rates (Carter)

"I'm not a crook" (Nixon)

I think that covers about 30 years of hammering > when you are at the top, you're gonna get hammered > that is the downside of a democracy (to those at the top)

But the hubris is not helping them that much > it would have been a much better strategy to downplay the cowboy act (what happened to the Texas "accent" last night?) and up-lift the vision of the administration's plan...

That's what real leaders do...

[JustRalph]

That's what real leaders do...

They also do what they think is right, even when the knives and swords come out. I think that describes this President. I am not very happy with him, but it is for much different reasons than the usual anti-Bush crowd. But you have to admire him for sticking to his guns.

[lsbets]

4. Our troops are not properly supplied to do the job ("You go with the army you have, not the one you wished you had" > strange, when planning an invasion don't you think they'd do it right)


That is the biggest crock of shit that has been put out there by either side in this war. We have the best trained, best equipped military in the history of the world. If anything, there is enormous abuse of the unlimited supply funds available in Iraq. If you want it and can justify it (and the justification only needs to be slightly better than weak), you get it, and quickly, one hell of a change from peacetime where it takes forever to get simple GSA catalog items. What pisses me off so much about that myth and those who spread it, is it causes families to worry about things they shouldn't have to when they have more than enough to worry about with their families members away at war. I can't tell you how many times my wife got a phone call from one of my soldier's spouses after they saw some bullshit story on TV and they were hysterically upset because they thought their soldier wasn't getting everything they needed.

I'm not pointing my finger at you won, you've heard that crap from so many politicians I don't blame you for thinking its true. But to the politicians who lie to score political points and the reporters who print crap without checking facts and then cause even more worry to the families of our servicemen and women than they would normally have, I say F You, you should be ashamed of yourselves!

[PaceAdvantage]

Where were these guys "worrying about soldiers" when our troops' standard of living was reported to be around the poverty line back in the 90's during the "whoop it up" Clinton years....all that money flying around....were you guys crying for the horrible treatment of our troops back then?

Now all of a sudden, Bush sends them to war, and you guys care oh SO much...how quaint.

[wonatthewire1]

I guess the father and the son could be lying...

http://tinyurl.com/896gd

I know that the story is from 11 days ago > so ancient history...as well as sorting through garbage dumps for metal to plate unarmored Humvee's...

Remember PA, Ronnie distroyed Communism > we didn't need a military any longer > and Clinton bought that one hook, line and sinker > oops forgot to remember that the future can be a tricky partner to dance with

The looming threat is much further East of Iraq, in time, it shall be much clearer to all.

From a business sense, I've seen plenty of business leaders stick to their guns and go Chapter 11.

[wonatthewire1]

oh are we discussing career military troops or National Guardsmen and women?

[lsbets]

I'm a Resercist and my enitre company was reservists, and except for an active duty battalion headquarters the whole battalion was Reserve and National Guard.

The story you linked to doesn't sound right. I don't buy it - for one, the Interceptor Body Armor costs about $1200. Two - all of my guys were issued 3 different camel backs, two pairs of Wiley X ballistic goggles, a brand new leatherman, and a brand new Benchmade knife - all of which we got to keep when we returned home. I think I was a pretty good company commander, but I wasn't that good where I got stuff no one else incountry had. I bought my own GPS because the military ones suck, and I bought a few other knives to carry. It sounds to me like the kid wants to buy some cool stuff and have Dad foot the bill, and Dad fell for what he said. I really don't feel like rehashing the humvee thing, I've gone through it a million times here, but the simple fact is, if a vehicle does not have armor on it, it does not cross the border from Kuwait into Iraq unless it is being transported on the back of a flatbed, and its been that way since May 2004. Again, I was good but not that good, and every vehicle in my company had armor, and that armor was constantly improved the whole time we were there, sometimes through soldier innovation, and sometimes when cool shit came through the supply system. There was no sorting through garbage dumps - it was going into a field where departing units took the armor off their vehicles and stacked it up for incoming units to take to armor up theirs. I know - I had to stack all of the armor from all of my vehicles before we could get on the plane to come home.

[JPinMaryland]

It's always interesting to hear from people who have been over there. thanks for posting that.

[Tom]

The only question I asked was if the anti-Bush crowd would be hammering as hard at the negatives if it wasn't GWB at the helm, instead of a more "likeable" President. I think the negatives are blown way out of proportion.

I didn't actually ask for a RELISTING of the negatives....oh well...maybe I could have written my thoughts more clearly so that they were better understood....

My bad I guess...and what's with the laughter icon? There really is nothing funny about this...

Well, I'll take a shot at an answer. I was never a Bush supporter, I was anti-Gore. I posted here that I would vote for Bush because if we ever had an international crisis (Yikes! I could never have predicted 9-11!) that at lest we would have a guy with the right team in place to answer it. I was vindicated on that count. I have bent over backwards trying to support Bush, but I can't support him anymore. He lied about the air quality reports post 9-11, he lied in his state of the union speech (the 7 words), and he is now lying by supressing research about illegal border crossings because the answers are not what he wants to hear. I posted here that I could never believe a word Clinton said because he lied about Monica. I gave Bush three strikes to Bill's one.

I think we are doing the right thing in Iraq, but for the wrong reasons. The only scenario that plays out right in my mind is that the war war pre-ordaned to redeem his daddy. The ends were in spite of the means.

I do not believe Bush is the guy to make our country safe. He ignores our borders, he belittles real Americans trying to do something to defend it, and, in fact, his ridiculous crap about guest worklers has increased illegal crossings because many now believe amnesty is assurred to them. He sucks up to evil empires (China, Sorry Arabia), he gives money to evil people who use it against us! Israel - $3 billioin a year, and they are selling hi-tech stuff to Red China - stuff that can take out our air-craft carriers, and he is trying to give billions to China itself so they can build four neclear reactors! We kn ow basically where Bin LAden is hiding, yet bow down to Pakistan and not go in after him.

Almost four years after 9-11, the FBI STILL doens't share terrorist info and names with the State Department - who only issue passports!

No, I don't hate Bush on general principles - he earned my hate on many, many, issues.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tom,

The truly frightening thing is that you will likely never (at least in your lifetime) hear a politician come forth with a plan to solve all of the very real, and very solvable issues you just presented.

I sympathize with you as a fellow American.

[dav4463]

I honestly believe that based on the intelligence at the time President Clinton would've done the same thing that President Bush did ....invade Iraq. This country would not be as anti-Clinton as they are anti-Bush because so many people have an irrational hatred of President Bush. Why ? I don't know. Clinton played the saxaphone and went on MTV I guess and Bush comes across as a redneck....who knows ? It just seems to be the "in" thing to hate Bush. I'm sick of it. No matter what he decides to do, it will be viewed as wrong by the Bush-haters. I'll address the other questions later as I am running late tonight....

[PaceAdvantage]

Does anyone else get the feeling that if Bush had decided NOT to invade Iraq, he would be getting whacked over the head at this very moment for NOT being decisive enough and letting Saddam get away with WMDs.....

It's always bizzaro world as far as Bush and his critics are concerned....

[Tom]

PA, of course they would. they were all over him for 9-11, it would have been logical to get on him again for not going in for the WMD, which, I hate to state one more time, but, those WMD that virtually everyone agreed he had and would use - including top democrates.


This is where the libs go wrong - they look at someting and say, Bush did this, so it must be wrong.

They still are whinnig about him winning the 2000 lection the only legitimate way one can win - in the electoral college. They say the Kourt put him in office...but the alternative what that fat guy holding a paper ballot up to the light, squinting to see if the chads were bent, folded, or mutilated. Him, they got no issues with! :lol: :lol: :lol: :faint: :sleeping:

[JPinMaryland]

Wait a second! Not everyone. I for one figured that WMD thing was BS. Hell there was a newspaper article saying that Nigerian aluminum tube thing was a hoax. the only counter to that was, "yeah, but there so much evidence for Saddam and WMD that this Nigerian tube thing was just a rogue agent piling on."

Given all that, it was not hard to figure out that the WMD was BS.

Okay so a lot of peons figured it out. But it's also true as you alluded to that there was a kind of mass hypnosis out there. Few politicians mustered any courage and same goes for the media, at least the print and TV media. So yeah, a lot of people just went along for the ride.

Of course Kerry's campaign theme was "I'd do the same thing as Bush only I'd do it better." And "maybe we can bring the boys home in about six months."

Yeah great campaign strategy dude.

Okay so yes you are making some good pts. but lets be fair. Not EVERYBODY fell for that WMD crap.

I mean c'mon there was some pentagon guy testifying in front of Congress right before the war and he claimed that Saddam had these tiny little vessels that could cruise the high seas and launch missiles just ten minutes away from the US. That was just so preposterous.

Oh while we're at it riddle me this:

The presdent blamed the NSC and all these guys for feeding him the wrong info about WMD and yet it was also shown that these very same agency also sent a warning to Bush not to use that WMD BS in one of his speeches.

So how is that possible? Stupid agency is SO DUMB that they get totally wrong info and get a false positve on WMD and then at the very same time they manage to tell the pres. not to run w/ that WMD story it's BS.

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? you tell me.

[PaceAdvantage]

Given all that, it was not hard to figure out that the WMD was BS.

Okay so yes you are making some good pts. but lets be fair. Not EVERYBODY fell for that WMD crap.

Fair? You're being fair? You act as if WMD was a creation of the current Bush administration. How is that being fair? You act as if they originated this idea of Saddam having WMDs. How is that being fair?

You have the benefit of 20/20 vision here.

Not everybody fell for that WMD crap? What crap? At the time, it certainly wasn't crap!

Few politicians mustered any courage? Courage about what? Courage to go against almost every official Iraqi investigation published over the last 10-15 years?

[JPinMaryland]

why dont you answer the question I posed at the end of the posting?

[46zilzal]

Secret air campaign against Iraq?

Christian Science Monitor

Most American media have focused on the allegations from the Downing Street memo that the Bush administration was going to "fix" the intelligence in order to justify the war against Iraq. Now the reporter who broke the original story says they have missed a more substantial allegation to arise from the same set of leaked documents.

Michael Smith, defense writer for the Sunday Times of London wrote this past Sunday that "The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began." (This bombing capaign is referred to in the Downing Street memo.)

Addressing a briefing on lessons learned from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started. The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.

[wonatthewire1]

1. Iran & Iraq were at war for years in the 1990s and fought to a draw and used up most of their military

2. The reason why the US felt that WMD's were a possibility in Iraq was that we supplied Saddam with them (see # 1 above for rationale) but didn't really understand that most of that stuff was used in the war with Iran...

[PaceAdvantage]

2. The reason why the US felt that WMD's were a possibility in Iraq was that we supplied Saddam with them (see # 1 above for rationale) but didn't really understand that most of that stuff was used in the war with Iran...

Does this #2 still make sense when you consider the first Gulf War happened after the Iran/Iraq war and before the current Iraqi conflict?

[PaceAdvantage]

why dont you answer the question I posed at the end of the posting?

I thought it was a rhetorical question...

[JPinMaryland]

Funny I thought the same thing about your post of 6:16 am...

[PaceAdvantage]

6:16am? You beter go into UserCp and adjust your time setting!! LOL

That post was made at 2:16am....if you are in Maryland, it should read the same time....

In any event, I ended up answering most all of the questions myself that I posted in that note @ 2:16am (6:16am??) Yes, most if not all were rhetorical. I didn't expect you to answer them. But then again, I never posted a follow up asking why you didn't answer them.....