Poll Supports keeping US troops in Iraq [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Secretariat

02-21-2007, 12:16 PM

Public Opinion Strategies Poll of data from Feb 5-7.

57% "support finishing the job in Iraq.
By 53-43 Americans believe victory is still possible.
Only 17% want an "immediate" withdrawal.
59% believe it would hurt US prestige to pull out.

Only 25% of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the US leaves, I just want the troops brought home."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is this a joke? Are you serious? This is a Republican polling firm by its own admission in its home page. I imagine they polled 800 extremist Republicans. Look at their own page. Polls should try to be neutral.

http://www.pos.org/about/partners.asp

http://www.pos.org/about/vps.asp

Look at an actual polling report.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

Even FOX News has 57% disapproving of sending more troops to Iraq and that’s a lot of Republican viewers.

Thanks, gave me a good laugh today.

melman

02-21-2007, 12:28 PM

Glad you enjoyed it. Of Course always attack when you don't agree with a poll. :jump: I was expecting a claim that it was sponsered by a "big-oil company".

chickenhead

02-21-2007, 01:52 PM

Secs poll actually shows less people favoring immediate withdrawal than melmans. Since the tittle of the thread is:

Poll Supports keeping US troops in Iraq

I'm not sure why you're laughing Sec. Melmans poll has 17% wanting to pull out immediately. Your poll has 12% wanting to pull out immediately. If anything the poll you posted makes his point even stronger.

People do not support an immediate withdrawal. I believe that was his point, and that is what the data shows. Rather than focus on the data, you focus on who did the poll, and thus don;t even realize the data from the two polling agencies are in agreement.

Why am I not surprised?

robert99

02-21-2007, 02:42 PM

"By 53-43 Americans believe victory is still possible"

Victory?
Victory over who?
Victory for democracy?
How can this ever be claimed in any circumstance with so many dead and maimed from all "sides" after the war bit was won several years ago?

chickenhead

02-21-2007, 03:04 PM

I think of victory as us getting what we want; a stable western friendly Iraq. Defeat is getting a ruined terrorist state. In between is everything else.

chickenhead

02-21-2007, 03:24 PM

"By 53-43 Americans believe victory is still possible"

I'll just note again the similiarities between Secs series of polls and Melmans numbers.

Gallop has 47% of Americans saying that victory in Iraq is "likely". I think there are a lot of interesting things in these polls.

The most interesting set I found in Secs polls sum up my own feelings quite well.

"Do you think George W. Bush does or does not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?"

Does: 29%
Does Not: 69%

"Do you think the Democrats in Congress do or do not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?"

Do: 21%
Don't: 75%

Now a partisan Dem would focus on the Bush number. Only 29% think he has a plan! And the Repub would retort, That's more than have faith in you!

But a normal human looks at it and says shite...70% don't think anyone has a clear plan, that is mighty scary. And you can count me in that group.

Secretariat

02-21-2007, 05:02 PM

Chick,

You may be the only guy I know who could find a silver lining in overwhelming polls criticizing Bush. Even FOX polls.

btww... these arent my polls. I could post a Democratic poll that has reversed figures to his. The point is to try and find an established neutral poll, not one that advocates itself as a Republican pollster.

Zogby is considered a neutral poll.

I found this one of his interesting:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/washingtonwhispers/070220/doh_bush_way_worse_than_nixon.htm

"Zogby tells us that Bush is considered by voters the biggest presidential failure in the past 60 years. His failure rating: 30.2 percent, far more than Nixon's 23 percent. Zogby's polling asks voters simply to rate the presidents as great, near great, average, below average, and failure. We'll just focus on the "great" and "failure" ratings for presidents since FDR.

Roosevelt: 58.7 percent said he was great, making him the greatest in modern history. Just .02 percent called him a failure.

Truman: 26.5 percent great, 0.5 percent failure.

Ike: 21.1 percent great, 0.1 percent failure.

JFK: 43 percent great, 0.5 percent failure.

LBJ: 5.9 percent great, 7.6 percent failure.

Nixon: 4.5 percent great, 23 percent failure.

Ford: 17.5 percent great, 0.9 percent failure.

Carter: 13.5 percent great, 10.2 percent failure.

Reagan: 34.4 percent great, 3.7 percent failure.

George H.W. Bush: 10.3 percent great, 8.2 percent failure

Clinton: 21.1 percent great, 11 percent failure.

W: 7.9 percent great, 30.2 percent failure.

And that's not the only news. Zogby's January poll found that the older and smarter you are, the more you think Bush is a failure. The largest age group with that opinion is made up of those 50 to 64. And 32.4 percent of those with some college education think he stinks."

:D

lsbets

02-21-2007, 05:19 PM

Sec - if you would like people to believe you actually repsonded to Chick, it would help if anything you wrote had anything to do with what you were supposedly responding to. Maybe you're not dishonest, maybe you're just stupid.

Tom

02-21-2007, 06:20 PM

78% to 22%

You figure it out! :lol:

Roosevelt, Truman - terrible approval ratings - even lower than Bush's.
The thing to remeber is - polls mean BULLSHIT.

Polls reflect moment in time thinking by small numbers of poeple who answer based on recent stimuli - not intellignet thought processes.

Michicken complained yesterday that he was asked personal questions in order to register for news at DRF.com.
Heck, why worry about it - I just lied. Who knows? Who cares? DRF but nobody else. Besides, someday, they might need products tailored to Half-man, half wolf, who bets over $50,000 a year and is 90 years old! I'm just getting them ready early. :bang:

JustRalph

02-21-2007, 06:39 PM

Secretariat

02-21-2007, 08:50 PM

I think of victory as us getting what we want; a stable western friendly Iraq. Defeat is getting a ruined terrorist state. In between is everything else.

Chick,

This goes to the heart of the matter. "Victory is us getting what we want; a stable western friendly Iraq."

Is that acheivable through force? And your definition of victory differs from the President. A staunch conservative like Kissinger says we cannot achieve Bush's goal in iraq which I quoted here and Tom lambasted Kissinger (perhaps rightly so).

So I am listing what Gen. Odom has spoken of relating to victory recently to the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917.html

Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
By William E. Odom
Sunday, February 11, 2007; Page B01

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.
….

First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly "constitutional" -- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.

….

Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command.

- William E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, was head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan. He served on the National Security Council staff under Jimmy Carter. A West Point graduate with a PhD from Columbia, Odom teaches at Yale
and is a fellow of the Hudson Institute.

Tom

02-21-2007, 09:29 PM

You could say that about any war............. get real.....your stiff upper lip is showing............

Good point, Liberty, er, I mean Ralph. ;)

chickenhead

02-21-2007, 09:38 PM

sec -- do you have a point, or a question for me?

Tom

02-21-2007, 09:41 PM

Talking to Sec is like dancing the waltz while your partner is doing the bump!:D

Secretariat

02-21-2007, 11:08 PM

sec -- do you have a point, or a question for me?

Not a question. A point. The point is the definition of what constitutes "victory" in Iraq.

"Victory" is an easy word to use, but means different things to different people as regards Iraq.

My point is Gen. Odom and the NIE thinks Bush's conception of "victory" in Iraq is untenable.

For a man who promised to listen to his generals, and the intelligence (the NIE) he seems to be ignoring their warnings on his definition of "victory".

JustRalph

02-22-2007, 12:20 AM

Talking to Sec is like dancing the waltz while your partner is doing the bump!:D

more like the Hustle! :lol: :bang:

chickenhead

02-22-2007, 01:41 AM

My point is Gen. Odom and the NIE thinks Bush's conception of "victory" in Iraq is untenable.

None of us were talking about Bush's conception of victory, or General Odom, or the NIE. Thanks anyway.

Secretariat

02-22-2007, 12:31 PM

None of us were talking about Bush's conception of victory, or General Odom, or the NIE. Thanks anyway.

You brought up the point of "victory". Here's your quote:

"I think of victory as us getting what we want; a stable western friendly Iraq. Defeat is getting a ruined terrorist state. In between is everything else."

I stated I agreed you go to the heart of the matter. Defining what "victory" means is exactly "what" we're fighting for. However, my "point" was that Bush's definition of "victory" is untenable according to the NIE and General Odom. (See previous post on article)

You asked what my "point" was? My "point" is using those using slogans like Dem's are for failure or defeat, and we're for victory is easy to say. But defining "victory" as GW does is untenable according to the the NIE and Gen. Odoms.

If you want to know why we are keeping US troops in Iraq (the thread's title), then you need to know what the definition of victory is. I would think you'd be interested in the definition of victory as defined BY the Prez since our troop withdrawals (or need for escalations) will be determined by when that victory is met (or not met in terms of escalation).

chickenhead

02-22-2007, 01:25 PM

why would you think I don't know what the President thinks? He has talked about it ad nauseam. Did I ask you what the President thinks?

the thread is about what people think, not what the president thinks. Not everything is about the president.

Last night I watched a very fascinating interview with a NY Times reporter just back from Iraq. She has spent the last 3 years over there. Her focus has been on "the street", mainly middle class Iraqis, intimate with them. She talked at length about how things have changed for the average Iraqi over time, told some heartbreaking stories, talked about the surge idea, talked about the Sunni Shia divide, talked about the reality on the ground, talked about the idea of victory. She talked for about 30 minutes straight.

The reason I bring this up, is she spoke for 30 minutes about the war in Iraq, and not once did she mention the president. You can't seem to go two posts without mentioning the president.

She was much more interesting than you.

lsbets

02-22-2007, 01:32 PM

She was much more interesting than you.

You could probably subtitute "the chair I'm sitting on" for "she" and it would still be an accurate quote.

kenwoodallpromos

02-22-2007, 01:38 PM

Political polls are like horseracing speed figures- depends on who is doing them, what slant, what audience, what are you comparing it to. And just like thoroughbred finishers, no real official source based on a level playing field makes for much speculation and inaccuracy.

robert99

02-22-2007, 02:31 PM

You could say that about any war............. get real.....your stiff upper lip is showing............

J,

You may well be right.
But I am not saying it (Victory), just querying why the poll questioner asks a question about Victory and so many deluded people still think that is a realisable objective, when the original objective of the Iraq intervention seems to be lost within the myths created. Returning troops doing the dirty work won't be getting a ticker tape welcome in New York and John Wayne is no longer around for the Hollywood wishful thinking version of fictional events in Victory In Iraq I.

Secretariat

02-22-2007, 05:39 PM

The reason I bring this up, is she spoke for 30 minutes about the war in Iraq, and not once did she mention the president. You can't seem to go two posts without mentioning the president.

She was much more interesting than you.

Gee, that's great. I'm not attempting to be more interesting than her for your benefit.

I could care less whether she mentioned the President. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not the question in the poll will be determined BY the President and Congress based on their perception of victory, not yours or mine.

Here I thought I was complimenting you on your post bringing up what "victory" meant in Iraq, which I think is fundamentally one of the most critical questions to answer if we have anyway of measuring success, and you flake out.

Forget it. :bang:

chickenhead

02-22-2007, 06:20 PM

Gee, that's great. I'm not attempting to be more interesting than her for your benefit.

You'd have more fans if you did try once in awhile. People wouldn't be screaming STFU! all the time. :D

Tom

02-24-2007, 11:23 AM

Sweden will be pulling it’s troops out of Iraq this year.

Lars is going home in March and Sven in May.

hcap

03-03-2007, 08:27 AM

Yellow ribbons dwindle with war support

By Andrew Ward in Atlanta

Published: March 2 2007 22:18 | Last updated: March 2 2007 23:02

For three years after the invasion of Iraq, it was difficult to drive more than a few miles through middle America without seeing a car displaying a magnetic yellow ribbon.

The magnets, bearing the slogan “Support Our Troops”, became a symbol of patriotism for millions of US motorists.

But as support for the war fades, demand for yellow ribbons has collapsed.

Magnet America, the largest manufacturer of the product, has seen sales fall from a peak of 1.2m in August 2004 to about 4,000 a month and now has an unsold stockpile of about 1m magnets.

“We have enough supplies to meet demand for years to come,” said Micah Pattisall, director of operations. “Every product has a lifespan and this one has run its course.”

At its peak, the North Carolina-based company employed 180 people to handle sales, marketing and distribution. Today, it employs 11 people.

rastajenk

03-03-2007, 09:09 AM

Victory may be hard to define, but defeat isn't. And there are almost as many Democrats who hope for defeat as there are those for victory, in a shameful desire to regain presidential power. That is why, regardless of the snapshot right now about political opinion, they will still be on the outside after November Oh-Eight.

ljb

03-03-2007, 11:16 AM

Define defeat.

Tom

03-03-2007, 11:55 AM

Fair:
Anything Pelosi, Kennedy or Kerry support.
Anything from the Iraq Surrender Group report.
Anything Mutha supports.
Anything Randi Rhodes supports (outside her trailer park).

Balanced:
The status quo.
Not going after Iran.
Neighborhood meetings.
Condi Rice opening her mouth.

I seriously think anyone in DC has any conception of any kind of victory. Bush is searching for one, but wouldn't klnow it if he tripped over it.

Here's my take on it:

The left says we cannot win, but wants to leave the troops there anyway.
The right says we can win, but is afraid to try.

Meanwhile, our troops are there caught in the middle of two corrupt, idiotic political parties. Dumb vs dumber.

If we do not attack Iran today, they should bring home ALL the troops tommorrow.

Shit or get off the pot.

Secretariat

03-03-2007, 02:06 PM

If we do not attack Iran today, they should bring home ALL the troops tommorrow.

Shit or get off the pot.

Well, Tom, since this was posted yesterday, and Iran was not attacked, then I'll agree with you that we should bring the troops home tomorrow. Well stated.

...........................

"The global warming debate is over."

- 2008 Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain

Tom

03-03-2007, 03:30 PM

Secretariat

03-04-2007, 12:13 AM

This is how you parse facts out of context, isn't it. Look for one byte that supports you and ignore the context it was made in and pass it off as someone making your case.

How sad to be so desperate for validation.:(

Go back and read your own post. They are your own words. If you didn't mean them, I suggest you take greater care when making such blanket statements in the future. Do you stand by your statement, or are you backing off it?

Tom

03-04-2007, 10:12 AM

Dr. Dense, I meant that statement in the context of the entire post. You make it sound like that was my only point, which is what you tend to do over andover with anyone's comments.

If say, if X, if Y, if Z, then we should do A, and you come away with Tom says we should do A. That is mis-representing facts, but not unexpected.
Hardly a blanket statement.

The Judge

03-04-2007, 03:14 PM

Didn't the President Of The United States say "mission accomplished" all dressed up in a pilots uniform and on an air craft carrier. How many years ago was that. Now its "stay the course "thats what has been going on.

Now for my take, the so called conservatives can't wait to leave Iraq I mean like today. They have bled that situation to death,they have had everyone saluting the flag and giving up their rights they've tested the public on the use of torture, oh there are still a few billion bucks to be had but this last few won't be as easy to get as the first few hundred Billion was and any one who hangs arounds for this last few billion might find them selves on the wrong side of a subpoena.

They are ready to leave today! They just want the Democrats to force them. Then look at all the options they have. They still come out looking winners and can spin it anyway they want. The sooner they are force to withdraw the better for them.

If I can figure this out I am sure you can too and so can the Democracts. The war will last until election time unless the Republicans call if off and this they can't do. They are in a corner that they put themselves in oh it was fun for awhile eveything going your way. Say anything against us and you are Un-American, you hate the troops who are dying for "you". Oh my mistake "dying for Iraq freedom" and some of you actully believe this stuff!

JustRalph

03-04-2007, 03:51 PM

real conservatives want to stay for the next ten years............you know? When gas gets down to .50 cents a gallon again...........because we own the pipeline.........?

The Judge

03-04-2007, 05:03 PM

I remember in California some years back there was a water shortage and we were threaten and I mean threaten with higher water rates unless we started to conserve. We were told to put bricks in our toilet tanks, don't wash down the drive way sweep it down, water your lawn at night not during the day and use a certain type of hose kind of drip thing, when you shower get wet then turn off the water lather up then rinse off on+on+on.

So we did all this our reward ;the Public Utilities Commission said we did to well ,we saved too much water so they lost money, so here is your higher water rate, thank you very much.

No matter what happens in Iraq we will be payinng $5 a gallon for gas. We didn't get the oil $5 a gallon, we got the oil but now we have to teach everyone how to speak English $5 a gallon. YOU won't conserve $5 a gallon YOU conserved too much $5 a gallon. Don't you get it ? I'm sure you do.

rastajenk

03-05-2007, 12:35 AM

What is a so-called "so called conservative?"

highnote

03-05-2007, 03:09 AM

more like the Hustle! :lol: :bang:

He thinks he's doing the tango. :D

Just kidding Sec. All I meant is that the tango is a dance of passion -- just like your posts. I always enjoy reading your commentary.

The Judge

03-05-2007, 07:35 AM

What I mean by a so-called consevative is the same as what I mean when I say a so-called liberal. Most people aren't one or the other they a more on the cafeteria plan, they pick and choose. I seen so-called liberals who were for the death penalty and so-called consevatives that aren't ,you can go on and on with this but you get the idea. It's just an easier to use a label.

Secretariat

03-05-2007, 11:07 AM

Judge,

Very well written and thought out posts. Couldn't agree more. Now that I've said that though get ready for the hound dogs to attack you.

highnote

03-05-2007, 11:42 AM

Tom

03-05-2007, 12:42 PM

Sec, surel;y you support gas at $5 a gallon. It will cut useage and that is good for the GW threat, is it not?

Secretariat

03-05-2007, 12:54 PM

Tom,

I'm waiting for your comments on The Judge posts above. I'm sure if 46 or LJB had posted these you'd have a ready response by now.

Tom

03-05-2007, 02:45 PM

Post 37 - Is seriously doubt Bush is looking to get out. That is Judge's opinion and I do not think it is in Bush's long range plans. I thingk we are there for the long term.

Post 39 - I don' tknow if I understand what he is talking about, but my post to you was based on that one - $5 a gallon is good for the environment.

Post 42 - Other than YOU, I don't know too many people who are 100% lib or 100% right (:rolleyes:). I have some views on both sides of the fence. What is wrong with that?

But Judge posted his opinons of things, in a brief, concise manner, not littered with links and quotes or insults, like you and Ljb and 46 ususally throwout. I respect his right to not agree with me. I would yours, too, if presented better.:bang:

PaceAdvantage

03-05-2007, 04:29 PM

Didn't the President Of The United States say "mission accomplished" all dressed up in a pilots uniform and on an air craft carrier. How many years ago was that. Now its "stay the course "thats what has been going on.

Quick! Name the last time there was a firefight in Iraq involving US troops that lasted more than one day.

Ok, how about one that lasted more than an hour?

How about a little Iraqi time line:

March into Iraq, defeat Iraq military, drive leader from power after march into Baghdad, hold elections - new government installed, find former leader and prosecute in Iraqi court......lose less than 800 US troops PER YEAR in the process.....

I'd call that Mission Accomplished as well.....

Of course, now we have Iraqi on Iraqi violence going on, as well as the occasional road side bomb....our NEW mission is to quell the Iraqi on Iraqi violence. This is NOT something that should be too difficult to carry out, yet the politicians won't allow the military to do the job it did SO WELL during the first "Mission Accomplished" segment.

Just providing a friendly neighborhood reality check to those who can't help but exaggerate the negative.

Secretariat

03-05-2007, 05:42 PM

PA,

Here's an interesting table on this link showing comparisions since "Mission Accomplished". Now, the numbers are worse since this table's numbers were done in May 2006.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/01/mission-accomplished-by-the-numbers/

On May 1, 2003, President Bush stood underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner and announced that “Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Here’s a look at the situation then compared to the situation now, by the numbers:

All the numbers on the right are up over the last 7 months since then. The US wounded has exceeded 20K now, and the number of Iraqi civilians killed is estimated from 100K to 500K.

Yeah, mission accomplished.

The Judge

03-05-2007, 06:27 PM

O.K so what's next seeing how "mission accomplished" means something completly different to you than it does to me. Bush did all this and still no WMD. You see like it or not that's what this was about. They could hurt the US with WMD if no WMD no war.

Now all of a sudden (well it took longer then that) WMD aren't important getting rid of a despot is. Well one down 1,500 to go better get busy.

I say if thats what going to happen better bring back the draft first. Give everybody a chance women too.

JustRalph

03-05-2007, 07:03 PM

46zilzal

03-05-2007, 07:10 PM

If anybody believes the war was about WMD, I have a bridge to sell you.
Well that is what the rutabaga said, and retracted. He's stupid enough to buy that bridge.

"In his State of the Union address and other speeches, President Bush has attempted to articulate the reasons for going to war with Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein. Stripped of rhetoric, these can be boiled down to three main objectives: (1) to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD); (2) to diminish the threat of international terrorism; and (3) to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas."

Zero for three. About normal for this clown.

46zilzal

03-05-2007, 07:22 PM

Summarized for quick reference here:http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

ro http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/scheer

or yet another: http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

OR a website devoted to just the crap that comes out of this slimeball
http://www.bushlies.net/

46zilzal

03-05-2007, 07:43 PM

another good one from the rutabaga: "His early career took him on mapping missions over Alaska, and North Africa, and Latin America. In 1963, he reported to Fort Benning to help lead a new unit that would become known as the Air Calvary.
-- In Medal of Honor award ceremony.. White House, Feb. 26, 2007

One a mounted troop (Cavalry), the other (Calvary) a hill where Jesus was crucified.

I can just see the look on my late father's face (as he was an expert on the FORMER) in hearing the outright butchery of these two words.

The Judge

03-05-2007, 07:45 PM

We agree but that was want was sold to the public by the press who lead the drum beat to war. This is the liberal press that I here so much about on this board. They led the charge "all of them". Didn't question didn't ivestigate just spouted was given to them to read. Some liberal press.

Off course there were no WMD I haven't been to any Military Academy but even I knew this. You "think" someone has WMD and you send your troops in without knowing? John Wayne wouldn't do that on a Hollywood set. You must know where they are before you go in, then you knock them out. "We know they have them but we don't know where they are so we are sending in the troops to find out" ,makes no sense to me.

You send them in with vehicles that can't stop a bullet and they are hunting for WMD? Where are the HASMET suits? I don't even think they even had a bomb sniffing dog.

You hired "your" own monitors and they say there are no MDA's. Well what if you "still" want to test this. How about this, you get together an invading amry you land on their shores you fly planes over the despot palace while you are there you might as well drop a couple of "small" bombs what heck.

Now if this "mad man" that is in power doesn't use his WMD then it's at least a good sign that he doesn't have any! This is a comfirmation of what "your" monitors told you. Now you pack up and go back home.

All you are out is the price of gas and two small bombs.

Of course there were no WMD and it was known before the troops left US soil.

46zilzal

03-05-2007, 07:57 PM

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenseless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

They soon forget about the publicity of their comments.

46zilzal

03-05-2007, 08:02 PM

Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
by Scott Ritter

...."Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln."

Rummy was a great one to talk the rubbish he did.

Tom

03-05-2007, 09:19 PM

Past posting, 46.
Too late. We are there.
Live with it.
Or die of bitterness and frustration with it.
Whatever floats your swift boat.

46zilzal

03-05-2007, 10:10 PM

Past posting, 46.
Too late. We are there.
Live with it.

Gross mistakes should, but obviously HERE have not been, a learning experience.

46zilzal

03-06-2007, 01:19 AM

waste of money too.http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Secretariat

03-06-2007, 10:25 AM

If anybody believes the war was about WMD, I have a bridge to sell you.

lol...and now it comes to this. Wow, I'd like to go back to all those quotes on here pre-war about WMD's.

JR, you need to re-read the Congressional transcript debates before the IWR in the Senate, and just about every press release from the WH.

Perhaps you're saying that the reason for going to war was not actually what the President was telling us or Congress. In that you are correct. What he was telling us was as follows:

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "
- George W. Bush

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons "

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons "

George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. "

George W. Bush Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney Dec 1, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... "

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George Bush February 8, 2003

...This doesn't even include old Dick Cheney

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney Dec 1, 2002

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

“No weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that."

Dick Cheney after Duelfer report

Or of course the famous Wolfowitz quote

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

- Paul Wolfowitz

"We know where they are."

- Donald Rumsfeld

and, much, much more....You're still buying it.

Tom

03-06-2007, 12:50 PM

46zilzal

03-06-2007, 12:53 PM

Like 46, you play both sides of the street. O
B.S. I have been very consistent in my disdain for all the rutabaga's baloney

Tom

03-06-2007, 02:19 PM

Talking about your playing both sides on lasix/global warming issues, not Bush.

JustRalph

03-06-2007, 02:32 PM

Sec, from the start, I told you what the war was about.............

use the search function if you don't remember

46zilzal

03-06-2007, 03:14 PM

Talking about your playing both sides on lasix/global warming issues, not Bush.
hogwash. Took a stance that was substantiated by multiple articles in scientifically established and peer reviewed journals.

Tom

03-06-2007, 03:54 PM

Please point out one that reference horses WINNING with lasix.
You still don't get it. Not a clue.

Hellooooooooooooooooooooooo? Anyone in there? :lol:

Secretariat

03-06-2007, 05:23 PM

Sec, from the start, I told you what the war was about.............

use the search function if you don't remember

I don't care what you told me about the war, the stated reason from the administration was what the people were told by the WH and what they presented to Congress.

In a prevous post you lauded an articel by Thom Friedman saying about it:

"I hate it when New York Time's Columnists steal articles from me You have to read the post above ....to get it. PA I want to know if this guy is a member here? "

PA even responded saying "Excellent post" to you.

Revisiting the article seems appropriate. Here is some of what Friedman stated that you liked in the original article:

"...[the WH] it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America."

"But he [GW] stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons. "

"Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter. "

"But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A."

"Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s"

,,,,

So in terms of credibility if you like the article as muich as you stated back then, you'd have to say Mr. Bush's crediblity is shot..

Secretariat

03-06-2007, 05:28 PM

So what is your offer on the bridge?

Like 46, you play both sides of the street. One day, you swear up and down Bush Lied about WMD and then you use his so-called lies to back up a different argument.
Sec, you can't do that.
You can't have it both ways.

You premise is Bush lied. If that is true, then going into Iraq could not have been about WMD becaues he knew there were none. If he beleived your latest posts, then it had to be about WMD becase your quotes prove that.

You aren't too good at debating, are you?

He lied to the public, and to Congress based on intelligence he cooked within the DOD under Feith. He did not reveal the contradictory opinions from the CIA analysts. We never even were told these opnions until AFTER the war. He lied about the Niger incident as well.

So yes, he's a liar. Did he beleive there may have been WMD's? sure he did, but he didn't want to hear anything that contradicted his beleif. So he manipulated intelligence or fired anyone who disagreed with him.

You still don't get it. Un believable.

46zilzal

03-06-2007, 05:30 PM

It is both fun and frustrating discussing things with reactionaries

Tom

03-06-2007, 05:37 PM

He lied to the public, and to Congress based on intelligence he cooked within the DOD under Feith. He did not reveal the contradictory opinions from the CIA analysts. We never even were told these opnions until AFTER the war. He lied about the Niger incident as well.

So yes, he's a liar.

My point exactly - you say he is a liar, yet you use what you cojnstrue to be his lies to mkae your point that it was all about WMD. Ralph said it was not, and you used known lies ( in your belief system) to support your argument. You did exactly what you condem Bush for doing - using lies to make his point. I get it completley. You and Bush are the same.

And 46....this reactionary enjoys playing with you too - it's like playing peek a boo with a baby - they never tire of the game and are and will play all night. I really enjoyed the lasix thread - I intentionally tried to see how many days I could make you dance until I tired of the game. I was "peek a pooped" out! :lol: You can pick our next topic.

46zilzal

03-06-2007, 05:39 PM

And 46....this reactionary enjoys playing with you too - it's like playing peek a boo with a baby - they never tire of the game and are and will play all night. I really enjoyed the lasix thread -
Self described..need I say more

Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

Not far away from cerebral atherosclerosis either. Stuck in a time warp hollering about those "good old days." Without a chance of actually thinking about a new situation: "Those G.D. young people, they don't know Shit!"

Another in the quest for the Noris Pannell award. Only been given out twice so far.

JustRalph

03-06-2007, 05:42 PM

Good points Tom.

Sec, I never said Bush had any credibility? I knew what we were doing all along. I still agree with Friedman........... Bush couldn't come to the American people and say that

"Saddam is the best person to dethrone in the middle east..........it will be easy etc.......... we need to whip some ass over there for future gains. "

This is just part of what I said the war was about..............keeping looking.

Secretariat

03-06-2007, 08:41 PM

My point exactly - you say he is a liar, yet you use what you cojnstrue to be his lies to mkae your point that it was all about WMD. Ralph said it was not, and you used known lies ( in your belief system) to support your argument. You did exactly what you condem Bush for doing - using lies to make his point. I get it completley. You and Bush are the same.

You still can't grasp this Tom. Ok, I'll try to make it simple.

GW lied to the public by only telling them about DOD Feith-based intelligence that supported his case for WMD's. He chose not reveal the intelligence that called into doubt concerns about WMD's. He delberately lied to Congress on the Niger matter.

Because he withheld information and lied doesn't mean he didn't beleieve WMD's weren't there. He apparently suspected they were there. He painted however that they were definitely there and a grave danger to the US.

If you can't get this then perhaps you and Bush are the ones that are the same.

Secretariat

03-06-2007, 08:43 PM

Sec, I never said Bush had any credibility?

We actually agree on something.

Tom

03-06-2007, 11:23 PM

See what I mean - AGAIN you take part of a quote and try to pass it off out of context. :lol:

46 - what the hell are you babbling about? You been visiting the med cabinet again? This is an oxymoron: especially opposition to progress or liberalism...

The two are mutually exclusvie.

PaceAdvantage

03-07-2007, 02:28 AM

I don't care what you told me about the war, the stated reason from the administration was what the people were told by the WH and what they presented to Congress.

At the time, they believed it to be true, along with 90% of the rest of the world, and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to boot. They were all wrong, I suppose, unless the WMDs left the country, considering we gave Iraq plenty of notice that we were coming in, which was a truly idiotic thing to do....but the U.S. has always bent over backwards to "play nice," even in war.

So, chalk it up to faulty intel.....but you can continue to spin it into a "lie" if you wish.

PaceAdvantage

03-07-2007, 02:30 AM

You still can't grasp this Tom. Ok, I'll try to make it simple.

GW lied to the public by only telling them about DOD Feith-based intelligence that supported his case for WMD's. He chose not reveal the intelligence that called into doubt concerns about WMD's. He delberately lied to Congress on the Niger matter.

Because he withheld information and lied doesn't mean he didn't beleieve WMD's weren't there. He apparently suspected they were there. He painted however that they were definitely there and a grave danger to the US.

If you can't get this then perhaps you and Bush are the ones that are the same.

And you guys continue to call Bush an idiot? LOL

JustRalph

03-07-2007, 03:04 AM

Because he withheld information and lied doesn't mean he didn't beleieve WMD's weren't there. He apparently suspected they were there. He painted however that they were definitely there and a grave danger to the US.

Watch and listen to the Democrats claim Iraq has WMD and that Saddam aided terrorists including Al Qaeda
http://youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts\

Tom

03-07-2007, 07:46 AM

Remember paddle balls?
The little red ball on a rubber band stapled to a paddle?
You keep banging it and it keeps coming back, the harder you bang it, the faster it came back?
It did one thing, in one direction, never varrying.

Sec.

Secretariat

03-07-2007, 11:32 AM

So, chalk it up to faulty intel.....but you can continue to spin it into a "lie" if you wish.

It was defined as "inapproriate" by the Inspector General of the DOD for Feith and 'policy" to provide intel (Chalabi based) to the President in contradiction to the CIA.

Beleive what you want (Rush or Crazy Annie). I prefer the Inspector General's findings.

The Niger lie has been well documented. I beleive GW was convinced there were WMD's there (he even searched under his own desk). Of course he didn't want to hear what Hans Blix and Scott Ritter said (who were both correct). He didn't even want to hear what David Kaye said. So, I beleive he believed WMD's were there, as Wolfowitz said, it was the only reason they could all agree on in the administration as a reason for war.

Approximately half of the Democrats voted against the IWR, and those who did voted based on President Bush goign back and working with the UN which he didn't. He gave a timetable for invasion, and refused to participate in another vote AFTER the IWR resolution. He fired Generals who disagreed with him. He sought out Clarke immediately after 911 trying to link Iraq to it. In other words, policy shaped intelligence rather than the other way around. It was a mistaken act of misguided pre-emption that has cost countless lives and injury based on one man's determination to force his policy onto the American people.

You can buy into it as just faulty intel. I think his quotes and actions differ. for example, the Niger claim. He was warned prior to the State of the Union address that this was not verifiable. Yet, in front of Congress and the American people he attempted to scare people to serve his policy, even while he spoke he knew this was not verifiable intelligence. He knew American did not face a grave or immient danger from iraq of a "mushroom cloud" yet he perpetrated that lie. Even if he beleived Hussein had WMD's, he knew they had no missle system to create delivery to the US even remotely in the future, yet he perpetrated that lie contuinually in speeches. He continually made speeches referring to 911 in one sentence, and linking Iraq within the same sentence over and over tieing the two. It was shameful and his manipulative linking of the two is why people feel betratyed today by this man and his approval rating is around 30-32%. He has lost the credibility and the trust of the american people and polls indicate most people just want his Presidency to be over. He has been a disaster and in many polls has surpassed Richard Nixon as the worst PResident in US history.

You may want to still be a denier, and beleive him, but the great majority of the people have felt betrayed by him. and have left his current handful of supporters. Colim Powell resigned feeling he had been used and betrayed by this WH. He is not alone in that feeling.

lsbets

03-07-2007, 12:33 PM

Tom

03-07-2007, 12:41 PM

Give him time, ls - right now, he is Wiley Cyote, just a mili second before he looks down and sees he has run past the edge of the cliff. The big ? has just appeared over his head and he is starting to look downward.

It gets good after ...

............................this.

(For more, go to www.acmefacts.com)

lsbets

03-07-2007, 12:45 PM

Correction on my part, I was too caught up in the Sec moment of going ridiculously over the top - the report that found Wilson was full of shit was put together when the Senate was under Republican control, although it was approved by the Democrats on the committee. I made the mistake of not looking at the date on the article. But, the truth remains, Wilson was full of shit, and with the findings being so old, you could make the case that the continued claims about what Wilson found are being made with the full knowledge that the claims are false, and those pushing the Wilson line are knowingly lying. .

46zilzal

03-07-2007, 01:46 PM

Talk from a fellow from his own party.

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/chuckhagel0407

Secretariat

03-07-2007, 05:23 PM

Um, Sec, the liberal Senate has found, as reported in the liberal Washington Post, that contrary to Wilson's public statements, his report bolstered the case for Iraq's attempt to purchase Uranium from Niger, and that contray to the CIAs claims, they never warned Bush about the "16 words". Remember, this is from the liberal Senate, not from some "neocon" conspiracy. You're hanging on tight, but you're running out of rope because the truth is not on your side (but you seem to be pretty comfortable there).

Wow...let's correct some of your assumptions here.

1. The Senate hasn't been liberal in a long time. In fact even with the 2006 elections, Lieberman, the deciding vote, technically won as an independent. When the Niger incident occurred, the Senate was signficantly conservative. So much for the liberal Senate during the Niger claims. (I saw you corrected your mistake after I posted this.)

2. I don't find the Washington Post liberal at all. Neither does Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200702270003

3. You seem to want to make Joe Wilson the villain in this rather than the convicted felon Scooter Libby. I'm not going to rehash all the diversion you wish to throw on Wilson.

A few points:

Pat Roberts headed that republican lead committe you're referring to as bi-partisan and promised to address Phase II of the Senate report. It took awhile but finally it emerged before he lost his chairmanship.

"Two volumes of the phase II report were released on September 8, 2006: The conclusions of these reports were that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda."

Wilson responded immediately to the Roberts report in 2004 which Roberts ignored.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/index.html

And now the truth of Roberts agenda is coming out.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/25/121036/158

"Joe Wilson Vindicated
by L C Johnson

The Bush/Cheney acolytes keen on smearing Joe Wilson took a couple of gut shots at the Scooter Libby trial today. One of the documents released to the public confirms Wilson's account of how he came to be sent to Niger, what he found, and what he reported to CIA debriefers.

Part of the smear effort, which was led by Kansas Senator Pat Roberts from his perch as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI), insisted that Joe's trip to Niger actually revealed that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. According to p. 46 of the July 2004 SSCI report on Iraq, the Republican's reported hearsay about what Joe found:"

I'm not holding on tight. Mr. Wilson is not in jail, but Scooter Libby is and Wilson has been vindicated as the previous article elucidates quite nicely

.....

Now if you want to avail yourself of some more of the actual information available at that time to Roberts, here you go.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_11.php

lsbets

03-07-2007, 05:58 PM

Secretariat

03-07-2007, 09:35 PM

Hey stupid - yes that is you Sec - if you looked one post down from the one of mine you responded to, you would see that I corrected myself on when the Senate report was written.

But, that does not change the fact that Joe Wilson lied. You know it, everyone knows it, and by continuing to attempt to perpetuate the myth of Jow Wilson, victim, you are once again proving how dishonest and disingenuous you are.

So you're back to the name calling.

Did it ever occur to you that (a) you made the error in your post, not I, and (b) I was typing my post while you were posting your correction to your error, and (c) that I edited my post to acknowledge your revision of your error?

As to everyone beleiving Joe Wilson was lying, no, you and the far right beleive he was lying. I suggest you read the article Wilson Vindicated I posted, and Wilson's letter to Roberts.

The liar that was convicted for perjury was actually Scooter Libby, not Joe Wilson. That is not myth, that is reality.

lsbets

03-07-2007, 10:21 PM

You're like a cultist Sec. You need help.

46zilzal

03-08-2007, 01:36 AM

Robert Baer, a veteran CIA operative in the Middle East, author of two great books (See No Evil: The True Story Of a Ground Solder in the CIA’s War on Terror, and Sleeping With the Enemy: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude), and contributor on the movie Syriana, was interviewed on CBC’s The Fifth Estate this evening as they were reviewing the entire question of Iraq in light of the Libby verdict. A man who knows that part of the world very well, I had previously heard his opinions voiced in William Karel’s documentary (The World According to Bush) and in light of what has been established over and over, it is very difficult to understand how anyone can swallow the fallacy of the Iraq war.

A Saudi sets up an organization of Jihadist’s with Saudi money and then a group of men (80% Saudi) carry out attacks (many of them before 9/11). This handy excuse allowed the influence of the Project for the New American Century (and their quoted stance “We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.”) to follow up on a plan set about long before this “catalyst” just happened along. Today, after years into this folly, with billons wasted along with almost 3200 young people pushing up Daisies and many other sporting artificial appendages, with a large portion of these people still out there bringing in more Jihadist’s, with nothing cleared up, and the rutabaga asking for more money and bodies to be sacrificed, people are waking up finally to the blatant stupidity of this endeavor and the overt lies that catapulted the U.S. into this wasteful and ridiculous conflict.

Mr. Baer was eloquent in his assertions as he was before: the Saudi’s share a great portion of the blame in fomenting global jihad against the West and Iraq has NOTHING to do with it now, or ever. This sham of a war is just appeasement to them. Is the Carlyle group that strong to allow an entire country to protect the interests of rich oil men so as to keep the Royal family (Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud ,who was informed, according to Bob Woodward, of the Iraqi war BEFORE Secretary of State Colin Powell knew) interests above the entire country? It seems so.

46zilzal

03-08-2007, 02:13 AM

From inteviews with Baer:

"The last thing it wanted was for the CIA to be mucking around abroad and damaging U.S. business relations. The point in all this is that if the CIA had been running sources in the mosques in Germany and Saudi Arabia it would have found out bin Ladin was recruiting suicide bombers. It was
an error we will pay for years."

People in the Middle East hate the United States for a variety of reasons. For a start we are accused of propping up corrupt regimes, from Saudi Arabia to Morocco. They believe we profit from these regimes and it is
in our economic interest to protect them. Secondly, people in the Middle East hate us for giving unlimited support to Israel. Finally, at the bottom of it all, as the last super power, we are blamed for everything that goes
wrong in the world.

Neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan are cooperating fully on terror. The main reason is that al-Qaeda remains popular, especially among the religious establishment. Turning bin Laden over to us or killing him would destabilize
either government. In any case, both countries are fragile. Saudi Arabia, which owns 26% of the world's oil resources, is vulnerable to chaos is Iraq.

Are you hopeful that we will win the War on Terror? How will we do it?

Baer: We have to start by telling the truth about the nature of the threat we face. For instance, if we let the Saudi royal family plunder the country and do nothing about the exploding population there, the country will be taken
over by fundamentalists threading the stability of the west. A band-aid in Afghanistan just isn't going to help.

"In 1994, when Algerians were going to run a commercial airplane into Paris. It was a very well-known case. The French took the airplane back in Marseilles. But no one thought that could ever happen here, and this is in spite of 1996, when they indicted Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind. They stated flat-out, he was going to run—they knew about this from the Philippines
investigation—airplanes into American landmarks. Bin Laden in 1994 said he was going to attack the United States, and it was incomprehension at a political level in Washington, that nobody would ever do this."

RB: We don't attack the mosques in Saudi Arabia where these people are being recruited. We don't even want to know. They're the people who are killing us now. Not Zawahiri. Zawahiri is not in charge of Qaeda. And Qaeda is just an idea. Going after him we're seeking retribution as opposed to stopping future attacks, which are coming out of Saudi Arabia.

The LA Times published an article recently about how more than half of the Arab fighters in Iraq are Saudis, how millions of dollars continue to flow from wealthy Saudis through Saudi-based Islamic charitable and relief
organizations to Al Qaeda and other groups, and that the Saudi government has not come through on any promises to monitor this or to really do anything—

RB: They haven't done anything. Who are the clerics that recruited the 15 Saudis that were recruited in Saudi Arabia? Who ultimately paid for 9/11? They haven't
given us even the basics.

46zilzal

03-08-2007, 02:33 AM

or
If I were a fundamentalist and I wanted to take Saudi Arabia over, what I would do is I’d go after the royal family. I would set off a few car bombs and kill a couple
of them. Destabilize the country. But for some reason, the royal family has not been the victim of terrorism that they claim they have been. You cannot name a single
case where the fundamentalists killed a Saudi prince. They claim all the time that there are all these plots afoot, and they’ve stopped them. But all the terrorism has
really been against the United States and other Western countries, or Western interests in Saudi Arabia.

That ’95 National Guard barracks bombing within Saudi Arabia – we don’t really know who did that. Could have been bin Laden. And you have the ’96 Kobar barracks
bombing. There are a lot of people who say that bin Laden was involved in the ’96 bombing, though there’s no proof of it.

That brings me to the State Department. You’ve got ’95, ’96, and ’98 bombings that had a bunch of Saudis. The bombings in Africa [U.S. Embassy in Kenya] and the Cole
[U.S.S. Cole] had a bunch of Saudis involved. And we were hit September 2001, and we still don’t have visa interviews for these people. How can you explain that? If you’re a Syrian, you have to wait 30 days. If you’re an Iranian, you have to wait 30 days before you get your visa. In Saudi Arabia, you just send your passport to the travel agent. It comes back, without an interview, without any sort of check, and you get a visa. And that’s what disturbs me.

Tom

03-08-2007, 07:32 AM

So, 46 has a plan to topple the House of Saud!:eek:

How does this stack up against Bush et al having contingency plans in place for possible situations as opposed to having "pre-ordained" the whole war?

See - Sec, even 46 has war plans formulated.

:lol:

46zilzal

03-08-2007, 10:58 AM

No, Robert Baer has those ideas

fellow there knows the score as well http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html

46zilzal

03-08-2007, 11:09 AM

That CBC show called the site www.whitehouse.gov kind of a repository of alternative reality, where black is white and down is up. Wishful thinking and deceptive.

Baloney would be a better word.

46zilzal

03-08-2007, 11:32 AM

Much akin to the office of propaganda.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html

Secretariat

03-09-2007, 08:44 PM

This motherjones article is a great post 46. Everyone should read your link.

"The reports, virtually all false, of Iraqi weapons and terrorism ties emanated from an apparatus that began to gestate almost as soon as the Bush administration took power. In the very first meeting of the Bush national-security team, one day after President Bush took the oath of office in January 2001, the issue of invading Iraq was raised, according to one of the participants in the meeting‚ -- and officials all the way down the line started to get the message, long before 9/11. Indeed, the Bush team at the Pentagon hadn't even been formally installed before Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense, and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy, began putting together what would become the vanguard for regime change in Iraq.

Both Wolfowitz and Feith have deep roots in the neoconservative movement. One of the most influential Washington neo- conservatives in the foreign-policy establishment during the Republicans' wilderness years of the 1990s, Wolfowitz has long held that not taking Baghdad in 1991 was a grievous mistake. He and others now prominent in the administration said so repeatedly over the past decade in a slew of letters and policy papers from neoconservative groups like the Project for the New American Century and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Feith, a former aide to Richard Perle at the Pentagon in the 1980s and an activist in far-right Zionist circles, held the view that there was no difference between U.S. and Israeli security policy and that the best way to secure both countries' future was to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem not by serving as a broker, but with the United States as a force for "regime change" in the region."

Racer98

03-09-2007, 09:26 PM

In reply to one of the first posts on here, dissing Sec for his poll having fewer wanting to pull out of Iraq immediately than the righty poll, (using his term) that's because we can't. If we pull out of Iraq right now, terrorists will run wild and take over the country faster than the North Vietnamese in Vietnam. What we need to do is at least try to patch up the gaping holes we left in the walls and determine what it is we're actually doing there. Then tell the american people what exactly that is, because the war ended years ago, and people still think we can win. We already won, remember? I know it's a long time ago, but still...

I personally approve of taking Iraq and splitting it in 3. Kurdish, Sunni, and Shi'ite (someone's going to trip up saying that and that will not end well) and then let them have their own countries. It's not like Iraq is some sacred country (Paul Newman is older than it is.) Just split it up and give everyone what they want.

Secretariat

03-10-2007, 02:00 AM

Racer,

Was wondering if you're a follower of Joe Biden, becasue he proposed the division of the country into three states awhile back.

Frankly, my POV is we've committed to let Iraqis determine how to run their own country. As a people they overwhelming want us out according to "every" poll published. Their leaders would prefer we leave. Britain is drawing down troops. Even conservative Australia is talking about it. Italy left awhile back. It is pretty much us going forward, and the Iraqi troops.

You mentioned Vietnam. The South Vietnames were trained for a decade and still couldn't fight to defend their coutnry. effectively. The cry then was if we don't fight them there we'll be fighting them over here. It didn't happen. The bulk of action over there is religions factions fighting a civil war for state power. The are not internationalist terrorists with the exception of some al queda that has moved in to take advantage of a destabilized situation. The bulk of this is Sunni-Shia insurgents using terrorism as a tool. NOW, the Iraqi government wants to deal with the insurgents. Our policy has been we don't negotiate with terrorists, yet this is what the Iraqi government wants to do.

My question is this. IF the Iraqi government wants us to leave; IF the Iraqi people want us to leave; IF their is a constitution and an elected parliament in Iraq; if there is an Iraqi army over 100,000+ and combat-ready as we are told - WHY should our soldiers be put in harms way? Why should American taxpayers pay to police a foreign state? They are not encountering huge armies, but guerrilla tactics. Surely, the Iraqi soldeirs, like the South Vietnamese soldiers, would want to fight to preserve their democracy.

Frankly, I'm NOT for bringing all the soldeirs home. I'm in favor of a massive shift to Afghanistan and the Pakistani border where the people who attacked us on 911 are. Husein who had no WMD stockpiles is dead, there are no current UN sanctions against the new Iraqi regime. THe IWR resolution was about those two items. THey have been addressed, even if I disagreed with the tactics to do it. To continue on to more policing with our Army and Marines is ridiculous.

Secretariat

03-10-2007, 11:10 AM

“So many military believe that Republican administrations are good for the military. That is rarely the case. And we have got to get a message through to every soldier, every family member, every friend of soldier, that the Republican Party, the Republican-dominated Congress has absolutely been the worst thing that has happened to the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps.”

- Paul D. Eaton, Maj. Gen. U.S. Army (Ret.)

Tom

03-10-2007, 11:41 AM

Republican congresses do not tie min wage increases to war funding bills.

Bin Pelosi, Bin Mutha, and Bin Biden do not have the courage of their convictions to flat out deny funding and force troop wtihdrawls. Instead, they play politics with our soldiers lives. There is no more a disguting, demented bunch of scumbags on the face of the earth as this congess's leadership.
They have told our troops that they are dying for nothing, that we do not support them, and that we do not have the balls to bring them home. They are telling them that thier lives are taking back seats to the dems plans to get Cheney and take the White House.

Maybe our war on terror is after the wrong bastards.

46zilzal

03-10-2007, 11:53 AM

Republican congresses do not tie min wage increases to war funding bills.

It's a game to them: they ALL do it whether you choose to believe it or not.

46zilzal

03-10-2007, 11:59 AM

February 9, 2005

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is trying to sell America's taxpayers a $315 million "bridge to nowhere" in rural Alaska. As Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he is in a very good position to get his way. But Rep. Young should be stopped from using his political clout to force federal taxpayers to pay for a bridge that is ridiculous in its scope, unjustified on its merits, and far too expensive for taxpayers to swallow at a time of record federal deficits.

If Rep. Young succeeds, tiny Ketchikan, Alaska, a town with less than 8,000 residents (about 13,000 if the entire county is included) will receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a bridge to Gravina Island (population: 50). This bridge will be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge

46zilzal

03-10-2007, 12:11 PM

out of control and it is NOT limited to any particular party.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/04/the_republican_pork_barrel/
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm377.cfm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/22/pork/
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=1416
http://www.robertreich.org/reich/20031224.asp

Tom

03-10-2007, 03:38 PM

I saw a poll today that favored keeping YOU in Canada.

JustRalph

03-10-2007, 04:09 PM

I saw a poll today that favored keeping YOU in Canada.

Second! :lol:

Racer98

03-10-2007, 04:50 PM

Now that was a bit uncalled for. What's with the bridge to nowhere and a rainforest in Iowa? Do they need a rainforest in Iowa? After all, is Iowa (no offense to anyone who lives there) and they're quite capable at growing corn, thanks. Some of that stuff is just rediculous. We don't need to spend all of that money, and if 46 is staying in Canada, then I'm going to join him. At least there they have some sense. And healthcare.

And yes, Sec, I do agree with Biden.

Tom

03-10-2007, 05:45 PM

Bye bye.

Racer98

03-10-2007, 06:41 PM

Don't bother to write: I won't.

And what about Katrina? Problem not over. Swept under the rug, yes, but not over. Downtown has been partially fixed. That's it.

Racism? Maybe. The worst funded communities tended to be African-American.

Tom

03-10-2007, 06:59 PM

Whose fault is that?
The BLACK mayor who refused to apply for the finding.

Not racism, idiocy.

Thank you for not writting.

Racer98

03-10-2007, 07:04 PM

So that's his fault, but what about FEMA? And Brownie doing a heck of a job? Which he isn't doing at all anymore?

Tom

03-10-2007, 08:34 PM

What about staying on topic?

Secretariat

03-10-2007, 10:22 PM

Bin Pelosi, Bin Mutha, and Bin Biden do not have the courage of their convictions to flat out deny funding and force troop wtihdrawls. Instead, they play politics with our soldiers lives. There is no more a disguting, demented bunch of scumbags on the face of the earth as this congess's leadership.
They have told our troops that they are dying for nothing, that we do not support them, and that we do not have the balls to bring them home. They are telling them that thier lives are taking back seats to the dems plans to get Cheney and take the White House.

Maybe our war on terror is after the wrong bastards.

"Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

Racer98

03-10-2007, 10:42 PM

Bin Pelosi, Bin Mutha, and Bin Biden do not have the courage of their convictions to flat out deny funding and force troop wtihdrawls. Instead, they play politics with our soldiers lives. There is no more a disguting, demented bunch of scumbags on the face of the earth as this congess's leadership.
They have told our troops that they are dying for nothing, that we do not support them, and that we do not have the balls to bring them home. They are telling them that thier lives are taking back seats to the dems plans to get Cheney and take the White House.

We do support the troops. We'd support them more if they were here. And we can't just bring them home. If we bring them home immediately, for starters, Iran will waltz in and take over the country. We can't just walk out the door, for pride's sake. We need to at least make a semi-dignified effort at leaving and setting up some sort of government (or 3). For the sake of patriotism.

And let's not forget who put our troops in Iraq in the first place.

Tom

03-10-2007, 10:51 PM

"Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

And he is the final word?

But if you really believe that, how can you justify leaving them there in a losing battle to be picked off for over a year?

Racer98

03-10-2007, 10:52 PM

And he is the final word?

Isn't Bush?

46zilzal

03-11-2007, 01:27 AM

When Bush ran for president in 2000, he described his Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, as a reckless high-roller who would unbalance the budget. ''If the vice president gets elected," Bush said, ''the era of big government being over is over."

Five years later, what is over is the GOP reputation for fiscal sobriety. Republicans today are simply the other big-government party -- just as capable of squandering public funds, and just as eager to fill barrels with pork, as their fellow-spendthrifts across the aisle.

46zilzal

03-11-2007, 01:30 AM

From the heritage foundation 2003: "The congressional spending spree of the past few years is well-documented, and this year promises to be no different. Over the last four years, federal spending has increased from $16,000 per household to $20,000 per household, the highest level since World War II.

Historically, Congress funded grant programs and then asked federal agencies, governors, and mayors to competitively award the grants to the most capable applicants. But over the past few years, Congress has aggressively begun bypassing these agencies, governors, and mayors and selecting the grant recipients themselves, such as Police Athletic League and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (these projects selected by Congress instead of agencies are called earmarks, or pork projects). Grant seekers can no longer simply submit a persuasive grant proposal to an unbiased agency. Now, they must master the Washington influence game and hire a lobbyist to pursue their interest."

Consequently, the number of pork projects skyrocketed from under 2,000 five years ago to 9,362 in the 2003 budget. Total spending on pork projects has correspondingly increased to over $23 billion."

46zilzal

03-11-2007, 01:32 AM

Feb. 22, 2006 "The mother church of right-wing activism, the American Conservative Union, issued an electronic call to arms earlier this month. There was a new enemy at the gates: the free-spending ways of the Republican Congress. "I'm tired of being taxed to death just so elitist politicians can 'bring home the bacon,'" declared J. William Lauderback, the group's executive director, in an e-mail to members and supporters. "That's why I'm asking you to join with me TODAY to send a very simple -- yet effective -- message to Congress. Simply put -- No more pork barrel spending."

Secretariat

03-11-2007, 09:17 AM

46,

Your last three posts are quite telling, and what confuses me the most about conservatism. They preach fiscal responsibility, yet in reality produce huge debt and continuinig deficits. They speak of compassionate conservatism yet poverty keeps increasing as do foreclosures. As your figures indicate apparently they believe that you can make huge tax reductions to the upper class and send guys like Lefty $500 once in awhile, slash money going to states and local municipalities, (assuming the public is gullible enough to believe this won't be passed on to the taxpayer via some kind of sale taxes, property taxes or some kind of increased use tax), and on top of that then escalate federal spending. I know of no President who during wartime (and that's what the current President says this is) who beleived you should increase spending for war dramatically while at the same time doing nothing to attempt to balance your ledger sheet. As a result the deficits of the last 7 years have escalated debt. This is part of the new conservatism, which doesn't even address the foreign policy changes that have occurred in new conservatism which appears to be taxpayers paying to create democracy globally - including by force which means massive taxpayer payments for other countries infrastructre rebuilding, massive needs for taxpayer increases in VA care, and massive taxpayer subsisdies to prop up these fledgling democracies sometimes by giving arms to the very countries we've invaded. But we tell the American people that old song from a decade ago "don't worry, be happy" - we don't have to take any of your revenue, we'll just grow out of it, and oh btw...your overall household responsibility for the taxpayer bill has increased, but don't worry, be happy..we're putting it in a credit card with China, and your kids and grandkids can pay it instead of you. Don't worry, be happy. What has happened to the sanity of fiscal conservatives? :bang:

Racer98

03-11-2007, 11:14 AM

Apparently they left for sunny Florida, and haven't bothered to return to run the country.

Show Me the Wire

03-11-2007, 11:56 AM

Not to worry Sec, it is a democrat controlled Congress. I am sure they will deal with China and institute other sound fiscal policies.

What I see, prior to the dem controlled congress and subsequent to Carter's administration has been a healthy growing economy, the markets setting record highs and almost historically low interest rates.

I expect the dems to keep the dynamic growth we have and fiscally solve the trade imbalances with China, keep funding a strong military, keep oil prices down (so far not so good on that one), etc.

I do not think that is too much to ask and expect from our elected officials.

46zilzal

03-11-2007, 11:59 AM

That SURGE is really having an effect, day in and day out.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/11/iraq.main/index.html

Tom

03-11-2007, 03:46 PM

Good points, SMTW. I wonder if Sec will share the timetable with us.:rolleyes:

Racer98

03-11-2007, 03:50 PM

If we cut dependence on oil, we don't have to worry about prices because we won't be using it. And I don't just mean foreign oil-- I mean oil altogether.

And what good is the troop surge doing? From what I can see, none.

Tom

03-11-2007, 04:35 PM

From your expert view, eh?
Glad your military expertise is on the job!:D

You should be happy with rising gas prices. Fits your model nicely.
Clue us in - what are you thinking of pouring into your gas tank?

Secretariat

03-11-2007, 04:53 PM

And he is the final word?

But if you really believe that, how can you justify leaving them there in a losing battle to be picked off for over a year?

Honestly...I can't.

If SMTW actually thinks people are better off than when GW took office, he simply needs to look at the median wage from the day GW entered office to today, and adjust for inflation - not a difficult thing to do. GW's economy may have created more billionaires (no doubt about that), but it has also created much higher poverty figures than since he took office and a stagnant median wage and a grossly expanding debt.....Conservatism...Crawford, Texas style.

Racer98

03-11-2007, 05:15 PM

Clue us in - what are you thinking of pouring into your gas tank?

Ethanol.

Tom

03-11-2007, 07:46 PM

Honestly...I can't.

Then I respect your view. I see only two options - fight to win or get out now.
I think you are wrong, but at least you are wrong in the right way. Huh?:confused::rolleyes:

JustRalph

03-11-2007, 08:45 PM

Ethanol.

you really need to read up on ethanol.

It only provides 60 percent of the energy that gasoline does.

It just ain't the same. It actually takes more energy to make ethanol than it yields ...............do a google search on the ethanol fallacy

We will never be off of Oil. Unless a naturally abundant (and I don't mean something you have to grow) resource is converted to fuel.

The oil barons will just continually drop the price until it is no longer feasible to produce the alternative fuel vehicles............when you can buy gas for a buck a gallon......why drive an electric car? think about it..........and they still get rich when we are paying a buck a gallon.

Show Me the Wire

03-11-2007, 11:35 PM

Honestly...I can't.

If SMTW actually thinks people are better off than when GW took office, he simply needs to look at the median wage from the day GW entered office to today, and adjust for inflation - not a difficult thing to do. GW's economy may have created more billionaires (no doubt about that), but it has also created much higher poverty figures than since he took office and a stagnant median wage and a grossly expanding debt.....Conservatism...Crawford, Texas style.

Median wage is a meaningless statistic. Tell me about the average price of a house, people's investment portfolios, etc and then try and convince us were better off economically under Carter.

Did you read my post? I specifically was talking about how I hoped the dem controlled congress will keep the economic growth experienced under republican controlled congresses, keep a strong military, low interest rates, while curing the trade imbalance with China.

My post was about the dem controlled congress' ability to perform and, not about President Bush.

Secretariat

03-12-2007, 01:22 AM

Median wage is a meaningless statistic. Tell me about the average price of a house, people's investment portfolios, etc and then try and convince us were better off economically under Carter.

Did you read my post? I specifically was talking about how I hoped the dem controlled congress will keep the economic growth experienced under republican controlled congresses, keep a strong military, low interest rates, while curing the trade imbalance with China.

My post was about the dem controlled congress' ability to perform and, not about President Bush.

You missed the point of my post. I don't see borrowing as indicative of economic growth. My citing of the median wage (may be meaningless to you and your portfolio, but not to the vast number of Americans) is illustrative of that, as well as the poverty growth over the last six years. My point is "some" are doing much better but the middle class and the poor are not as evidenced by the median wage and the poverty figures. Yes, we have more billionaires. I also do not think our military is stronger, but now considerably weaker in terms of replenishing equipment, having to pay larger incentives to attract recurits or maintain exisiting soldiers, and the increases that are going to be needed to the VA budget to deal with returning soldiers from Iraq, not even addressing our tarnished reputatation abroad. Interest rates are not nearly as low as they were a few years ago, and with gas prices climbing inflation will climb with it, and that means probably raising the interest rates. btw.. the prime rate is not necessaruly reflective of consumer debt (especially in the area of credit card debt) or in terms of the number of foreclosures which keeps climbing.

Your post on the Dem Controlled Congress also has fallacies.

1. They've been there less than 3 months.
2. We're still dealing with a man who will veto any cost cutting associated with Iraq.
3. The Republicans have invoked cloture already more times than the dems did last year.
4. The Senate still has an Independent Leiberman, and Nelson from Nebraska that appears to be Zell Miller's idol, and Cheney to break tie votes. So while the House is a solid Dem controlled Congress, the Senate is on shaky grounds on who controls it. Lieberman could announce as a Repub and all committees would change hands. That's tenuous.
5. I think the issue of "fair" trade with China will become an issue, but unfortunately I-R-A-Q is what the country voted on primarily in the last election, and that is going to take precedent for awhile. Over China, over immigration, entitlements, etc...I-R-A-Q is doing to this country what V-I-E-T-N-A-M did. Making other issues wait.

Show Me the Wire

03-12-2007, 01:40 AM

Secretariat

03-12-2007, 12:56 PM

Sec:

What are you typing about? Fallacies? I posted my expectations! My expectations for the dem controlled congress are fallacies!

On second thought you are more than likely correct, any expectation about a dem congress succeeding in continuing economic growth, keeping a strong military,keeping interest rates manageable, keeping housing prices healthy, effectively dealing with China and Iran in addition to Iraq, as well, as illegal immigration is a fallacy.

Obviously, we're on two different wavelengths. I said those issues will take a back burner to Iraq. Your perceptions above assume that the things you mention need "continuing" and "keeping". I posted that my perceptions of economic growth are different than yours. I place more value on increasing the median wage and rising people out of poverty. Your focus is on the market which has helped create more billioniares, but not effectively budged the two criteria I mentioned (poverty and median wage). Why would the Dem's "continue" to want to keep a stagant median wage and keep the rise in poverty not to mention the expansion of debt? Also I think the military has been weakened, not strengthened as your statment suggests. So I'd like to see it strengthed by not wasting our armaments, our forces, or our taxpayer money needlessly in foreign civil wars.

My problem is the assumptions in your questions. For example, keeping housing prices healthy? Does this imply you view them currently as healthy? I thought the Repubs beleived the free markets should dictate the price of the real estate industry and not have govt. involvement. Are you suggesting that the Dem. Congress should get involved in interfering with the free market on purchasing homes?

Probably better to deal with each of these massive issues one thread at a time.

Show Me the Wire

03-12-2007, 01:09 PM

Sec:

Yes, I think the economy, including housing has been healthy, since the republican congress took control subsequent to Carter's administration. NOt only we are on different pages but you are in a different book.

My post, the one you responded to, was about the economic health of the country under the republican congresses since Carter. I said I expected the dem congress to keep a healthy economy ( and no matter how you define it the economy has been healthy). And if you want the median wage to go up, maybe Pelosi and her melons should not have made an exception to the min. wage. But I digress.

To continue about the expectations, I also expect the dems to sucessfully addres the trade imbalances with China, deal with Iran, Iraq, Syria, and illegal immigration.

I do not think that is too much to ask. But it seems you do.

46zilzal

03-12-2007, 01:50 PM

FROM GALLUP

.

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush
is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?"

.
Approve Dis Unsure
% % %
3/2-5/07 27 67 6
1/17-20/07 28 67 5
12/8-11/06 23 71 6
10/28-30/06 RV 34 63 3
10/13-16/06 RV 33 63 4
9/8-11/06 RV 38 57 5
7/21-24/06 34 61 5
6/9-12/06 35 61 4
4/21-24/06 33 62 5
3/10-13/06 35 61 4
1/26-29/06 39 56 5

Seems a bit different. LOSING ground.

Released: February 28, 2006

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

* Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
* While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
* Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
* Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks poor uninformed brainwashed people!
* Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
* Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

46zilzal

03-12-2007, 02:00 PM

Majority in Poll Favor Deadline For Iraq Pullout

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 27, 2007

With Congress preparing for renewed debate over President Bush's Iraq policies, a majority of Americans now support setting a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from the war-torn nation and support putting new conditions on the military that could limit the number of personnel available for duty there, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Opposition to Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq remained strong. Two in three Americans registered their disapproval, with 56 percent saying they strongly object. The House recently passed a nonbinding resolution opposing the new deployments, but Republicans have blocked consideration of such a measure in the Senate.

46zilzal

03-12-2007, 02:02 PM

Poll Indicates US Troops in Iraq Favor Withdrawal
By Al Pessin
Voice of America News

Washington, March 1, 2006 -- A poll of U.S. troops in Iraq indicates that many of them believe the force should be withdrawn within a year, and some say sooner. A Defense Department spokesman says there are other indications that many of the troops understand the importance of their mission and want to see it through to a successful conclusion.

Senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, are fond of citing support among the troops as evidence that their policy in Iraq is a good one. But the survey by the well-known Zogby International polling company says 72 percent of the U.S. troops in Iraq believe all U.S. forces should be withdrawn within 12 months. Among them, 29 percent called for an immediate withdrawal and 22 percent said the force should leave within six months. According to the survey, only 23 percent say U.S. troops should stay in Iraq "as long as they are needed," which is President Bush's policy.

46zilzal

03-12-2007, 03:03 PM

A system of government marked by centralization of a single authority with stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

sound familiar?

Racer98

03-12-2007, 03:04 PM

you really need to read up on ethanol.

It only provides 60 percent of the energy that gasoline does.

It just ain't the same. It actually takes more energy to make ethanol than it yields ...............do a google search on the ethanol fallacy

We will never be off of Oil. Unless a naturally abundant (and I don't mean something you have to grow) resource is converted to fuel.

The oil barons will just continually drop the price until it is no longer feasible to produce the alternative fuel vehicles............when you can buy gas for a buck a gallon......why drive an electric car? think about it..........and they still get rich when we are paying a buck a gallon.

But say we run out. Then what?

And tom: Fight who to win what? Who is the bad guy? It isn't the Iraqui citizen the good guy? He dresses the same as the bad guy. And what are we winning?

46zilzal

03-12-2007, 07:32 PM

Troops are reporting between 25-30% SIGNIFICANT mental trauma...Hardly surprising since these fellows are going back over and over.

Racer98

03-12-2007, 09:09 PM

Doesn't surprise me either.

Secretariat

03-12-2007, 09:29 PM

Sec:

To continue about the expectations, I also expect the dems to sucessfully addres the trade imbalances with China, deal with Iran, Iraq, Syria, and illegal immigration.

I do not think that is too much to ask. But it seems you do.

With a Republican President threatening to maintain the status quo by vetoing any type of change I think you've got gridlock.

Since Republican congresses have created trade imbalances with China, and not adddressed Iran, or Syria and blown the Iraq situation to hell, and not addressed illegal immigration since Carter, you seem to be asking a Dem Congress to fix these Republican messes within three months with Presidental vetos threatened and cloture a regular tactic of the Repubs in the Senate?

It is interesting that you talk about Republican sucesses, and then are asking a three month Dem Congress to address issues you see as messes to clean up such as he above.

Let's face it you're stlll a supporter of a Repubican Congress voted out by the people, and a President who the American people have lost faith in.

JustRalph

03-12-2007, 09:41 PM

But say we run out. Then what?

we have 400 years left............look it up

if we do run out.......then we can go to ethanol fulltime...........changes the world.........but we won't run out

Show Me the Wire

03-13-2007, 02:39 AM

Sec,

I am a supporter of the favorable items accomplished. Not a supporter about their failures, i.e. illegal immigration, China, etc.

That is why I expect the dems to address the failures of the republican congresses. Why are you having such a difficult time grasping the concept that I expect the new congress to keep the good and correct the wrongs?

Tom

03-13-2007, 07:32 AM

So far, more excuses than action.
Maybe a 5 day work week is on order.

Racer98

03-13-2007, 03:01 PM

we have 400 years left............look it up

if we do run out.......then we can go to ethanol fulltime...........changes the world.........but we won't run out

Overnight? Just like that?

And I heard a number more like 32 years, according to the Oil & Gas Journal and the EIA.

Tom

03-13-2007, 03:09 PM

Well, then, you have heard wrong.

We have more than that right here at home, but can't drill for it because the tree-hugging libs don't like oil wells. And no other reason.

46zilzal

03-13-2007, 03:16 PM

We have more than that right here at home, but can't drill for it because the tree-hugging libs don't like oil wells. And no other reason.
You mean the ones who understand ecosystems and their fragile balance? hmmmm

What was it that Coulter said : "The world is our to exploit however we want?" Stupidity

46zilzal

03-13-2007, 03:32 PM

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

Racer98

03-13-2007, 05:33 PM

However, there happens to be this one problem, oh, I think it's ANY OTHER PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES, that lives there too. And they've been there longer (Not just evolution, but in the bible too.

Tom

03-13-2007, 10:51 PM

You mean the ones who understand ecosystems and their fragile balance? hmmmm

What was it that Coulter said : "The world is our to exploit however we want?" Stupidity

No, I mean the oil in Alaska that can be drilled with no adverse effects on the environment, and the oil of shore and in the gulf that can be drilled for without adverse effects on the environement. The same oil other countries are drilling for right now, except us because of our ridiculous tree-hugging, Gore-tainted - feel- good-lib wacko mentality. That oil, 46.

Racer98

03-14-2007, 06:31 PM

Ever watch Dirty Jobs? Specifically the one where he works at an Oil Well?

Tom

03-14-2007, 06:50 PM

Ever work in a McDonald's kitchen?
Should we outlaw french fries?
Do you have any idea what the effect on world hunger would be if we used 100% of the corn crop for fuel? And 100% of the cron crop would not cover the demand for oil.
Face it, oil is with us for our lifetimes.
And it is just plain stupid not to use our own.

Racer98

03-14-2007, 07:13 PM

Yes, they're killing enough people with clogged arteries, even the healthy and athletic. That will help with the obesity of the US.

Okay, say it won't affect you, fr example. But what about your kids? Grandkids? Will they be left in the dark?

46zilzal

03-14-2007, 07:38 PM

The 10 fattest cities are, in descending order:

1. Houston, TX
2. Chicago, IL
3. Detroit, MI
4. Philadelphia, PA
5. Dallas, TX
6. Columbus, OH
7. San Antonio, TX
8. Fort Worth, TX

Any surpise then that a FATHEAD (the rutabaga) should come from the fattest area of the country?

Racer98

03-14-2007, 07:43 PM

Columbus is working on it.

They were fourth as of 2 years ago.

I happen to be a scrawny guy, but very athletic. So that's not me.

46zilzal

03-14-2007, 07:46 PM

Everyone who purchases processed food owes themselves the reading of Fast Food Nation:The Dark Side of the All-American Meal by Eric Schlosser

Secretariat

03-14-2007, 08:15 PM

Ever work in a McDonald's kitchen?
Should we outlaw french fries?

Congress did for awhile. They were called "Freedom Fries" :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tom

03-14-2007, 08:26 PM

46, what are you now, 9, 10 years old?

What's next? Nya nya nya nya nya!

JustRalph

03-14-2007, 10:09 PM

jesus 46.........get a friggin job...........

Secretariat

03-14-2007, 11:01 PM

Interesting change.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8904403

Pentagon Acknowledges 'Civil War' in Iraq Report

For the first time, the Pentagon's update to Congress on the state of the Iraq war acknowledges that elements of the Iraq conflict "are properly descriptive of a 'civil war.'"

The quarterly report pointed to the hardening of ethnic and sectarian identities, increased violence and the fact that civilians are leaving their homes in greater numbers.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060901-112704-8516r.htm

Pentagon sees no civil war in Iraq
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 2, 2006
Tribal and religious violence is increasing in Iraq but has not become a civil war, according to a Pentagon quarterly report to Congress made public yesterday.

Racer98

03-15-2007, 04:10 PM

So it's no longer a civil "dispute". Good.

As for the fast food, I probably shouldn't eat it. My family has a history of heart problems. My dad weighed about 180 pounds before and after heart surgery. Since slacking off fast food completely (With the exeption of Subway) he's dropped to 165. This was in maybe 2-3 months.

46zilzal

03-15-2007, 04:11 PM

We will just call it something else no matter what it really is.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/15/iraq.main/index.html

46zilzal

03-15-2007, 05:47 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/27/72-us-soldiers-in-iraq-t_n_16489.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/mili-o24.shtml
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=177&Itemid=64

PaceAdvantage

03-15-2007, 10:29 PM

We will just call it something else no matter what it really is.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/15/iraq.main/index.html

Why does anyone really care what it is called? It's not going to change anything. The only way to change things is through action. One way or the other.

Once again....all talky, no ballsy.

highnote

03-15-2007, 11:42 PM

Why does anyone really care what it is called?

Reminds me of one of Abraham Lincoln's favorite riddles.

If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A dog still has only 4 legs. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

Racer98

03-16-2007, 02:50 PM

Once again....all talky, no ballsy.

I wish you'd find another phrase. That one's getting a bit overused. ;)

46zilzal

03-16-2007, 02:58 PM

I wish you'd find another phrase. That one's getting a bit overused.
Yes as if I could personally go to Washington and change things!

Secretariat

03-16-2007, 08:12 PM

Interesting quote by Al Sadr today.

"The occupiers want to harm this beloved (Sadr City) and tarnish its name by spreading false rumors and allegations that negotiations and cooperation are ongoing between you and them," Muqtada al-Sadr said in a statement read to worshippers by Sheik Haider al-Jabri. "I am confident that you will not make concessions to them and will remain above them. Raise your voices in love and brotherhood and unity against your enemy and shout 'No, no America.'"

:ThmbDown:

PaceAdvantage

03-16-2007, 10:39 PM

Yes as if I could personally go to Washington and change things!

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to all those who get caught up on words, like the current Congress and their non-binding baloney.

PaceAdvantage

03-16-2007, 10:39 PM

I wish you'd find another phrase. That one's getting a bit overused. ;)

Just for that, I've hit the reset button on the "overused" counter....

Racer98

03-17-2007, 09:25 AM

46zilzal

03-17-2007, 11:41 AM

Very witty, PA. :p

We really shouldn't have believed that we would be greeted as liberators. We weren't. Most people don't want us to be there, on both sides.

Like I stated before, now that we've messed everything up, we HAVE to keep soliders there. Otherwise it's too big of a mess.
Go back and read statement of principles at The New American Century and these brain-dead really thought it was the liberation of France all over again.

46zilzal

03-17-2007, 11:59 AM

Four years on, war costs Bush at home and abroad

By David Alexander
ReutersReuters

Mar 17, 2007 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four years after he began the Iraq war, a diminished President George W. Bush has sacrificed much of his domestic agenda and eroded U.S. credibility abroad in pursuit of the sort of nation-building he once scorned, analysts say.

The president's job approval ratings have fallen from 90 percent shortly after the September 11 attacks to just over 30 percent.

He forfeited the dream of cementing Republican control over Congress and his administration is increasingly under fire from Democrats and Republicans alike.

"When he was re-elected in the fall of 2004 he interpreted the election … by saying that 'I have political capital. I'm going to spend it.' But the fact of the matter is he's spent it all on Iraq and he's got precious little left," Eichenberg said.
BIG surprise when you are out of touch with reality!

46zilzal

03-18-2007, 04:14 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/poll.wars/index.html

46zilzal

03-19-2007, 12:43 PM

More bite the dust.
7 more American troops killed in Iraq

By Lauren Frayer / Associated Press

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military on Sunday announced the deaths of seven more troops in Iraq, including four killed by a roadside bomb while patrolling western Baghdad — the latest American casualties in a monthlong security crackdown in the capital.

Though violence has receded slightly in the capital, a car bomb killed eight Iraqis in a predominantly Shiite district on Sunday, police said. The attack targeted people cooking food at open-air grills in the street, to offer as charity on a Shiite Muslim holiday commemorating the anniversary of the Prophet Muhammad's death. Police said 28 others were wounded in the attack.

But the rutabaga claims good progress.

"There's been good progress," Bush said during brief remarks at the White House. "There's a lot more work to be done and Iraq's leaders must continue to work to reach the benchmarks they have set forward."

Out of touch with reality

Secretariat

03-19-2007, 01:25 PM

More on polls of Iraqi people. I posted a poll in reply to JR in another thread, but since this one started by melman is aout polls, I'm posting another one here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc

Here's an excerpt from the article related to the poll:

"Mirroring U.S. public doubts about the war, a new poll showed that four in five Iraqis have little or no confidence in U.S.-led forces and most think their presence is making security worse. Despite that, only about a third want them to leave now.

The poll of more than 2,000 people, commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, ARD and USA Today, indicated Iraqis have become less optimistic about the future compared to a similar survey in 2005 when respondents were generally hopeful, the BBC said.

Overall, 18 percent of Iraqis expressed confidence in U.S. forces and 69 percent said their presence made security worse. "

Frankly I prefer the PIFA.org poll as it is much more detail, but this is interesting.

PaceAdvantage

03-19-2007, 04:23 PM

Though violence has receded slightly in the capital

Man, it must have just about killed not only 46 but the AP reporter to type such a line....couldn't they have found a better word than "Slightly." How about infinitesimally or microscopically.

PaceAdvantage

03-19-2007, 04:24 PM

More bite the dust.

I picture you doing the mythological 9/11 "Five Dancing Israelis" dance as you type this.....

46zilzal

03-19-2007, 04:36 PM

I picture you doing the mythological 9/11 "Five Dancing Israelis" dance as you type this.....
I don't like to see these poor guys sacrificed for some delusion of grandeur.

JustRalph

03-19-2007, 04:44 PM

I don't like to see these poor guys sacrificed for some delusion of grandeur.

Then maybe you would be a little more respectful by not using

"bites the dust" to describe the death of these brave soldiers.

Your tongue reveals your internal soul

46zilzal

03-19-2007, 05:00 PM

Then maybe you would be a little more respectful by not using

"bites the dust" to describe the death of these brave soldiers.

Your tongue reveals your internal soul
When people's lives are wasted, the terminology fits. The idiots put them unnecessarily in harms way.

Tom

03-19-2007, 10:30 PM

What a dipstick.

Wasted? Fits?

46, in all sincerity, I hope the next terror attack includes your worthless ass in the carnage. Then picture ME doing that dance.:ThmbDown:

46zilzal

03-20-2007, 01:14 AM

here you go.

46zilzal

03-20-2007, 01:21 AM

Or another one relevant to the subject

46zilzal

03-20-2007, 02:03 AM

or one more again relevant to this discussion.

PaceAdvantage

03-20-2007, 02:40 AM

As if asking questions were all that you do....:lol:

How innocent the far left is.....:lol: :lol: :bang: :faint:

46zilzal

03-20-2007, 11:43 AM

US troops in Iraq want out

By Bryan Pearson / AFP

BAGHDAD - For US troops from 9th Cavalry Regiment bumping around the dangerous streets of Baghdad in Humvees after dark on Monday, news that their deployment in Iraq could be extended fell like a hammer blow.

Their commanders had cautioned that their second one-year tour due to end in October could be prolonged while US President George W. Bush later warned troops it was too soon to "pack up and go home."

The expletives during the four-hour night patrol turned the air in the Humvee, already thick with cigarette smoke, a dark shade of blue.

"We just want to get out of here as soon as possible," said one vehicle commander in one of his few printable comments.

"It's because the Iraqi army is so scared that we have to come here to die," he added, asking not to be named.

"Ninety-five percent of Iraqis are good but five percent are bad. But the 95 percent are too weak to stand up to the five percent."

"Bush should send all the Death Row prisoners here."

Tom

03-20-2007, 12:44 PM

How many?
Or is this just another of your unfounded posts designed to statisfy your sick mind?
I know many see the value of thier work and do NOT want to leave.
Without perspective, your post is as meaningless as the cartoons you love to post.

Alzhiemer's, perhaps?
You did try to pass off a quote from 2003 as "last week" until Lefty called you on it.
I think you might have lost a grip on reality and time.

Or just lie.

46zilzal

03-20-2007, 12:59 PM

The National Intelligence Estimate, titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” and completed in April, asserts that Islamic extremism is not on the decline, but has been expanding, and that the Iraq war played a central role in the expansion of terrorist networks.

The war in Iraq, far from shutting down terrorism, is helping Islamic extremists to manufacture it at a fairly rapid pace.

“It’s a very candid assessment,” said one intelligence official of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the 2003 invasion. “It’s stating the obvious.” — Washington Post
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/24/spy-agencies-say-iraq-war-increased-terrorism-threat/

Greyfox

03-20-2007, 01:09 PM

US troops in Iraq want out

46zilzal,

Let's suppose the U.S. troops were pulled out of Iraq in say, 6 months, or a 1 year.
What do you foresee as the logical consequences of that move?
Within 1 year from the pull out? Within 2 years from the pull out?

(Any ideas re: economics, terrorism, changes in Middle East Politics vis a vis Iran, the political and social consequences for Iraqis, etc. Would Iraqis, the Middle East, the U.S., the World in general be safer places?)

46zilzal

03-20-2007, 01:29 PM

pissed off Saudis

Greyfox

03-20-2007, 01:35 PM

It was a bit unfair of me to single out 46z with that question alone.
I thought of that after I had posted it.
Obviously various groups in here have reasons for staying and reasons for leaving.
So let me ask the question again, but this time to all who have posted here.

Let's suppose the U.S. troops were pulled out of Iraq in say, 6 months, or a 1 year.
What do you foresee as the logical consequences of that move?
Within 1 year from the pull out? Within 2 years from the pull out?

(Any ideas re: economics, terrorism, changes in Middle East Politics vis a vis Iran, the political and social consequences for Iraqis, etc. Would Iraqis, the Middle East, the U.S., the World in general be safer places?)

For those who believe they should stay, What are the logical consequences of staying commited. 1 year, 2 years etc.

Tom

03-20-2007, 02:28 PM

Forget timelines.

If we pull out and leave an Iraq unable to control it's own streets, we have Afghanistan Part Deux.

If it beomes evidnet they will never be able to do that, our only hope then is to pull out and when it looks like the time has come, we take out cities at a time with whatever firepowe it takes. Killing anyone in the crosshairs, which is not the pest outcome.

Either we leave a viable Iraq or we need to be prepared to break it again.
Not much other choices.

Please note, had we listen to ME in 2003, we would not be in the soup today. There would be a few million more dead Iraqi's and a lot more destruction, but Iraq would not be the target of terroists just yet.

Or, if Bush had the balls to tell his troops to fight to win instead of handcuffing them with rules of engagement.

Two rules in war:
1. See enemy
2. Kill enemy.

Anything else is sports.

46zilzal

03-20-2007, 04:41 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/13/saudi.sunnis/index.html

helping hand of the neighbors.

Racer98

03-20-2007, 04:55 PM

Two rules in war:
1. See enemy
2. Kill enemy.

Anything else is sports.

The rules in Iraq:

1.You are allowed to shoot in sectors A, C, E, and F upon sight.
2.You are allowed to shoot in sectors B, D, G, and J only if shot at first.
3.You are allowed to shoot in sectors H, I, L, and M upon positive identification of enemy.
4.You are NOT allowed to shoot in sectors K, N, and O.

We're helping, not occupying. The same problem existed in Vietnam. We can't just shoot people because we're supposed to be there helping them.

Tom

03-20-2007, 09:29 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/13/saudi.sunnis/index.html

helping hand of the neighbors.

If nothing else, the Iraq war has exposed the great islam lie for the world to see - peace loving religion my ARSE!
They are probably the worst bunch of blood thirsty mad dog religious nut cases in the world. Mad dogs under a blanket of religion. Reason enough to profile them generally.

46zilzal

03-21-2007, 01:12 AM

A little too neat. War planned now lets look for a reason.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm
and the poor folks who go there have this type of mentality to deal with.

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."
Henry Kissinger statement to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post
"The Final Days (1976) "

Who are they really fighting there? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270.html

46zilzal

03-22-2007, 11:17 AM

Fallen trooper didn't believe in war

Dreamed of military glory as kid growing up on D-M air base

By Carol Ann Alaimo / Arizona Daily Star

As a kid growing up on Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Christopher Brevard dreamed of military glory. As an adult, he spent the last months of his life fighting a war he didn't believe in.

In e-mails to his family, the Army paratrooper, a father of two who considered himself a patriot, talked about what he saw as the futility of military operations in Iraq. He worried about the chronic exhaustion of the soldiers he led and felt U.S. troops were dying overseas for no good reason.

"He said, 'Mom, I would lay my life down in a heartbeat fighting for America. But if I lose my life over here, I will not feel like I died for my country," said the soldier's mother, Michele Brevard, 51.

On Friday, she received word that her 31-year-old son had been felled by a homemade bomb in Baghdad.