Report: Bush To Lay The Groundwork For Precipitous Withdrawal From Iraq Next Wednesday
By on Nov 26th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Report: Bush To Lay The Groundwork For Precipitous Withdrawal From Iraq Next Wednesday
Vice President Cheney, 11/21/05:
A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.
LA Times, 11/26/05:
President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces…The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007…
Remember: bringing the troops home is only a bad idea if someone other than Bush suggests it.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Don’t be fooled, he’ll only do this to get Republican votes. Party before people is his way.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:07 amAgreed. The election is only 11 months away. Time to re-mobilize the “base” … pardon me while I puke.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:10 amThey will bend with the political wind, and may withdraw some troops, but not any more than is politically expedient.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:11 amI’m sure he has gotten a LOT of pressure for the House Republicans who are looking at 2006 and are frightened they will not be re-elected. Bush broke it (Iraq), he doesn’t have a plan to fix it.. and now it seems the only thing he cares about is getting his buddies re-elected.
Wouldn’t it be great if this guy was finally held responsible for the things he does?
November 26th, 2005 at 10:14 amIt’s amazing to note how much “progress” has been made in the Iraqi troops in the last three weeks. The generals very recently admitted to congress how few Iraqis were ready to shoulder the burden alone, much to the shock of the senators present, as well as the nation.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:18 amPressure to withdraw troops has apparently fallen so hard on Bush (much like his poll numbers) that the Iraqis have now made “astonishing improvement” and George has determined that he will soon start withdrawing troops.
Judd is right — when it’s a Democrat’s idea, or the Murtha plan, it’s worthy of denigration by the White House along with charges of treason by Cheney, their pundit shills, and Republican supporters — later, they simply co-opt the idea, rename it as their own, and congratulate themselves.
For a man who dishonestly claims to pay no heed to polls, Bush apparently governs his every act by them.
His concern for the lives and treasure he has spent is non-existent, as is his ability to accept responsibility for any consequences.
But there will be a lot of hardline neo-con imperialists who will be extremely pissed at Bush. They wanted to send more troops to Iraq, and occupy the whole region.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:28 am#1 & #2
Look for a lot of handshakes, photo-ops, paper declarations and a couple of highly-visible troop returns or redeployments out-of-region — just enough to say that the “force reduction” is “in progress” during the run-up to November 2006. They will sell us the scenery, with no intention of producing the play.
Also: Look for a catchphrase/campaign shorthand to make the whole thing seem legitimate and irreversible.
My vote would be for “Operation: Phantom Drawdown” or “Operation: Lame Duck Reanimate,” but I’m sure we’ll get something a little less truthful.
God knows, thay can’t call this what it REALLY is:
November 26th, 2005 at 10:38 am“OPERATION: ONLY THE GOOD DIEBOLD.”
That bastard Bush is going to do just what the democrats want,just to make them look like victors in the debate. Bush is so calculating that even smart progressives can’t figure out how to thwart their own plan! I hope we can stop him from doing what we want him to ….never mind….
November 26th, 2005 at 10:46 am#8 Marc: The point is that Bush ain’t REALLY going to do anything.
Be careful with satire. It requires a certain baseline level of comprehension and wit.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:58 amThe old “Drawing down the troops ploy”….very original. It will also make Bush look like the thing that the wingers hate the most….Flip Flopper.
Amazing, only a few months ago there was one ready iraqi battalion. It now looks like the battalion and military readiness of the Iraqi army will be held to a Michael Brown standard of readiness.
Doing a heckuva job General Custer.
-GSD
November 26th, 2005 at 11:01 amI’ll think about believing it when I see it. Just another Bu$hCo smoke screen.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:07 amEveryone wants to leave Iraq eventually. Planning for eventual withdrawal is not thesame thing as the Democrats’ preferred quit-now surrender strategy.
There’s no contradiction in what Judd posted. Judd simply seems incapable of basic honesty.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:08 amSo, if President Bush does talk about withdrawing the troops from Iraq on Wednesday, does that mean that…
a) Ann Coulter will change her opinion
b) The President is “a gutless traitor†who “longs to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.â€
or
c) None of the above, both Ann and the President are right even though they are expressing opposing views…
My bet is that c is the right answer.
Heyt, looks like wwallace just proved me right.
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:13 amAnd Zwack is either as dishonest as Judd or too stupid to understand basic distinctions.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:14 amEveryone wants to leave Iraq eventually.
___
Well, sure. We need to get out of Iraq (except for the new permanent bases) so we can move on to Syria and Iran, and then back to Afghanistan before it totally reverts to chaos.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:16 amwwallace, can I remind you that President Bush explicitly stated that setting any sort of timetable for troop withdrawals is playing into the hands of the insurgents.
The Democrats did not suggest “let’s quit now and bring the troops home tomorrow” that was the Republicans after Murtha had given a more reasonable plan.
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:16 am12. … “incapable of basic honesty” …
That’s a hoot, dubya sqaure(d) … you and your fellow zealots have cornered the market on basic dishonesty for so many years that you wouldn’t recognize the truth is it smacked ya upside the head (a Texas/southern expresxsion) …
November 26th, 2005 at 11:17 am#12, wwallace, ya bonehead, what the hell are you talking about? ALL Dems (except 3) voted against Duncan Hunter’s “quit-now surrender” Iraq resolution last week.
John Murtha’s plan was carefully thought out, with 6 months as a target date to START the drawdown, and even then only depending on circumstances. But since Republicans didn’t think of it first, they treat it like it’s radioactive.
Now it seems Bush is going to do the wrong thing, the wrong way.
You Republican trolls coming here are are liars, liars, liars. I don’t think you’re stupid enough to actually believe what you say. But I know you’re liars.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:18 am18. EBP, they’re stupid enough to believe what bush says, and too stupid to think on their own.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:21 amZwack is calling Rep. Murtha, a decorated veteran, a liar. Murtha called for “immediate withdrawal.”
November 26th, 2005 at 11:21 am#20 Stand by to be brutally corrected.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:26 amWwallace,
You are fundamentally incapable of:
a) Basic honesty.
b) Vigorous intellectual debate.
c)Making it through the day without shitting your pants.
-GSD
November 26th, 2005 at 11:26 amwwallace, #20, as a conservative redneck who knows the half-truth when he sees it, I must disagree with you about Murtha. Immediate withdrawl?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are so full of it your breath stinks. I mean, you need to pay attention to what Murtha SAID, not what Fox News Reinterpretated for you.
Get it together, dipshit.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:27 amOf all the damage this administration has done to our great nation,perhaps this is the greatest. No matter what he says, we won’t believe him. When you are in trouble you need to know the facts. Americans aren’t getting the facts and if we were, we wouldn’t believe him anyway. He is a proven liar.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:29 amWwallace… Given that you have failed to provide any proof in the past I don’t hold out much hope here, but I’m willing to try.
Let’s skip the ad hominem attacks. Don’t insult people, show them where their arguments are wrong. Name calling does not make you a master debater.
Ann Coulther at least implied that Democrats who want to bring the troops home “traitors”. Is this true?
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2005/11/24/176727.html
The second last paragraph talks about democrats and then the last paragraph says these people are traitors.
What basic distinction don’t I understand? That Jack Murtha calling for a redeployment of troops and a slow withdrawal from Iraq is somehow different from George W Bush talking about a withdrawal of troops from Iraq? Without knowing the details of the second withdrawal I can’t tell why it would be any different than the first.
So, here is what I would like you to explain to me…
Did Ann Coulter call Democrats who want to bring the troops home traitors?
Does it sound like President Bush wants to bring the troops home?
If the answer to these two is yes, then what is the distinction between the two groups?
If you want to debate my intelligence and honesty then we can do that, but this isn’t the place for it.
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:33 amPresident Bush didn’t lie though.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:33 amWwallace,
Here is one. George W. Bush: “I am a uniter, not a divider”.
Clearly that was an out and out lie.
Game, set, match.
Granite State Destroyer, please take a small victory lap.
-GSD
November 26th, 2005 at 11:37 amWhat is obvious to anyone but a Repugnant shill, is that Bush’s supposed move to pullout the troops is nothing less than a political ploy to save the Congress from being taken over by the Democrats in 2006. Let no one be fooled into believing for one second that this gutter snipe gives a tinker’s dam about the troops are about preventing anymore deaths in Iraq. He and Cheney only care about their place in history. Here is a news flash for the two of them. Your place in history has already gone down the crapper. You and your ilk are sewege of the worst kind. Don’t worry, Coulter and her cronies will all be there to welcome you home.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:42 amwwallace
Please read these…
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr_051117_iraqres.html
Now, do you want to tell me where it says “Immediate withdrawal” It says “Immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. Forces” in one and “the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.”
I never called Murtha a liar, if you believe that I did then I want to see that post.
At no point do I see the words “Immediate withdrawal” in either his resolution or his press release. He is quite clear that a redeployment is not the same as a withdrawal.
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:49 amIf Bush came out tomorrow and said the troops be will home by Chistmas, Bushbots such as wwallace would hail him as a great leader who beat the Dems at their own game. It’s useless to feed Bushbots such as him because Bush can do no wrong in their eyes.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:52 amZwack, Wwallace will say why be bothered with facts when you have shrillness and slavery to party(Just like the old Soviet Union, only less charming) and obediance to propaganda and blind trust on your side.
-GSD
November 26th, 2005 at 11:53 amWWallace, where did I say that President bush lied, or that Jack Murtha lied?
I was drawing a comparison between a call for a plan and what may be a plan and asking where the difference is. Then I was asking if the critics of one would be critical of the other.
Murtha didn’t lie. Bush hasn’t spoken yet so he can’t have lied about this topic.
Please stop putting words into my mouth. I have provided you with sources for some of my claims. Does the phrase “Out of the horses mouth” mean anything to you. I pointed to what Murtha said and what Coulter said. In their own words. I can’t point to what Bush said as I don’t have a time machine and he hasn’t said it yet. He may never say it. I don’t know, nor do I claim to.
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:54 am#28 JtE
November 26th, 2005 at 11:55 amRight on!
We must not reply to wwallace and his fact free comments, nor his inflammatory, nonsensical ad hominems. He is apparently a person suffering from arrested development and stuck in the adolescent stage of life, with the accompanying immaturity. He wastes our time and energy, he adds nothing worthwhile in discussion. He will not hear, much less be swayed by, anything we say, so ignore him and let him go home to play.
Is it time to pack up and go home yet?
Protest Reassembles in Crawford
November 26th, 2005 at 11:55 amOpponents of War in Iraq Plan to Remain Near Bush Ranch
By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 26, 2005; Page A05
CRAWFORD, Tex., Nov. 25 — Cindy Sheehan has returned to the dus…
GSD, I realise that I am not likely to get anywhere with wwallace, but I felt that if I presented my case in a reasonable, reasoned fashion, at least it might make his comments stand out a bit more in sharp relief.
Nobody will be able to look at my comments and his comments in a fair light and say “wwallace won that debate”.
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:57 amSay I wonder if MAnn Coltrane is Calling Dubya a Treasonous Traitor?
November 26th, 2005 at 12:09 pmJust follow my lead George. We can continue to control events if we just shift a little from extreme warrior to moderate warrior. I’m going to be joining with the Labor party that opposed me. You can be born-again also.
They’ll forget the people you killed. Nobody asks me about Lebanon anymore.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/01/23/belgium.sharon/
November 26th, 2005 at 12:11 pmZwack is calling Rep. Murtha, a decorated veteran, a liar. Murtha called for “immediate withdrawal.”
Comment by wwallace — November 26, 2005 @ 11:21 am
wwallace, maybe I haven’t been clear enough, so let me state it in plain English. When you enter a public forum such as Think Progress, you must be ready to:
1) Have your assertions, claims challenged and
2) Substantiate them with evidence
In your statement above, you have made two claims. Please present evidence that Zwack called Murtha a liar, and that Murtha called for immediate withdrawal.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:19 pmOh, and don’t tell me you already explained it. You still haven’t explained any of my questions yesterday regarding Ann Coulter’s comments about Murtha.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:23 pmThanks Gregor, I can’t remember calling anyone a liar in this or the Ann Coulter thread. I guess wwallace knows better than I what I said.
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:27 pmDont believe Anything BUSHco Says.
They LIE on principal, and Rationalize it away as them being Superior and the Public Inferior (this means you Wwallace) it is the ‘RIGHT’ of the ‘Superior’ to ‘Lie’ to and ‘Rule’ the ‘Inferior’ ‘Herd’.
Its is the ‘RIGHT’ if the ‘Superior’ to ‘LIE’ the ‘INFERIOR’ into war.
MIGHT makes RIGHT.
Anyway, Bushco IS, as Powell Said “The Crazies”
And these crazies are bent on bringing Armageddon to Pass, Installing the Falwellian BUSH Edomite into power in the Land of Israel.
no I didnt make this one up –Aj
November 26th, 2005 at 12:28 pmMore duplicity. Ho hum.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:32 pmWasn’t the terrorist framework supposed to fall like dominoes? Dominos? Potatoes? Potatos?
November 26th, 2005 at 12:33 pmCome on people:
“Everyone wants to leave Iraq eventually. Planning for eventual withdrawal is not thesame thing as the Democrats’ preferred quit-now surrender strategy.
There’s no contradiction in what Judd posted. Judd simply seems incapable of basic honesty.”
With a statement like this, it is quite obvious that wwallace is the epitome of un-informed troll.
He is literally her as a troll to derail our threads. He must be paid to act this stupid. Yesterday you guys spent an aweful lot of time going back and forth with this moron.
We have plenty to talk about without going back and forth with this guy. At least discuss things with the conservatives that come here and actually want to debate.
wwallace is not here for discussion, only to highjack threads.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:36 pmZwack,
“He is quite clear that a redeployment is not the same as a withdrawal.”
But it is the same. He wants US troops out of Iraq “immediately.” “Redeployment” to another country is a withdrawal.
Judd’s headline, “…Bush To Lay The Groundwork For Precipitous Withdrawal…” is a complete, total, blatant lie.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:38 pmSpudge, hurling juvenile insults at me will never change any of the facts I’ve posted. But I suppose that’s all you pro-defeat lefties have to offer.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:40 pm#47
Just because you have no military training or a comprehension of the English language doesn’t mean the Redeploy and Withdraw mean the same thing moron.
Redeploy:
Main Entry: re•de•ploy
Pronunciation: “rE-di-’ploi
Function: verb
transitive senses : to transfer from one area or activity to another
intransitive senses : to relocate men or equipment
Withdraw:
November 26th, 2005 at 12:44 pmwithdraw
Main Entry: with•draw
Pronunciation: wi[th]-’dro, with-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): with•drew /-’drü/; with•drawn /-’dron/; with•draw•ing /-’dro(-)i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from with from + drawen to draw
transitive senses
1 a : to move back or away : RETIRE b : to draw back from a battlefield : RETREAT
2 a : to remove oneself from participation b : to become socially or emotionally detached
3 : to recall a motion under parliamentary procedure
wwallace,
You are a retard and a disgrace to the name you have chosen to use.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:45 pmFVCKING OWNED AGAIN.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:46 pmCome on, tell me again how Redeploy and Withdraw mena the same thing.
If you weren’t a chickenhawk and had servered in the military or if you wouldn’t have dropped out in the third grade, you would know the difference between Redeploy and Withdraw, but you don’t.
That makes you a moron. You guys can try and spin it, but it doen’t make it true.
Redeploy:
Main Entry: re•de•ploy
Pronunciation: “rE-di-’ploi
Function: verb
transitive senses : to transfer from one area or activity to another
intransitive senses : to relocate men or equipment
Withdraw:
November 26th, 2005 at 12:50 pmwithdraw
Main Entry: with•draw
Pronunciation: wi[th]-’dro, with-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): with•drew /-’drü/; with•drawn /-’dron/; with•draw•ing /-’dro(-)i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from with from + drawen to draw
transitive senses
1 a : to move back or away : RETIRE b : to draw back from a battlefield : RETREAT
2 a : to remove oneself from participation b : to become socially or emotionally detached
3 : to recall a motion under parliamentary procedure
wwallace…
If you read the resolution that I provided a link for it states quite clearly that it should be done AS FAST AS IS SAFE. This is not the same as RIGHT THIS INSTANT. Murtha is quite clear that the safety of the troops is what he is looking at. If you can’t see the difference between “let’s leave as fast as is safe” and “let’s leave now” then I don’t know what I can do to help you. The difference may not be huge, but it is there.
As for Judds headline, there is nothing dishonest about it. It summarises the article which states that Bush will give a speech which will “lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals”. The only word that you can quibble with is the word Precipitous. Given that the article is pretty explicit about the same topic as the headline, I can’t see where the lie is.
Finally, until you attempt to answer these three questions that I askjed earlier then I will be ignoring your attacks.
Did Ann Coulter call Democrats who want to bring the troops home traitors?
Does it sound like President Bush wants to bring the troops home?
If the answer to these two is yes, then what is the distinction between the two groups?
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:51 pmKeep it up wwallace. The more you add to this blog, the better us “lefties” look. Thanks for helping!
November 26th, 2005 at 12:53 pm“Spudge, hurling juvenile insults at me will never change any of the facts I’ve posted.” – wwallace
OMFG ROFL
What facts?
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:54 pmwwallace,
Further, post a link for us to any online dictionary where the words Withdraw and Redeploy have the same menaing.
Withdraw:
November 26th, 2005 at 12:54 pmwithdraw
Main Entry: with•draw
Pronunciation: wi[th]-’dro, with-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): with•drew /-’drü/; with•drawn /-’dron/; with•draw•ing /-’dro(-)i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from with from + drawen to draw
transitive senses
1 a : to move back or away : RETIRE b : to draw back from a battlefield : RETREAT
2 a : to remove oneself from participation b : to become socially or emotionally detached
3 : to recall a motion under parliamentary procedure
Zwack, your dishonest spin will not change the fact that the president is not calling for immediate withdrawal, as Murtha did, or the fact that Judd lied about it.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:54 pmZwack,
Don’t expect wwallace to debate you. He has no valid points to make. He’s got his head up Bush’s ass and yet can’t see the crap around him.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:54 pmSpudge … The definitions you yourself posted are essentially the same. :()
November 26th, 2005 at 12:55 pmThat’s it wwallace, just skip to the next post and disregard the fact that Withdraw and Redeploy have different meanings.
Withdraw:
November 26th, 2005 at 12:55 pmwithdraw
Main Entry: with•draw
Pronunciation: wi[th]-’dro, with-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): with•drew /-’drü/; with•drawn /-’dron/; with•draw•ing /-’dro(-)i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from with from + drawen to draw
transitive senses
1 a : to move back or away : RETIRE b : to draw back from a battlefield : RETREAT
2 a : to remove oneself from participation b : to become socially or emotionally detached
3 : to recall a motion under parliamentary procedure
MoreGooder is adding nothing whatsoever to the debate. :()
November 26th, 2005 at 12:55 pm“Spudge … The definitions you yourself posted are essentially the same.”
OMFG
People, this guy is a moron.
wwallace, you are off your rocker and need to get your head checked. There isn’t anybody but you that thinks those definitions are the same. You are a certified retard.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:57 pm‘06 Campaign Starts Early
Uh huh… well, surprise, surprise [NT]. Seems the Bush admin is concerned with getting on with the ‘06 campaign early & what better way to do that by ‘pretending’ everything i…
November 26th, 2005 at 12:57 pmSpudge, calling me juvenile names will never change the fact that the definitions you yourself posted are essentially the same.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:00 pmwwallace,
By you saying they are the same, you are showing how stupid you are. Just keep saying they are the same thing. Please. It makes me laugh everytime you do moron.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:02 pm“MoreGooder is adding nothing whatsoever to the debate.” – wwallace
Given that wwallace thinks that he posts facts and he is having a debate, he seems rather delusional…
November 26th, 2005 at 1:03 pm#66
The fact that he thinks Redeploy and Withdraw mean the same thing shows he is delusional or he is 12.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:05 pmWwallace, until you attempt to answer these three questions that I asked earlier then I will be ignoring your vitriol.
Did Ann Coulter call Democrats who want to bring the troops home traitors?
Does it sound like President Bush wants to bring the troops home?
If the answer to these two is yes, then what is the distinction between the two groups?
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:06 pmZwack, everyone wants to bring the troops home eventually. By ignoring the important distinctions, you’re being dishonest.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:09 pm#69
“By ignoring the important distinctions”
Ironic that you can’t tell the important distinctions.
Redeploy:
Main Entry: re•de•ploy
Pronunciation: “rE-di-’ploi
Function: verb
transitive senses : to transfer from one area or activity to another
intransitive senses : to relocate men or equipment
Withdraw:
November 26th, 2005 at 1:10 pmwithdraw
Main Entry: with•draw
Pronunciation: wi[th]-’dro, with-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): with•drew /-’drü/; with•drawn /-’dron/; with•draw•ing /-’dro(-)i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from with from + drawen to draw
transitive senses
1 a : to move back or away : RETIRE b : to draw back from a battlefield : RETREAT
2 a : to remove oneself from participation b : to become socially or emotionally detached
3 : to recall a motion under parliamentary procedure
I’m not posting any vitriol, Zwack.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:12 pmwwallace,
answer all three questions and we can begin to discuss it. You still haven’t answered questions one or three and are skirting around question two.
Until then you might want to find something better to do.
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:13 pmThose definitions are essentially the same Spudge. Will you please continue to post them? Thank you. :()
November 26th, 2005 at 1:13 pmSo, let me get this straight wwallace, you think that:
Redeploy:
intransitive senses : to relocate men or equipment
Means the same thing as:
Withdraw:
November 26th, 2005 at 1:15 pmto draw back from a battlefield : RETREAT
Yes, I will, to show everybody what a retard you are.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:16 pmZwack,
No.
Of course. Every American wants to bring the troops home. But the president has never in any way suggested a “precipitous withdrawal.” Therefore, Judd is a liar, and you seem to be signing on to his lies.
N/A
November 26th, 2005 at 1:18 pm“And Zwack is either as dishonest as Judd or too stupid to understand basic distinctions.” – wwallace
“But I suppose that’s all you pro-defeat lefties have to offer.” – wwallace
“I’m not posting any vitriol, Zwack.” – wwallace
I’m sorry, I thought that calling someone stupid, dishonest and “pro-defeat” was vitriol. I didn’t realise that they were compliments. Can I borrow your dictionary…
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:19 pmSpudge, are you saying Murtha wants to redeploy the military to a different area of the battlefield of Iraq? Or he wants to redeploy them out of the battlefield entirely, i.e. withdraw them?
Why don’t you try to clarify your point, if you have a point, instead of merely hurling juvenile insults?
November 26th, 2005 at 1:22 pmZwack, accurate description is not vitriol. Your dishonesty has been amply demonstrated.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:23 pmFinally…
So, when Ann Coulter wrote
“The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats’ behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.
They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.”
Here http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2005/11/24/176727.html
she was not saying that Democrats were traitors…
Please explain how you come to that conclusion.
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:23 pmZwack, you forgot D.
Both was,is and still are Dead Wrong!
The War was Never Justified!
Comment by freedom is not free — November 26, 2005 @ 12:51 pm
From wikipedia:
Zwack, You are a Fool.
“Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.†I Corinthians 8:9
This latter one shows that you have freedom, otherwise it could not become a stumbling block.
So, what does any of this have to do with the discussion at hand? Absolutely nothing. If you can’t remain relevant, or at least relevant to a digression then please don’t bother wasting everyone’s time by posting. Of course you are free to do what you want, and I am free to ignore you from now on.
Z.
You stated †So, what does any of this have to do with the discussion at hand? Absolutely nothing.â€
Your FREEDOM HAS Become a Stumbling block to the Weak.
“Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.†I Corinthians 8:9
Zwack.
So, in fact, it has Everything to do with with the discussion at hand.
Freedom is Not Free.
Watch out for Zwack, Just another republican trying to defend Ann and bush.
So, if President Bush does talk about withdrawing the troops from Iraq on Wednesday, does that mean that…
a) Ann Coulter will change her opinion
b) The President is “a gutless traitor†who “longs to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.â€
or
c) None of the above, both Ann and the President are right even though they are expressing opposing views…
My bet is that c is the right answer.
What I don,t understand is, if, Zwack is so much into defending Ann and Bush, Why is Zwack attacking wwallace?
November 26th, 2005 at 1:23 pmConfucius says “Don,t even try to understand illogicâ€
Zwack
“Did Ann Coulter call Democrats who want to bring the troops home traitors?”
wwallace
“No.”
Anne Coulter
“The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats’ behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.
They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.”
wwallace,
You have to stop posting about topics you are not informed about. The republicans are supposed to be the smart ones, remember?
Well, you are making the republicans look really bad on this Saturday morning. Maybe come back after you have done some research. Your masters will be much happier with you performance.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:24 pmwwallace,
Whatever you do please never stop posting here. I love rolling on the floor laughing over your stupidity. How could I ever live without all the hilarity you give me?
November 26th, 2005 at 1:26 pmTwo Republicans fighting each other,lol.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:27 pmthis ought to be good.
Watch Wwallace and Zwack go at it.
heeheee.
Of course Anne is just as wrong as wwallace, when she says:
“They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements.”
The republican party’s Rep Hunter called for resolution 571, the imediate withdrawal of troops. The democrats did not.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LANTOS. Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are debating Mr. Murtha’s resolution or Mr. Hunter’s resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pending is House Resolution 571.
Mr. LANTOS. The previous speaker referred to Mr. Murtha’s resolution. That is not before the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is a matter for debate–a matter that may be addressed by debate.
{time} 2245
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LANTOS. We on this side of the House are under the impression that we are debating the Hunter resolution. Please correct us if we are wrong.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct and he may make that point by debate.
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Murtha, I apologize to you. I know you have a resolution. That is what I was referring to. I recognize we are debating Hunter, and I apologize to you, Mr. Murtha.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:27 pm#84
freedom is not free,
I thought we already went over this.
Some republicans like Bush
November 26th, 2005 at 1:28 pmDemocrats hate Bush
PLEASE!!!!!
WWALLACE is making every attempt to hijack and confuse the discussion on every single thread at ThinkProgress.
WWALLACE is in NO WAY a “moron”, “dumbass” etc. He is here for one reason: TO GET A RISE out of all of you, and derail reasoned arguments.
THE BEST way to deal with this is to ignore him! Remember the rule about ignoring children’s attention seeking behavior, or else you feed into their dysfunction? He will have no fun with this blog if no one responds to him.
HE IS LAUGHING AND HAVING FUN everytime somebody becomes irate at his non-sensical comments!! We all remember having kids in school who enjoyed being annoying! Don’t fall for it!!!!
November 26th, 2005 at 1:30 pmOh yeah, a link to the Anne Coulter article, so I am not said to be making shit up.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
She just posted that article on the 23rd. You need to keep up wwallace. Probably hard when you are retarded eh?
November 26th, 2005 at 1:30 pmYea, isnt it funny?heeheee.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:30 pmZwack, describing some members of a group who hold certain specific views a certain way in no way impies all members of that group, some of whom may hold alternate views, fit the same description. If that basic idea baffles you, that’s your problem.
If I say, for example: “Men who commit crimes should be sent to prison” that in no way implies that I think all men should be sent to prison. If you or Judd then post, “wwallace said all men are criminals” you and/or Judd would be lying.
I assume all Democrats and all Republicans want to bring the troops home eventually. But not all of them have signed on to Murtha’s call for immediate retreat.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:30 pmwhat if wwallace IS ann coulter,just using the wwallace name….hmmmmmmmmmm, I smell a rat.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:30 pm#87
Yeah, you’re right. I even started the day with that atitude. I am going back to my happy place, away from idiots like wwallace.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:31 pm“But not all of them have signed on to Murtha’s call for immediate retreat.”
See, moron. Plain and simple. Rep Hunter called for imediate retreat, as in withdrawal.
Rep Murtha called for redeployment, as in to a safe place, such as Kuwait.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:33 pmSpudgeboy, take a breather, please.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:33 pmYou posted #87.
i think you meant #88.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:34 pmI understand. I get frustrated too, at these fools.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:35 pmMurtha called for immediate withdrawal to Kuwait, or elsewhere outside of Iraq, yes. Thanks for finally admitting that, Spudge.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:37 pmfreedom is not free,
My post was aimed at #87, not my own post. You needa breather. You are calling Zwack a republican. :)
November 26th, 2005 at 1:39 pm“Murtha called for immediate withdrawal to Kuwait, or elsewhere outside of Iraq, yes. Thanks for finally admitting that, Spudge.”
He called for imediate RE$DEPLOYMENT you stupid fvcking iece of sh!t. There is a goddamn difference even if you are too retarded to figure it out.
MOVING OUR TROOPS TO KUWAIT IS REDEPLOYMENT. BRINGING THEM TO THE US IS WITHDRAWAL.
You are a retarded imbecile.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:41 pmMoreGooder is adding nothing whatsoever to the debate. :()
Comment by wwallace — November 26, 2005 @ 12:55 pm
LOL, oh, that’s funny. Debate? You mean, the “debate” about the definition of withdraw and redeploy? Or if zwack lied about something? Or about the conflicting statements between Coulter and Bush? How ’bout we debate the total landslide this country has had with regards to their ability to distinguish a genuine, intelligent leader of the free world? How ’bout we debate how it came to be that Bush and his moron chronies got RE-ELECTED? How ’bout we debate about what Bush can do to pull his poll standings out of the gutter? Such as, admit he was wrong, admit he deceived our elected representatives by parsing the data he used for going to war, admit he has the IQ of a retarded hedgehog, admit he made great strides in avoiding going to Vietnam, admit he has failed in his promise to be a “uniter, not a divider”, admit that his “mission accomplished” fiasco was merely a publicity stunt that only emboldened the fanatics in Iraq, admit that it was a serious mistake to disband the Iraqi army, admit that there WAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and he had no reliable evidence to the contrary, that he used political tactics of the lowest order to out a CIA agent, that he and his buds planned within days to use 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their pre-planned strategy for a pre-emptive strike against a nation (first time in modern US history I believe), that more people around the world think America has lost its standing as a benevolent super power that can rightfully claim the moral high ground, that he uses every presidential power he can find to lock up any damning evidence that might put him behind bars…. I could go on and on.
Go ahead wwallace. Keep thinking of rediculous things to “debate” while the rest of us look ahead to a miserable future paying down the largest deficit in US history.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:49 pmWallace,
Your nurse said it is time to change your diapers. Roll over so she can wipe the doody from your bum.
While she’s at it, she ought to load a quart or two into your head as it is beginning to cave in again.
-GSD
November 26th, 2005 at 1:51 pmfreedom is not free…
I am not a republican. I am having a great day, I’ve been called dishonest, stupid and now republican. I guess that those three words go together… But it ain’t me…
Wwallace…
I understand that Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. In fact I pointed that out to you yesterday.
However, Ann Coulter is on record as having said that Democrats who supprot the troops being withdrawn or redeployed are traitors. That is a fact. You have been given the passage and links to it.
It sounds like Bush is now going to talk about bringing the troops home (however he phrases it). Given these two statements (and calling me a liar or dishonest doesn’t make it so) the next question is why Ann Coulter would not call President Bush a traitor.
The only reasons I can see are political… If he talks about bringing troops home and the conditions in Iraq have not changed significantly from when Murtha suggested it then they are both equally treasonous (or not).
Z.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:03 pm“Murtha called for immediate withdrawal to Kuwait, or elsewhere outside of Iraq, yes. Thanks for finally admitting that, Spudge.”
Comment by wwallace — November 26, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
You seem confused between the two terms. Perhaps this will help. When over 200 marines were killed in Beirut, Reagan didn’t redeploy them, or in the words of Daniel pipes, “[. . .]Unfortunately, Reagan’s later record toward militant Islam was less impressive, notably his 1983 retreat from Beirut and his administration’s 1985-86 arms transfers to Tehran.”
See the difference now?
November 26th, 2005 at 2:05 pmBush has us in a no win situation. If he merely “draws down” the troops, it makes those remaining more vulnerable. He should be impeached and Cheney with him.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:27 pmZwack, everyone in America supports bringing the troops home at some point, including the president and Ann Coulter. So what is your point? They do not support immediate withdrawal, as Murtha called for. The attempt by you and Judd to conflate the two different positions is blatantly dishonest.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:36 pm“MOVING OUR TROOPS TO KUWAIT IS REDEPLOYMENT. BRINGING THEM TO THE US IS WITHDRAWAL.”
Meaningless hairsplitting. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:38 pmDon’t forget, being Preznit Bush is “hard work”!
November 26th, 2005 at 2:40 pmdano, yes I see the difference – liberals attack Reagan for not doing enough, then don’t criticize Clinton at all for doing almost nothing, then criticize Bush for doing too much. In other words, Democrats have consistently put partisanship above US foreign policy interests for over 20 years now.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:41 pm“MOVING OUR TROOPS TO KUWAIT IS REDEPLOYMENT. BRINGING THEM TO THE US IS WITHDRAWAL.â€
“Meaningless hairsplitting. It depends on what the meaning of “is†is.”
That is not hairsplitting. One movement is a couple hundred miles and keeps us in striking distance, the other is an all out retreat that takes us completely out of the region.
You are a moron.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:41 pm“then criticize Bush for doing too much.”
Bush didn’t do too much. He didn’t send enough troops to fight this illegal war, so we are getting picked apart. You definitely know nothing abou the military. Typical chickenhawk.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:43 pmwwallace – way to go!!
Your efforts at defelecting any attempts at a true debate about substantive issues has been successful…
Oh..how far the lasts dregs of Bush supporters will go to maintain their grip on fragile right-wing ideology as it crumbles away…
November 26th, 2005 at 2:49 pmexpat5, your petty insults will never change the facts I’ve posted. :()
November 26th, 2005 at 2:53 pm109. bush listened to rummy who said we could do Iraq with fewer, mobile troop levels. It worked in the “capture Baghdad” and dpose Saddam phase” (as short as that was) since we were facing an “army” that was overwhelmed, poorly equipped and supported, and disorganized. This administration discounted all advice and the suggestions of military professionals for the “post capture phase.” They assumed all Iraqis would fall on their knees and prostrate themselves to king george, the grand liberator. The bushites never had any post-war strategy (BTW, how many Iraqis still have no power/electricity?), and now have has us in a “no win” situation as Jim (#103) says. bush can only hope to look presidential to his zealous followers (no one else will fall for the dupe), and try to salvage some races in ‘06.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:55 pmSpudge,
So you want to send more troops to Iraq, then withdraw them to Kuwait, to keep them in striking distance of “an illegal war”? Is that right? :()
November 26th, 2005 at 2:55 pmEllis, have you ever had an original thought in your life? Or do you just spout bogus left-wing talking points like that?
November 26th, 2005 at 2:56 pmI have yet to see the “facts”, only hairsplitting about definitions….
but i have a question, and I am being serious and not a smart ass (i hope):
November 26th, 2005 at 2:57 pmDo you think that there will be a point when you will lose faith in Bush. If so, what would it take?
#114
No dipshit.
#112
“expat5, your petty insults will never change the facts I’ve posted. :()”
Do you think that just because you keep posting this lie that people here will believe you? You got the wrong people a$$hole.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:58 pm#115
“Ellis, have you ever had an original thought in your life? Or do you just spout bogus left-wing talking points like that?”
That is funny coming from a NeoCon chowder header. Zombie.
November 26th, 2005 at 2:59 pm111. ww, if you post a lie often enough, bushites may eventually believe it as they can’t think independently. Those of us who can separate fact from fiction, and have clear thought process won’t fall for your schtick. Keep telling us how many times you have “posted the truth.” If it was the truth, it would stand on its own, and not need constant reinforcement. Frankly, I don’t think you believe your words, and need to hype yourself. Yet another reason for constantly telling us you “post the truth.” Saying it doesn’t make it so. I pity you.
November 26th, 2005 at 3:00 pmwwallace:
November 26th, 2005 at 3:04 pmI am interested, because I am fascinated by the divisions in the Republican camp. On one side you have the fiscal conservatives (sometimes referred to as “Rockefeller Republicans”), while I don’t agree with their platforms, I respect them. On the other side are the EXTREME wacky Christian (ie Dobson, Falwell, Roberts) nutjobs.
I am wondering if the former is in any way concerned or bitter by the way the latter is leading their party.
wwallace I would appreciate your input!
Thanks
November 26th, 2005 at 3:06 pm114. That’s funny, ww. I see the same responses from neocons in any public forum. Talk about not having any original thoughts. Where may I find the RW response guide? It’ll save me the effort of reading your (and other’s) tripe.
November 26th, 2005 at 3:07 pmI just don’t understand the logic behind the pro-war logic. There is no way that the “insurgents” or “terrorists” can ever be stopped. They hated us before we occupied Iraq. Now they are downright pissed off and will repeatedly retaliate even if we do leave the area (and in some sense I think they are justified).
Do we build massive internment camps (aka Auschwitz)? or nuke them all?
Bush has screwed the world for generations to come…
November 26th, 2005 at 3:19 pmBush has liberated two nations from brutal dictatorships.
November 26th, 2005 at 3:28 pmwwallace -
Who will really lead Afghanistan and Iraq will not be seen for sometime. Have you not noticed Iraq slipping into civil war?
November 26th, 2005 at 3:31 pmBush has liberated two nations from brutal dictatorships.
Comment by wwallace — November 26, 2005 @ 3:28 pm
Yeah, one for a good reason (Afghanistan) and the other FOR OIL.
November 26th, 2005 at 3:33 pmbrutal dictatorships????
November 26th, 2005 at 3:33 pmwahahahaha, That was Original????
By the way…it is easy to vote…what will be difficult is to maintain whatever “democracy” exists in a society where democracy is not reasonable and will never work.
November 26th, 2005 at 3:34 pmFirst, Define Brutal.
November 26th, 2005 at 3:35 pmSecond, Define Dictator.
You are beginning to sound like the “Dictator”.
123. I thought this was about “fighting ‘ em (terrorists) over there so we don’t have to fight ‘em here”, and not about nation building or injecting ourselves into the politics of foreign nations? Saddam had no ties to al quada, and our efforts to get OBL have certainly been suspect.
November 26th, 2005 at 3:36 pm129 – oh believe me they will be over here…and part of me believes that you reap what you sow…the U.S. is going to reap a bitter harvest
November 26th, 2005 at 3:46 pmIn post 125 Wallace said
### Bush has liberated two nations from brutal dictatorships ###
If liberation is what you call the devastation we have wrought in Iraq, the absolute mess we have made of their country, the ancient, never to be restored again works of art, buildings, mosques, destroyed for ever. 100,000 people dead, killed in the most horrible of fashion, another hald a million crippled, maimed and disfigured, millions displaced from their homes and businesses, 10s of thousands imprisoned, beaten and tortured, cities lying in ruins,
MAN wallacem if this is what you call liberation, then don’t ever liberate anyone anywhere, at anytime, ever again.
Never ever, ever ever ever, ever again.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:08 pmIt’s not COWARDICE if I do it, just if YOU do it. See, It’s hard work!
November 26th, 2005 at 4:09 pm“Saddam had no ties to al quada”
Of course he did.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
“100,000 people dead, killed in the most horrible of fashion, another hald a million crippled, maimed and disfigured, millions displaced from their homes and businesses, 10s of thousands imprisoned, beaten and tortured, cities lying in ruins,”
That’s what Saddam Hussein did, until George W. Bush stopped him.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:18 pmWhile, that’s a brilliant rebuttle wallace. Your retort equates basically to “no I didn’t, he did it”.
Saddam didn’t kill the last 100,000, we did. Saddam didn’t lock up the last 50,000, we did. Saddam didn’t blow up the mosques, and ancient buildings, we did.
In fact, case you didn’t notice, Saddam isn’t doing much of anything right now, but we sure as hell are.
Next time try a little harder, kindergarten comebacks bore me.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:30 pmSaddam didn’t kill the last 100,000, we did. Saddam didn’t lock up the last 50,000, we did. Saddam didn’t blow up the mosques, and ancient buildings, we did.
Actually, that’s nonsense.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:32 pmReally?
So all those mosques and buildings that we see blown up, are really still there?
And the 100,000 dead since the start of the war, a number supported by numerous agencies including the international Red Cross, they’re still walking around, we just can’t see em?
And the 50,000 some thousand we have rounded up over the last two years and “processed” at Abu Ghraib, that never happened?
Man you really do think the Emporer is wearing a fine new suit of clothes, don’t you?
November 26th, 2005 at 4:40 pmImpeach Bush and Cheney.
Convict them of war crimes.
Bush knows he’s getting impeached, this withdrawal rumor is nothing but a hoax.
Impeach, Impeach, Impeach!
November 26th, 2005 at 4:45 pmi just read all through the comments, i cannot believe how stupidly people keep feeding the troll wwallace.
the contradiction here is not the plan, it is the fact that the same republicans who were denouncing as traitors those who propose withdrawing from Iraq are now, ahem, about to propose withdrawing from Iraq. all this bogus crap on this thread about what does redeploy mean, what did murtha say, etc, irrelevant to that quite basic central point.
i will render the reasoning once more, for any dumbass repugnicans who come along
So, when Dems supported troop withdrawal, they were wrong and traitorous.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:46 pmNow Bush plans troop withdrawal, he is not traitorous, nor was he wrong when he opposed troop withdrawal. Presumably, by this “logic”, Democrats are STILL traitors.
Because, we must conclude, anyone who disagrees with the President is a traitor, even if they are later proved right. Because it’s not about BEING RIGHT, it’s all about NOT AGREEING.
NOT AGREEING is what makes you a traitor by the Bush definition.
Once you understand this, the Republicans utterances make perfect sense.
Jason, I don’t think it’s stupid to respond intelligently to any valid (or some invalid ones) arguments by either side.
It’s not about sides, its’ about the war, least for me. It’s about the fact that the capability to wage war, is a sacred, horrible charge, a power, a trust, that must be guarded and used, only in the most dire, crucical and unavoidable of circumstances.
Those who abuse that sacred trust, that wage war when they want to make a point, or a buck, are traitors to the very fabric of our democracy, and attempting to stifle those who do, and supporting the traitors that would sell our countries humanity for their ignoble causes is wrong.
It puts you in the same class as the German villagers who lived outside of Buchenwald, and Treblinka and said, “oh, we thought they were burning rubbish,,,we did’nt know….”.
Maybe a good punishment for all of you is to send you over to Bagdhad to pick up corpses, body parts, and clean up the ruins of their once beautiful city.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:59 pmBTW Jason, that last part was meant for “them” not “you”.
WORFEUS
November 26th, 2005 at 5:01 pmNonsense. This will be another ruse…another lie, another deception, and another way to fool the public.
There is no way Bushco will leave Iraq, the oil, or the military bases that continue to be built. The bloodshed will continue and the chaos will increase….as planned.
George Bush is concerned with his ratings, not with ending the war. But …
ON THE WAY TO ROCK BOTTOM…HOW MANY MORE WILL DIE?
November 26th, 2005 at 5:05 pmRead this article here:
http://tvnewslies.org/html/on_the_road_to_rock_bottom.html
WORFEUS, #135: The terrorists are responsible for the damage you wrongly attribute to American actions.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:17 pmjason, #139: If you can’t see the obvious distinction between “immediate withdrawal” and “a phased withdrawal as the Iraqi troops take over their own defense,” then you are as dumb as a post.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:19 pm#86 – Can’t help but agree with you. The best way to handle this blogging insurgent (!) is to simply ignore him. Simply scroll down untill you see who the blogger is; if it is wwallace, MOVE ON! He receives satisfaction by obtaining and holding others’ attention. Currently, he is showing success at diverting everyone’s time and attention to focus on him. For those who continue to engage in communication with him are only frustrating yourselves and giving him that which he craves: attention. A plant dies (even cactus) if it’s not watered. There is far too much intelligence here to be diverted by him. You know that. You know that all of your logic will not convince him; he is unable to engage in reasonable intercourse.
The only question I have for wwallace: are you a christian?
November 26th, 2005 at 5:25 pm#140 worfeus
to see the proof that you are wrong on issue of wwallace check out his simply vacant response to my post, a post that did not even mention details of Murtha’s plan, but that is what he takes issue with me for.
so, to recap
wwallace is unhappy about my view on something i did not discuss, and because of this i am as “dumb as a post”
you see, debate is one thing, but if you debate a madman, you are also guilty of being irrational. and wwallace is a madman/agent provocateur, whatever. what he is quite obviously NOT is a creature of reason
November 26th, 2005 at 5:28 pmwallace, in your post 143 you at least make a “reasonable” argument.
Yes the terrorists are responsible for a significant PORTION of the damage done, the damage that I reffered to. And we are also responsible for a significant portion of that damage as well.
But the fact is, the fact that would hold sway in a court of law, (Tort)is that none of this would have happened, if we had not went in. And the insurgent killings are clearly motivated by our presence there, clearly that is unless of course you are too stupid to see it.
So essentially, it’s ALL because of us, it all can be traced back to our invasion, and our precense there, in opposition I might add to the pretty much the entire freakin world.
Not gonna weasal out that easily there wormwood…
November 26th, 2005 at 5:30 pmjason, calling me juvenile names will never change the facts I’ve posted. And incidentally, I didn’t claim you mentioned details of Murtha’s plan. Are there any liberals left who are capable of any level of honesty or integrity? Certainly none of them post or comment at ThinkProgress.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:31 pmJason, you make a strong argument, an argument whose merits are becoming more apparent with each passing moment.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:31 pm“So essentially, it’s ALL because of us”
Right, it’s always America’s fault. it’s never the terrorists’ fault, or Saddam Hussein’s fault, or the Taliban’s fault. America is the Great Satan, the source of all evil in the world, blah, blah, blah…
And liberals wonder why anyone would ever question their patriotism.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:34 pmBut in the end Jason, this is a place of debate. Like it or not, thats the reason for a blog. Its news of the best kind, because it’s “self correcting” news, that is, if EVERYONE participates.
I welcome wwallace, and any like him who wish to demonstrate the inherint fallacy of their positions. I welcome their debate.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:36 pmwwallace, rather than bleat, address the Republican logic. your “argument” only holds together because you insist that Democrat withdrawal plan was for “immediate troop withdrawal” (even though that phrase could mean a single soldier, not the entire military presence) whereas your marvellous leader called for a slower withdrawal. So, there is NO contradiction according to you, because Democrats want to FLEE while Republicans want to BACK OFF SLOWLY
and that would perhaps be a valid point if it wasn’t for the fact you have supplied NO EVIDENCE to support it. you see, i don’t value you as a TRUSTED NEWS SOURCE. here’s your homework -> post to a link of Murtha, who you seem obsessed with, advocating IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF US TROOPS. no name-calling or bleating, just post the quote and a link.
and a subsequent point is this, who ever said Murtha speaks for the WHOLE democratic party? this week repugnican attack dogs have been savaging ANY OPPOSITION to troop withdrawal, timetables, etc. this is why i say you are fixated on Murtha, perhaps you perceive him as the weakest point to attack on. but uncovering an inconsistency in Murtha’s position will NOT reconcile the inconsistencies in SAVAGING those who propose troop withdrawal AND THEN supporting it when your fuhrer proposes it
your abuse makes no difference by the way, i stopped caring about name-calling after kindergarten
November 26th, 2005 at 5:39 pmjason, anyone who refers to the presidnet as a “fuhrer” is among the lowest form of scum on the Earth. You are akin to a Holocaust denier.
Murtha’s comments are readily available on the Internet. I feel no need to spoon feed you. Your ignorance is your problem.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:44 pm“Saddam had no ties to al quadaâ€
Of course he did.
So Did Bush.
Saddam and Al Queda were his puppets.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:45 pm#151 worfeus
do not confuse the fact that because this is a forum FOR debate that that means that everything that happens here IS debate. as i never advocated wwallace’s removal from this forum, i see nothing wrong with proposing that he is ignored UNTIL he shows some capacity to ADDRESS points that are opposed to his view, rather than respond so dogmatically that i am beginning to think he is a piece of computer code
November 26th, 2005 at 5:45 pmWhat is patriotic about invading a foriegn country,
wallace?
I would say one of our most patriotic presidents was
James Madison, who is considered the “father” of our
Constitution. You might try learning about some of our
real patriots, and what they said about war in foriegn
lands, those who founded the Constitution that makes
us the United States.
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy”
“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare”
“The executive (President) has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war”
“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other”
- James Madison 4th President of the United States
November 26th, 2005 at 5:47 pmDidnt Osama Used to Visit the W.H.?
November 26th, 2005 at 5:47 pm“…will NOT reconcile the inconsistencies in SAVAGING those who propose troop withdrawal AND THEN supporting it when your fuhrer proposes it…”
The implication here is that both sides support essentially the same plan. Since they do not, it is a lie. This is the same lie Judd started the thread with.
This illustrates the basic underlying dichotomy – the president and his supporters want to win the war, his opponents want to score cheap political points, without regard to any negative effects on US national interests.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:48 pmI hear you Jason, but the problem is, not enough of us are talking. I won’t turn away from any right winger who wants to debate, even if he is a poor debater.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:50 pmWhy was Iraq and Iran at War?
November 26th, 2005 at 5:50 pmWasnt there a Iran Contra affair going on at one time?
wasnt there an impeachment because of that?
what was the Wateregate investigation all about?
#153 ha ha, wwallace. bush satisfies ticks all the boxes to be considered a fascist. remember his triumphant victory for freedom when his GOONS escorted a lone dissenter from his FORUM on social security (even his hand-picked ULTRA-ORTHODOX republican audience wasn’t enough to stop someone from protesting) i won’t bother citing all his various other examples of shutting off debate, constantly calling patriotism of EVERY OPPONENT into question, introducing the PATRIOT ACT and his Department of Homeland Security who called up my house after i deposited a check that they didn’t know the SOURCE OF MY FUNDS! they are probably reading this board, too. they could do worse than recruit someone as stupid and inflexible as yourself, you’d make a great INFORMER!
holocaust-denier? no, you’re dreaming
you bleat and bleat, but when your precious leader is insulted, it’s beyond the pale. he isn’t my leader anyway, i’ll call him what i want, i’ll exercise exactly same freedom to be objectionable as Pat Robertson
November 26th, 2005 at 5:52 pmI don’t know what plan you support wallace, and I don’t care who wants to take credit for it. Well, that’s a lie, actually I do, but we can get to that later. Right now, it’s important that we understand the only thing that makes sense is the Murtha,,er, Bush plan to redeploy troops to the outskirts, out of Iraq proper, and support the Iraqi army on a contingent basis.
If you want to call it your plan, be my guest.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:55 pmYou know, come to think of it, it’s wrong to liken Bush to Hitler.
He’s more like Colonel Klink.
November 26th, 2005 at 5:58 pmor Corporal Kinger.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:04 pmCorporal Klinger(forgot the r)
November 26th, 2005 at 6:06 pmi mean l
November 26th, 2005 at 6:06 pmhttp://images.google.com/images?q=Colonel+Klink&hl=en&lr=&rls=GWYA,GWYA:2005-03,GWYA:en&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest
November 26th, 2005 at 6:07 pmWow, I like where wwallace says that Murtha’s comments are on the web, but hasn’t bothered reading them, didn’t watch C-Span on Friday or paid attention to anything he has said.
We don’t need to read Mutha’s statements, we know them. wwallace is the one who needs education, not us.
Now post:
Spudge_Boy calling me juvenile names won’t change the facts I have posted.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:16 pmRemember: bringing the troops home is only a bad idea if someone other than Bush suggests it.
So which is it; bring the troops home or the draft? Nobody pays any attention to you idiots because you’re always talking out of both sides of your face.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:21 pmAnd for the moron calling himself wwallace, here is Jack Murtha’s resolution in full. Tell where it says “imediate withdrawl”
For Immediate Release
November 17, 2005
To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution:
(H. J. Res._________ )-
To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on ____________________________
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to “promote the emergence of a democratic government”;
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;
Therefore be it
1) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
November 26th, 2005 at 6:21 pm2) Congress assembled,
3) That:
4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is
5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
6) date.
7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines
8) shall be deployed in the region.
9) Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
10) through diplomacy.
Hey Wwallace, you ever hear of Machiavelli?
Well study Him, perhaps then and only then will you have a Picture of Busch-Chainme & Co.
Please do your Fellow Republicans a Favor Wwallace-
November 26th, 2005 at 6:21 pmRead before Spewing.
jason, “i won’t bother citing all his various other examples of shutting off debate, constantly calling patriotism of EVERY OPPONENT into question”
Calling the president names merely reflects poorly on you. If you want to trivialize the Holocaust, it merely reflects poorly on you.
Now, why don’t you cite one instance where the president called into question someone’s patriotism? Since there are so many instances, coming up with just one ought to be easy, no?
November 26th, 2005 at 6:23 pmdano, yes I see the difference – liberals attack Reagan for not doing enough, then don’t criticize Clinton at all for doing almost nothing, then criticize Bush for doing too much. In other words, Democrats have consistently put partisanship above US foreign policy interests for over 20 years now.
Comment by wwallace — November 26, 2005 @ 2:41 pm
Evidently you don’t see the difference – Reagan was inarguably a traitor – he sold weapons to KNOWN terrorists and your glossing over that fact pretty much invalidates anything else you have to contribute – unless you’re willing to admit Reagan was a traitor?
November 26th, 2005 at 6:26 pmwwallace,
The entire text of the Murtha resolution is posted in #172.
Tell us where it says “imediate withdrawl”
November 26th, 2005 at 6:26 pmdano, I’ll admit you’re a traitor.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:28 pmANswer the question dick.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:29 pmBut there’s ample evidence for Reagan. And yours…?
November 26th, 2005 at 6:29 pmSpudge, Murtha said, “I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation.”
and
“Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05322/608402.stm
November 26th, 2005 at 6:30 pmChickenhawk little bitch.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:30 pm#181
REDEPLOY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WITHDRAW YO UUNEDUCATED LITTLE PRICK.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:31 pmReagan won the Cold War and freed millions in Eastern Europe from the tyranny of communism. Many liberals in America have never forgiven him for that.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:31 pm#183, what does “it’s time to bring them home” mean? :()
November 26th, 2005 at 6:32 pmWHere does it say “Imediate withdrawl” cocksucker? Illiterate fvcktard.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:32 pm“Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.â€
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05322/608402.stm
Comment by wwallace — November 26, 2005 @ 6:30
Does it say, “bring them all home now”? No, it doesn’t next.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:32 pmUh oh, Ryan escaped from his mother’s basement again. :()
November 26th, 2005 at 6:33 pm#186
It means that it is time to BRING THEM HOME you stupid fvck.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:33 pm#174, it is no use quoting Bush administration querying of patriotism, you will undoubtedly dismiss any media source as “biased”
you were called on Murtha’s exact words and found to be lying. you lie, bush lies, you are liars. i am not going to bother pointing out the obvious facts.
google > bush questions patriotism
and you can read all about your leader’s lies to your hearts content
i didn’t trivialize the Holocaust. Bush has trivialized the whole notion of freedom and what it means to be a Patriot with his destructive and vile rhetoric, as well as destroying America’s reputation around much of the world (no doubt you don’t care about other nations view of america, either), if you want to get into WHO has WREAKED HAVOC on the English Language ALONG with rewriting history, then ponder BUSH;s Presidency
November 26th, 2005 at 6:34 pmwwallace has to be a paid poster, because there is no way somebody could actully be that fvcking stupid.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:35 pm“Uh oh, Ryan escaped from his mother’s basement again. :()”
Comment by wwallace — November 26, 2005 @ 6:33 pm
Typical.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:35 pm#188, “It is time to bring them home.—
“It is time” means “it will be time in the future”? Your failure to comprehend basic English grammar is noted. I guess “immediately” means “in the distant future” as well. :()
November 26th, 2005 at 6:35 pm#192, It is noted that jason failed to come up with even a single quote. It is hterefore proved that jason is a liar.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:37 pm“Your failure to comprehend basic English grammar is noted.”
You are not one to be telling people they don’t know the English language, considering you don’t know the difference between Redeploy and Withdraw.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:38 pmSpudge, So now you say “it’s time to bring them home” is not a call for withdrawal either?
If sending them to Kuwait is not withdrawal, and bringing them home is not withdrawal, then what would be withdrawal??? :()
P.S. Calling me a bunch of names will never change the facts I’ve posted.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:40 pmokay wwallace, you asked for this. i am no liar. i am surprised that in your words, i need to “spoonfeed” you as you are too ignorant. but here is some evidence for you:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=10955
Right-Wing: When In Doubt, Attack People’s Patriotism
November 26th, 2005 at 6:41 pmI predict Ryan will call me a bunch of names now, becasue he cannot deal with the truth. :()
November 26th, 2005 at 6:41 pmDo you read before you post.
Murtha and I do not want imediate withdrawl, we want our troops redeployed to someplace safe then brouhgt home, THAT IS BRINGING THEM HOME DIPSHIT.
Posting shit like
“P.S. Calling me a bunch of names will never change the facts I’ve posted.”
Is just a waste of your time asshole
November 26th, 2005 at 6:43 pmjason, why did you put up a bunch of quotes in which no Republican questioned anyone’s patriotism?
Only Democrats question their opponents’ patriotism or call them “un-American.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200408030838.asp
November 26th, 2005 at 6:44 pmImmediately redeploy doesn’t mean bring all the troops home; are you being willfully ignorant – or just ignorant?
November 26th, 2005 at 6:44 pm#210
“Only Democrats question their opponents’ patriotism or call them “un-American.—
So, ANne Coulter is not a republican?
Idiot
November 26th, 2005 at 6:45 pm“P.S. Calling me a bunch of names will never change the facts I’ve posted.”
Comment by wwallace — November 26, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
Still waiting for you do post “facts” debunking my assertion about Reagan.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:46 pmA statement NOT for immediate withdrawal?: “Murtha and I do not want imediate withdrawl, we want our troops redeployed to someplace safe then brouhgt home, THAT IS BRINGING THEM HOME DIPSHIT.”
ROFLMAO You are a comedian, Spudge! Or is it “comedienne”?
November 26th, 2005 at 6:46 pm#210, Murtha said, “It is time to bring them home” but he didn’t mean he wants to bring them home? Are you sure? ROFL
November 26th, 2005 at 6:47 pmdano, Still waiting for you to prove you’re not a traitor. You’re failing miserably so far.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:48 pm#214 & 215
Okay, here is a little reading comprehension for you.
I want to go to Rome.
Does that mean I want to go to Rome right fvcking now. Or does it mean I want to go to Rome when I have the money and time off?
You are a moron that is parsing words, just like a good republican zombie.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:53 pmspudgeboy, i think 5 years of doublethink at the hands of karl rove and his lies has left the ordinary republican incapable of grasping simple sentences. they remind me of the patients in awakenings! we need to find a drug capable of reviving them. i thought the TRUTH might work, but they seem to have developed an enormous RESISTANCE to it!
November 26th, 2005 at 6:56 pmThe simple fact that I’m conversing with a traitor-lovin,’ war-hero-slimin’, Bush groupie might not look too good next year, so if I don’t acknowledge you anymore, don’t take it personally – I hope you understand.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:56 pmwwallace, wallace, what am I going to do with you, my fellow conservative? I can’t believe you are still here distorting what Murtha said and trying to get the liberals to swallow it. Hell, man! Even us rightwingers have given up trying to paint him a coward and surrender artist.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but most of the liberals here would suggest that if you had shit for brains, you wouldn’t have enough to stink. And those little sissy faces you make, ;() or :)—–you need to quit that before everyone on the right disowns you. I mean, you know us rightwing rednecks only like he-men and you ain’t measuring up, pal.
November 26th, 2005 at 7:06 pmThose who rally for war say”I DO” and Join the Military.
November 26th, 2005 at 7:14 pmThose who are against the War, Laugh at those fools.
Me thinks Joe is taking a liking to wwallace,teeheehee.
November 26th, 2005 at 7:15 pmAs long as the circumstances are correct, and our soldiers in Iraq are not comprimised, then I support the discussion of bringing home our brave men and woman overseas. I hear so much bi-partisan rhetoric on this subject that at times I feel the soldiers are referred to as objects and not the humans they are. Irregardless of your politcal position I feel you must rememebr the soldiers are all Americans, proud Americans. The groundwork forthe withdrawl must be done at the correct time and with the correct planning.
November 26th, 2005 at 7:33 pmRaymond B
http://www.voteswagon.com
#226
The republicans you see posting use the soldiers as pawns in a large game of chess. I personally want our troops home because I was in the US Army ad know what it is like to fight in a war. It is hell, especially if you are under funded, under manned and under supported. The chicken hawks need to STFU.
November 26th, 2005 at 7:44 pmWe will be closing this site do to checkmate. the game is over
November 26th, 2005 at 7:48 pmHere wallace, since you wanted to dismiss the quotes from a real patriot, James Madison, as irrelevant of out of context,(they are neither, I can’t think of anything more relevant to our current dilemma)I will offer something a little more contemporary.
Hopefully your pea brain will find this a little more relevant.
“I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down.
And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place.
What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place?
What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force.
And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.”
Dick Cheney, April 29, 1991
November 26th, 2005 at 7:48 pmWORFEUS, that quote is not relevant. Post-9/11, the threshold for action rightfully changed.
November 26th, 2005 at 8:09 pmSTFU wwallace. You don’t back up any of your claims with facts and you are full of shit. That is a bad combination for somebody that is trying to make a point. Or is it that you don’t really have a point and you’re just a paid troll?
November 26th, 2005 at 8:14 pmTrying to ’splain why this is “staying the course” and not “cut and run” should do wonders for his already wobbly credibility with the American people.
November 26th, 2005 at 8:38 pmdosnt really matter anymore, the rich and free got what they went for. the oil pipelines running intothat thug christian nation, hmm whats the name of it again?
November 26th, 2005 at 8:45 pmoh yea, thug israel.
Ryan,
There is no other excuse for his in your face stupidity. I mean, He reminds me of that character Doofy from Scary Movie. Really, he can’t be that stupid and know how to type. What he types is so incredibly idiotic, I am amazed he can remember how to turn on the PC.
Un this one thread, he said that republicans don’t call Democrats traitors. This same thread has a link directed toward him that has Anne Coulter calling Democrats traitors.
He has to be a paid plant. There is no way anybody can be that dumb.
I will apoligize to mighty aphrodite and I-RIGHT-I stupid, wwallace takes the cake. The NeoCons would be hard pressed to find an even more zombified shill. They must be really happy with that one.
wwallace, you should ask for a raise. You are the best one yet.
November 26th, 2005 at 8:50 pmThat should be
“I will apoligize to mighty aphrodite and I-RIGHT-I for calling them stupid”
November 26th, 2005 at 8:52 pmI noticed MightyHermaphrodite and WhackoWallace jump all over the perceived ‘anti-israel’ responses as ‘rascist’, but they don’t make a single response when MizzWrong calls the chinese the ‘chimpanese’. Clearly it’s because they’re jewish, and therefore think they’re superior and are the only people who can be rascist without consequence? How is it republicans are such hypocrites, and allow each other to go without challenge? What fools!
November 26th, 2005 at 8:57 pmThe thing I always found funny was the broad use of the term Semite. Semite refers to descendants of Shem or Semetic speaking people.
Here:
A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
So, an Anti-Semtic Arab is an oxymoron. Can’t happen. Also, anybody that doesn’t like Arabs is Anti-Semtic.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:02 pmWhat shocks me is that we have poured more of our national treasure into this war of choice then we did into WWII. That’s even when the dollars spent are normalized to today versus the early nineteen forties. The lives lost and destroyed are even a bigger factor as advances in battlefield medicine have increased survival rates. Forty years ago, we would have experienced eight to ten thousand more fatalities. Now, they are patched up and assessed for combat wages and lost equipment and dropped from VA support. I often wonder what the current administration would have charged Jimmy Doolittle for the planes he lost in Tokyo.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:12 pm#236 Ryan heres from Yurica Report;
It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.
Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.
Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Somehow, some really WEIRD way, thru obtuse, fundamentalist machiavellian Garbage, they think the Immoral Liar Bush, Aka Drunk Driver, Drug User, Hypocrite will be their Savior. No wonder Wwallace is so confused, Hypocrisy is their M.O. –Aj
Watch Wwallace freek out over this post…
November 26th, 2005 at 9:19 pmRyan, learn to spell “racist”, you illiterate. :()
November 26th, 2005 at 9:23 pmRacist is spelled wwallace.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:25 pm#240
The only problem with their hope that Bush will be the Mesiah is the fact that the Anti-Christ has to come first. The Anti-Christ is supposed to be somebody that everyone in the world looks up to as a great person.
Can you name one person that everybody on Earth thinks is great.
Besides David Hasslehoff. :)
November 26th, 2005 at 9:25 pmHere comes wwallace again, with his underwhelming understanding of the English language.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:26 pmwwallace-
Trolls like you need to understand that like Germany in the 30’s through 1945, they were under the spell of a meglamaniac that sent millions of innocents as well
as a lot of U.S. bravest soldiers to their deaths. Right up until recently, this country was under the same delusion with Bush.
All he is is a lousy oil businessman with a flair for self-obsessive P.R. and particular daddy issues.
Repeat after me-
BUSH IS NOT A GOD!
BUSH IS NOT A GOD!
BUSH IS NOT A GOD!
Repeat it many times. You’ll feel like a new man.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:26 pmJIMBO, traitrous trolls like you need to understand that no decent, loyal American ever compares the United States to Nazi Germany.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:31 pmAgain further proof that politics drives US foreign policy. The shameless consequences of this will be felt for a generation at least. I never want to hear another poiltician talk about freedom and all that idealistic bullcrap for why we invade, bomb, strike, assassinate etc. And I`m dreaming! For a change (we couldn`t do much worse), let`s be honest with our self-interested selves and then maybe the world might tolerate and work with us a bit more.
-Tokyo
November 26th, 2005 at 9:33 pm#246 -
November 26th, 2005 at 9:36 pmIt’s not the US, it’s the selected hand puppet (read dummy) and his ventriloquist, the Dick.
What a classy and thoughtful post, Walt. Such a fine example of liberal thought today. Your mother must be so proud of how she raised you.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:38 pm#247 -
November 26th, 2005 at 9:41 pmPlease explain – I thought we were hit first at a Naval Base in Hawaii.
Mom’s dead from a faulty Ford. Please don’t bring that up again. She was also a nurse.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:46 pmThis sounds just like Ryan and a lot of others on the left today:
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=938
November 26th, 2005 at 9:47 pmWallace, you’re your own worst enemy.
In your post 228, wwallace said:
### WORFEUS, that quote is not relevant. Post-9/11, the threshold for action rightfully changed. ###
Comment by wwallace — November 26, 2005 @ 8:09 pm
Thats the second post I have responded to where you CLEARLY associate our war in Iraq, which I might add WAS the topic, with 911.
At this point, there is not much else I can say to you. Ryan was right about you, you really are totally brainwashed into believing the LIE that Iraq and 911 are somehow related.
If you are going to perpetuate a LIE that you KNOW to be false then so be it, but don’t spew it this way.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:01 pmWORFEUS, they are related, in the sense that our threshold for action agaisnt state sponsors of terrorism is lower after 9/11, as it should be.
“Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early ’90s–they can only say that if they’re illiterate. This is a slam dunk.”
November 26th, 2005 at 10:03 pm– James Woolsey, CIA director under President Bill Clinton, November 2003
#255 -
November 26th, 2005 at 10:18 pmWhat man?
wwallace is a fvcking tool. There is no getting through his thick skull.
wwallace,
I bow down to your supieror stupidty and praise you as the ruler of Asshatlandia.
I give. You are stupider than I will ever be, so I bow out of the stupidity battle.
wwallace, King of the idiots
November 26th, 2005 at 10:25 pmwwallace
“WORFEUS, they are related, in the sense that our threshold for action agaisnt state sponsors of terrorism is lower after 9/11, as it should be.”
Something we can finally agree on. But, I didn’t like Either Saddam or Osama to start with.
I don’t think that the republican led US government should have put Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq.
I also don’t think the CIA should have trained Osama on gorilla warfare.
I am glad we can finally agree on something.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:52 pmAnd how smart is it to be giving the Iraqi army all of this advanced warfare training right now? Hell, weve been training them for 2 years, what the hell are we teaching them?
I’m serious, what are they learning to do?
Fly the Space Shuttle?
And what if they decide to use it all on us?
Nahhh, they’d never turn our own weapons and training on us,,, would they?
I mean, what possible reason could the Iraqi people have to hurt us?
November 26th, 2005 at 11:17 pmGee, Hillary won’t be happy. She seems to want the troops on Iraq for years and years.
November 26th, 2005 at 11:45 pm.
Yea well Ive got news for Hillary. Don’t run for President. Cause you ain’t gonna get my vote.
November 27th, 2005 at 12:09 amDartanyon,
Great way to change the subject to Hillary, who I am not sure anybody here supports for President.
November 27th, 2005 at 12:42 amI’ll bet that few remember when Saddam launched a French Exocet(sp?) missile at a US Navy ship and said “Oops”. Wasn’t there a hint there? Saddam’s certainly not a saint, but he was abetted by the West. Rummy and Cheney were key players in this charade.
November 27th, 2005 at 1:13 amMore news from Iraq.
This is what former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said during an interview with The Observer:
“‘We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated,’ he added. ‘A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.’ ”
Another excerpt:
“Responding to the former prime minister’s comments, Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said: ‘It is inconceivable in the higher reaches of the command of the multinational forces that there was not an awareness of what is being done by some Iraqis to their own countrymen.’ ”
Abuse worse than under Saddam, says Iraqi leader
November 27th, 2005 at 2:09 amhttp://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html
wwallace-
Let’s get a few things straight.
#1. A troll is someone who has no business butting in blogs that do not reflect your paranoid personality.
I, represent the views that good people like Ryan, Spudge, Susan ,etc share and discuss intelligently.
#2. It’s traitorous, not traitrous, you kindergarten dropout.
#3. It is YOU WHO IS THE TRAITOR YOU ASSHOLE!
Remind youself of those three things, kindly.
Good day. :)
November 27th, 2005 at 3:46 amRove tricked Bush. Told him “precipitous” meant “bad guys” in Freakinese.
Anyone got good nudes of Coulter?
November 27th, 2005 at 9:37 amJust relax folks! Everything will be all right after Wednesday of this coming week.
The idiotic shrub will announce a plan just like Murthas, but he will be a hero, not a goat, for doing so.
You see he bends to the wind, has no values, has no strength, has no morals. He is the worst president ever appointed by SCOTUS, and always will be. He is the worst president ever to steal an election, and always will be. He is the first president ever with a criminal record, and always will be. He is the first president ever to lie to the american people personally, and will always be so.
But folks, it will all be forgotten. He will be hailed a hero, as Murtha was hailed as a coward.
November 27th, 2005 at 10:02 amQuestion of the day:
By Russert
(To Warner): “What are we going to do if the Iraqis won’t stand up for their own country?”
November 27th, 2005 at 10:11 amJIMBO, “I, represent the views that good people like Ryan, Spudge, Susan ,etc share and discuss intelligently.”
That is quite true (Except for the parts about “good people” and “intelligently”, of course). You’re all anti-American trolls.
November 27th, 2005 at 10:54 amBy Russert
(To Warner): “What are we going to do if the Iraqis won’t stand up for their own country?â€
Comment by Average TV Viewer
Warner could have answered; “What are you left wing ratbastardcommiemofos going to do when you no longer have any authority to question what the Iraqi military does in Iraq? What are you going to do when they go in to Fallujah, level the city and salt the earth like they wanted the USA to do from the very start?
Another kind of war protestor….YIKES!!!
The leader of Iraq’s most powerful political party has called on the United States to let Iraqi fighters take a more aggressive role against insurgents, saying his country will only be able to defeat the insurgency when the United States lets Iraqis get tough.
“The more freedom given to Iraqis, the more chance for further progress there would be, particularly in fighting terror,†said Abdul Aziz Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shiite Muslim religious party that leads the transitional government and whose armed wing is the most feared of Iraq’s many factional forces.
Instead, Hakim asserted in a rare interview late last week, the United States is tying Iraq’s hands in the fight against insurgents. One of Iraq’s “biggest problems is the mistaken or wrong policies practiced by the Americans,†he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2005/ 11/ 26/ AR2005112601211.html
Now, let’s be clear. This is one of the real leaders of Iraq and he’s telling us to get out of the way and let them do what needs to be done to clean out the Sunni Triangle and the Sunni insurgents coming in from Syria and Iran. I think he’s tired of his mosques, grade schools and weddings being bombed and his people killed. The good thing is when he gets his chance (and he will) there won’t be any peace/love/dove Leftwing Loser Democrats around crying about abuse and atrocities committed against the terrorists and tying the hands of the military. Why? Because he’ll kill all the whiners he can and deport the rest. There will be no more Democrats visiting Iraq. So who do you think really wants to cut troops and hand over more responsibility to the Iraqis? Bush or the Donks?
November 27th, 2005 at 11:10 amHey John Murtha and all you Donk losers, you’d better hurry up and surrender before our enemies do.
Of course the Arab League is seething.
Several insurgents groups have contacted President Jalal Talabani’s office in the past few days, with some saying they are ready to lay down their arms and join the political process, the presidential security adviser said Thursday. […]
Talabani said last weekend in Egypt he was ready for talks with anti-government opposition figures as well as Baathists. He called the Sunni-led insurgents to lay down their weapons and join the political process.
“Many groups have called and some of them clearly expressed the readiness to join the political process,†al-Samaraei said. This shows that “the initiative was welcomed by Iraqis.â€
In the western province of Anbar, members of some militant groups told the AP that they had been in talks with Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi for about two weeks but would not say how they were going.
http://www.fortwayne.com/ mld/ newssentinel/ news/ local/ 13250742.htm
November 27th, 2005 at 11:15 amRemember it was Reagan who let all the lunatics like IRI and WWallaceout of the asylums so they could vote Republican. These clowns are as crazy as Tom Cruise. It’s pathetic, isn’t it?
November 27th, 2005 at 1:26 pmBush will pull out almost all of the troops from Iraq in time for the 2006 elections. We’ve reached an agreement on this topic. Bush will advocate troop withdrawal, the American public wants the troops out and so do the Iraqi shiites. All that’s left is to print up the campaign commmercials for 2006, saying it was a Republican idea. Boy talk about voting for the war before you voted against it. That’s a flip flip of gigantic proportions except this time Bush is doing the flippin’.
November 27th, 2005 at 1:33 pm#270
“You’re all anti-American trolls.”
Now that tops it all. You are the supierior retard here, so I can see why you would say this, but isn’t it a liitle odd to call progressives on a progressive site trolls. You are the unwelcom person here. You are the troll. Do you even know what a troll is?
November 27th, 2005 at 1:35 pm99 Easy ways to get out of Iraq
To the Editor:
Bush and Company seem to be snagged on just how to turn power over to the Iraqis. Here are some suggestions: 99 ways out of Iraq:
Just do or say:
Abandon ship, About-face, retreat, Aloha, Apologize for overstaying one’s welcome, and just leave, Auf weiderzahn, Au voir, Back out, Bail out, Beg off, Be Gone with the Wind, Blow it off, Blow the scene, Bow out, Break it off, Bring the troops home, Bug out, Butt out, Call a halt, Call it quits, Cancel plans, Cave in, Chalk it up to experience, Change the course, Chao, baby, Check out, Chicken out, Choke up, Clear out, Close up shop, Cop out, Creep away, Cut and run, Declare victory and come home, Depart, Desert the desert, Disentangle, Draw back, Drop out, Eat crow, Eat humble pie, Eat one’s words, End this fool’s errand, End this tomfoolery, Evacuate, Exit, stage right, Fail, Fall back, Flake out, Flee, Fly away, Fly the coop, Forsake, Get back, Get cold feet, Get out by sundown, Give up, Go away, Go fly a kite, Go jump in the lake, Good widdance to bad wubbish – (Elmer Fudd cartoon), Got to get away, Hasta la vista, baby, Head for the hills, Hit the road, Homeward bound, Hurry home, It’s all over but the shouting, It’s all over now, baby blue, Just say no, Just walk away,
Leave, Let’s call the whole thing off, Pack it in, Pick up your marbles and go home, Quit, Rehire Saddam, Relinquish control, Renounce imperialism, Retreat, Return home, Reverse the course, Sail away, Say good bye, Shut it down, So long, its been fun, Split, Stop, Stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: abandon ship!, Surrender, Take a powder, Terminate the visit, Throw in the towel, Turn tail, Turn the lights out, Wilt under pressure, Wimp out, Wind down, Withdraw with honor, Yankee, come home.
Yours truly,
James K. Sayre
13 November 2003
November 27th, 2005 at 1:55 pmTerminate the visit, Throw in the towel, Turn tail, Turn the lights out, Wilt under pressure, Wimp out, Wind down, Withdraw with honor, Yankee, come home.
Yours truly,
James K. Sayre
13 November 2003
Comment by james k. sayre
What more could one ask of a Frenchman?
November 27th, 2005 at 2:55 pmI know you’re a troll who hates America, Spudge.
November 27th, 2005 at 3:07 pmImpeach the bastard! He’s a loser and a failure.
votetoimpeach.org
November 27th, 2005 at 3:09 pmSusan is a loser and a failure.
November 27th, 2005 at 3:20 pmI would like to know why congress had an amendment to withdraw the troops from Iraq? Why they voted no on this and Old Bushie is going to withdraw 40,000 troops from Iraq next year 2006. Why did the House waste time voting on this?
November 27th, 2005 at 3:33 pmI would like to know why congress had an amendment to withdraw the troops from Iraq? Why they voted no on this and Old Bushie is going to withdraw 40,000 troops from Iraq next year 2006. Why did the House waste time voting on this?
Comment by Mary Poppin
I’ll tell you why. It was a political stunt by the Democrats to subvert the war effort and make the Iraqis wonder if we’ll be there to help them as long as they need it. The White House has always maintained that the Iraqi army would soon be trained and capable of handling a lot of the job that’s left to do. Like kill Sunni terrorists and their support groups and do it without mercy.
The Democrats know damn well they do not have the support of the American people in this “idea” of pulling out. That’s why so many of them refused to back Murtha and vote for his plan to cut and run.
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney’s suggestion that criticism of the administration’s war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney’s point.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot,†according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush’s Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to “gain a partisan political advantage.â€
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745_pf.html
Sugar, the Donks are scum. How many times do I have to tell you?
November 27th, 2005 at 4:05 pm#280 wwwwwwwwallace, Thanks for the compliment, you are absolutely correct. I will not allow you to molest children. I will do everything in my power to prevent you from doing so.
Call me a loser and a failure but guess what, tonight you’re going to bed alone AGAIN.
November 27th, 2005 at 5:25 pmThat was me #283, although the Debtonator agrees that you are going to bed alone AGAIN.
November 27th, 2005 at 5:27 pmI-Right-I YOu are totally worng the American people are against this war. All our young people are dying for a unjust war. As Senator Russ Feingold said We need to bring our troops home at the end of next year. He did not vote yes for this war.
November 27th, 2005 at 5:51 pmMary Pill-Poppin,
Removing Saddam Hussein was in no way unjust, you dictator-loving kook.
November 27th, 2005 at 6:13 pm#286 I don’t care what you think. You are totally wrong
November 27th, 2005 at 6:32 pmThe Old Bushie and his admin. is going down, down, down.
November 27th, 2005 at 6:44 pmSo Bush Says hes gonna Withdraw Troops Now Huh?
Can you SAY BULLSHIRT?
Heres the SAME ploy from a Year Ago with the same Basic Actors, in this article from Justin Raimondo (Kudos to Justin),
October 2004 Robert Novak reiterated his story that the BUSHIES would be planning to get out of IRAQ ASAP starting right after the Jan 2005 Elections.
(sound Familiar Yet?)
Novak goes on use an Interview between Rita Cosby and Rumsfeld but What Novak omits from his column, however, is the following very interesting highly ambiguous exchange:
Cosby: “Could that be as early right after the elections? There is some buzz that may be right after the elections, we may see a ”
Rumsfeld: “Oh, no. No, no.”
Cosby: “Start pulling out?”
Rumsfeld: “No. We’ve already started. We had over 150,000 troops there originally and we’re down to 137 right now 137,000.”
So, is the “buzz” started by Novak right, or just disinformation designed to mollify antiwar conservatives?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okey Dokey.
The Withdrawal, it seems, as with last years FAUX pullout by the Bushcon lie Machine, is just Hyperbole, to mollify Anti-war conservatives, and THIS year its to mollify the Overwhelming Majority of the Public, to get the crooked senators PAST the ELECTIONS mentioned ABOVE in 2005.
~~~~~~~~~
Dunno about Yall in Texas slang in hopes that Presi-Dense BUSCH hopefully can Understand what I think of His Latest proposal “That Dog Won’t Hunt” Or “It Dont Cotton Up”
PS BUSHcons Upcoming SPEECH, wheres hes NOT gonna SAY exactly WHAT he DID NOT SAY before is what you can expect to see. No Sense in even Watching it. The Machiavellian
Bush machine has turned out so many stories, it can ONLY continue to Pump out more,hoping to Blind the Masses with Rhetorical Sparkly Spew. -Aj
LOL @ IRI and Wwallace Pathetic attempts at disruptive behavior and ‘fact finding’, which, as we have seen, produces no gains for the Neo-Kooks, it only makes them LOOK worse. Keep up the Good Work Wwallace and IRI!
November 27th, 2005 at 7:03 pmOld bushie is a flip floper. He said one thing and does another.
November 27th, 2005 at 7:10 pm#240
The only problem with their hope that Bush will be the Mesiah is the fact that the Anti-Christ has to come first. The Anti-Christ is supposed to be somebody that everyone in the world looks up to as a great person.
Can you name one person that everybody on Earth thinks is great.
Besides David Hasslehoff. :)
Comment by SpudgeBoy — November 26, 2005 @ 9:25 pm
LOL Spudge,
November 27th, 2005 at 7:14 pmJust some of my Twisted Humour, I dont think Bush is Great, yet if You ASK a Neo-Kook, they MADE him the ‘Greatest’.
Like the Roman Empiricists Created their Own ‘GODS’ of State.
Freedom is Loose, therefore, FREEDOM is SATAN!
November 27th, 2005 at 9:07 pmRead your Hate!
!
November 27th, 2005 at 9:07 pm@
November 27th, 2005 at 9:08 pm?
November 27th, 2005 at 9:08 pm.
November 27th, 2005 at 9:08 pm_
November 27th, 2005 at 9:09 pm+
November 27th, 2005 at 9:09 pm=
November 27th, 2005 at 9:09 pmFreedom is Loose, therefore, FREEDOM is SATAN!
November 27th, 2005 at 9:10 pmRead your Hate!~HATE=EVIL!
I was against withdrawal before I was for withdrawal.
November 27th, 2005 at 10:42 pm#301 -
November 27th, 2005 at 11:16 pmThat’s good.
Oops, I heard the president’s speech on Wednesday. It looks like ThinkFailure was wrong yet again! ROFL
December 1st, 2005 at 10:41 amDid it ever occur to you that some of us actually love their country enough to want to go over there and get some terrorists while we know where they are (like in Iraq)?
December 21st, 2005 at 6:11 pm