Bush’s Primetime Speech: The Big Unanswered Question
Filed Under: Iraq
By on Dec 18th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Bush’s Primetime Speech: The Big Unanswered Question
Bush has repeatedly claimed that “as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.†Tonight he said:
At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy … more than 50 are taking the lead … and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.
If that’s true, why are there still 153,000 American troops in Iraq, as many as there have ever been? Why can’t 125 battalions replace a single American soldier?
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
115 Responses to “Bush’s Primetime Speech: The Big Unanswered Question”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
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.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
What are they training them to do?
Lets see, we’ve been training them for two years, spent 200 Billion (with a B) dollars to do it, and they still aren’t ready?
By now they should be able to fly the space shuttle upside down, while dis-assembling an AK47, disarming a bomb and singing the National Anthem.
With one arm tied behind their backs. :|
December 18th, 2005 at 9:52 pmI have an unanswered question.
December 18th, 2005 at 9:54 pmHow’s that other war going.
You know, the one on terror….al Queda…Osama Whatshisname………the guy who attacked us………yes them…..how’s it going?
Haven’t heard much about that war lately, other than the Bill of Rights being taken away from us and all.
From 5/24/04:
At my direction, and with the support of Iraqi authorities, we are accelerating our program to help train Iraqis to defend their country. A new team of senior military officers is now assessing every unit in Iraq’s security forces. I’ve asked this team to oversee the training of a force of 260,000 Iraqi soldiers, police, and other security personnel. Five Iraqi army battalions are in the field now, with another eight battalions to join them by July the 1st. The eventual goal is an Iraqi army of 35,000 soldiers in 27 battalions, fully prepared to defend their country.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2004/ 05/ 20040524-10.html
I guess they were just making the stuff up as they went along?
December 18th, 2005 at 10:01 pmGreat find toys, thanks.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:29 pmWow! Way to go Mr President! We went from ONE battalion a few months ago to 125 now! Of course before it was admitted that there was ONE, he had claimed that there was between 125 and 350.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:31 pmWhat a lying bag of crap…
If that’s true, why are there still 153,000 American troops in Iraq, as many as there have ever been? Don’t you know by now that George W. Bush doesn’t answer questions. Accountability pops his circuit breakers.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:47 pmI’m sitting here watching Christmas vacation. If thet ever do a movie on Bushie, Randy Quiad should play Bush.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:48 pmMy big unanswered question is why is no one calling for his impeachment?
Or should I change that to when are they going to call for his impeachment?
Cause if you’re gonna tell me lying about a blow job is an impeachable offense, but this ain’t, well….that dog won’t hunt.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:50 pmI think the unanswered question is why would anyone believe anything this guy says.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:51 pm“My big unanswered question is why is no one calling for his impeachment?”
A few kooks are, but since he hasn’t engaged in any wrongdoing, it will go nowhere.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:52 pmI think the big question is where are the trolls? They are sort of fun to have around, always good for a few laughs anyway.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:54 pmi am : Impeach the psychotic moron.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:56 pmShow some spine congress. DO IT IMPEACH ! IMPEACH .
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
December 18th, 2005 at 10:59 pmIMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
Enough! We’re at the water’s edge, folks.
Read this and send it to others. Wake up the sheeple:
IDENTITY THEFT OF AMERICA!
December 18th, 2005 at 10:59 pmCLICK HERE
toys, the trolls - Worfeus, Ryan, hardass, unbelievable, toys, etc. - are always posting on this site. They must all be unemployed. I suspect they/you may all be one person. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 10:59 pmJIMBO, I hope you crazy liberals try to impeach the president. His poll numbers will go through the roof.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:00 pmIt’s simple, folks… ignore the trolls, and they go away. :)
December 18th, 2005 at 11:03 pmTroll being, in this case, wwallace.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:03 pmwwallace, it’s time for you to rotate your napkins.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:05 pmJoshR is a troll. Decent Americans will all ignore him.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:06 pmLies, Lies, Misleading statments
Lies, Lies Cover up
Lie Cover Deny
Forget Rewrite
Loop-loop Deny
Forget
Bush has insisted, with spasm-like consistency, that his plan to crack down on medical liability lawsuits would make health care cheaper in the U.S. The AEI rejected this part of Bush’s plan, too.
[I]n that same report (pg. 8-9) AEI concludes that limiting medical malpractice lawsuits would have “no significant effect” on health care costs.
In other words, Bush and Cheney are running around touting a conservative think tank’s report that explains in some detail why Bush and Cheney are mistaken about their own health care plan.
Only “George W. Bush would flaunt a report that says he’s wrong”
December 18th, 2005 at 11:09 pmThe big unanswered question is why Judd wants America to lose the war.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:10 pmThe other question is: For whom will those “well trained” Iraqi divisions fight?
For a Shiite Mullah State? Good luck then!
More than 2000 US troops died for the establishment of a new Khomeini state.
No that isn’t even irony anymore.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:10 pmWe used to have much better trolls when I was growing up. Now they are somewhat pathetic I admit, but isn’t it better with a little “off-color” posts, even if they never say anything worthwhile?
December 18th, 2005 at 11:13 pm[…] Think Progress » Bush’s Primetime Speech: The Big Unanswered Question […]
December 18th, 2005 at 11:25 pmI think they are using out-sourced trolls to cut costs, probably in some sweat shop somewhere, or interns recruited from some jr high school for extra credit.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:25 pmwwallace,
You say Bush hasn’t done anything wrong. I say he hasn’t done anything right. Bush is a feckless turd who needs to step down because he ain’t fit for the office.
Redleg
December 18th, 2005 at 11:28 pmWhy? The bottom line is that war is big business. I suspect that the pu$$y-a$$ Repubs will try to milk IraqNam until they run out of political capital, or America runs out of capital (which technically, it has, considering that there’s a national debt and national deficit). It took America two years to determine that it was wrong for Chimpson to lie in justifying IraqNam. Conventional wisdom says that since the GOP-controlled Congress hasn’t done jack squat, they should lose their majority status in ‘08. Then again, Nixon and GWB were re-elected after pulling the biggest war-profiteering scams in U.S. history. The only mission accomplished by GWB and the GOP, has been, uh, the dumbing down of America. The moment more people start getting their political new from newspapers, rather than FOX “news” (using the term loosely here), is the day they’ll wake the fu*k up and thinking for themselves.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:29 pmRedleg, no decent, patriotic American would ever call the president a “feckless turd.” Clearly your parents didn’t raise you right.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:30 pmcorrections for 11:29 pm post
new from==newS from
December 18th, 2005 at 11:33 pmthinking for==THINK for
I just watched a good BBC documentary “Why we Fight”, I found it at:
http://www.chomskytorrents.org/ DownloadTorrent.php?TorrentID=689
You need bittorrent.
A good history on the 50s forward to today and the war on Iraq.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:35 pmwwallace,
December 18th, 2005 at 11:35 pmYou are a sorry prick talking about my parents. I didn’t attack you personally so why do you attack me? Who the @#$% are you to question my patriotism? What the @#$% were you doing when I was serving as an Army field artillery officer from 1987-1992?
Redleg: Just ignore wwallace. He’s sounds like a typical reactionary Repub. Talks big, but doesn’t do jack squat when the $hit hits the fan. Another chickenhawk chicken$hit.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:37 pmI wonder if wwallace was offended when assorted right-wing crazies called Bill Clinton a “rapist.”
December 18th, 2005 at 11:38 pmRedleg, so you served at the same time as your friend Timothy McVeigh then? Interesting.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:39 pmI ASK YOU AGAIN www HOW MUCH ARE PAID TO BE ON THIS SITE ?
December 18th, 2005 at 11:39 pmare you paid by the hour by the posting .Yes that’s it by the posting . You’ll make Amstrong Williams proud . Man you sure can blabber , like a hen on a party line .
wwallace, when did you stop beating your wife?
December 18th, 2005 at 11:39 pmwwallace,
December 18th, 2005 at 11:40 pmWhat makes you think McVeigh is a friend of mine? You could get yer head broken for talking that kind of shit. Besides, McVeigh’s politics are more in line with your own, you sorry prick.
Redleg, Juanita Broadrick, a Democrat, accused Clinton of raping her. Most if not all of the women Clinton abused were Democrats.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:41 pmRyan,
December 18th, 2005 at 11:43 pmYou’re wasting your time. Wwallace, like many Rethugs, doesn’t experience cognitive dissonance like normal people do. Whenever people like wwallace encounter info signalling that Bush is a feckless turd, they quickly resolve any tension by stating Bill Clinton was worse.
Redleg, like his friend Timothy McVeigh, is a feckless turd.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:44 pmwwallace,
December 18th, 2005 at 11:45 pmJuanita Brodrick has about as little credibility as Dubya. Read the report by Ken Starr’s people. Brodrick was not credible.
Broadrick was entirely credible. Redleg is o more credible than his friend Tim McVeigh.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:46 pmwwallace,
December 18th, 2005 at 11:46 pmNow you’re just being juvenile.
wwallace,
December 18th, 2005 at 11:48 pmIt’s not surprising that you found Broadrick credible since she said what you liked hearing. Why didn’t she take Bill Clinton to court over this? Why didn’t Ken Starr and the House Rethuglicans impeach Clinton for rape? Why are you still here?
Okay, I didn’t mean “impeach for rape” as much as I meant “charge for rape.”
December 18th, 2005 at 11:49 pmRedleg, Starr wasn’t investigating Broadrick’s charges. Impeachment is for crimes in office, not a 20 year old rape charge. Are you really that ignorant, or are you putting on an act? LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 11:49 pmwwallace,
December 18th, 2005 at 11:53 pmStarr investigated a whole lot of crap besides what he was supposed to investigate (remember Whitewater?). You still didn’t answer my question as to why Starr said Broadrick’s credibility was lousy and why Broadrick didn’t file charges against Clinton. And besides, CLinton is out of office now, let’s focus on the feckless turd who is @#$%ing things up now.
Redleg, do you have any evidence that Stgarr ever mentioned Broadrick?
Starr only investigated what he was authorized to investigate by those overseeing his investigation. Your ignorance of basic facts is noted.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:55 pmwwallace is probably gloating because he thinks he scored a few points on me about the Clinton impeachment thing. Yes, I mis-spoke, but not nearly as badly, as consistently, or as frequently as that feckless turd in the White House.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:55 pmwwallace,
December 18th, 2005 at 11:57 pmStarr was an INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR. He had his own mandate and as many Democrats argued, his investigation was way off the reservation (so to speak).
wwallace,
December 18th, 2005 at 11:58 pmyou can “note” whatever the hell you want to note. What are you, the assistant principal of some junior high?
Redleg, Starr’s investigation was subject to oversight. You rignorance is again noted.
December 19th, 2005 at 12:04 amJust a note - anyone not as slow-witted as Ryan, which means just about anyone, would have recognized by now that no one is responding to his substance-free posts.
December 19th, 2005 at 12:05 amJesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! Kenneth Sarr’s little investigation of Clinton’s personal life is tiresome, and a tiresome red herring of reactionary, rightwing-extremist Repubs. It was a waste of tax monies, but due process prevailed. Granted, Gore would have won in a landslide without that Clinton-Lewinsky thing. That said, in all objectivity, GWB has not been a great president, and his plummeting approval ratings prove that America is finally waking the fu*k up. Aside from being president when 9-11 happened, GWB hasn’t done jack squat, except leave America in the red, alientate it from the rest of the world with his little big talk, and pretend that he’s working. He has not passed any significant legislation that has made America a better and stronger country. He has not made the tough decisions needed to balance the budget-he made 0 budget vetoes in his first term - not even a line-item veto. His justification for the IraqNam war was based on lies and jingoism, considering that there were 0 organized terrorist groups in Iraq before he attacked it, no WMD were found in Iraq, and Iraq had zilch to do with 9-11. It may sound pessimistic, but Michael Moore got it right when he noted that GWB got 83% of his votes from whites, in ‘04, and it’s a good thing that they’ll be in the minority within our lifetime. I can’t fu*kin’ imagine why someone would vote for GWB simply because he’s white and claims to be a Christian, but then again - there’s a reason why 36/38 of the RedStates are the poorest in the country. Ignorance is bliss.
December 19th, 2005 at 1:16 amJust a note - anyone not as slow-witted as Ryan, which means just about anyone, would have recognized by now that no one is responding to his substance-free posts.
Comment by wwallace — December 19, 2005 @ 12:05 am
This is wwallace’s new battle strategy. He’s here to not respond to anything. LOL
He’s got nothin. Nada.
December 19th, 2005 at 1:54 amThe big unanswered question is why Judd wants America to lose the war.
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
Wrong -the big unanswered questions are: a) Why is wwallace still posting comments with no substance, or facts to back up his claims?, b) Why wwallace is talking about Ken Starr in a thread about Bush’s speech?, and c) Will wwallace ever answer Worfeus’ question?
December 19th, 2005 at 2:07 amresponse to: WORFEUS — December 19, 2005 @ 1:54 am
wwallace is probably a pimple-faced teenager on the GOP payroll, or some cantankerous old geezer who supports segregation. Either way - just ignore the idi0t.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:10 amwwallace, you can “note†whatever the hell you want to note. What are you, the assistant principal of some junior high?
Comment by Redleg — December 18, 2005 @ 11:58 pm
Maybe not, but I suspect that’s his highest academic accomplishment.
Redleg, don’t let wwallace get on your nerves. You just got a taste of his “debating” skills and tactics.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:13 amReading about Cheney’s visit to Iraq, I unearthed this gem:
“[. . .] U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns. [. . .]”
December 19th, 2005 at 4:05 amThey don’t trust Iraqis to be around Cheney with actual weapons. Not just unloaded weapons - ANY WEAPONS! Must have been worried that they’d try to club him with their empty rifles! That “hearts and minds” stuff doesn’t seem to be paying off.
I made dookie in my pants, daddy.
December 19th, 2005 at 4:43 amWhaaaaaaa! I’m wet! Change me!
December 19th, 2005 at 4:44 amI like a big bad spanking from big bad brother in the big bad daddy state! Ow! Take it out, daddy! It hurts!
December 19th, 2005 at 4:49 amwwallace blog it is not.
Bush is a pus-filled blister on America’s arse.
Lance it by fighting in your state for YOUR VOTING RIGHTS.
W-Wallace wants to distract about Clinton’s dick. Why spend any time thinking about the Clenisâ„¢? That’s his burden to bear.
December 19th, 2005 at 4:55 amIt wasn’t too long time ago that I read a general saying that only one battalion was ready and in operation…
December 19th, 2005 at 5:03 amI want to kick the President out as much as the next guy here… but i’m a glass-half-full kinda guy.
So it’s really quite refreshing to see him essentially admit that he was wrong. I mean, he did!
You don’t go to government with the President you want, you go with the President you have. Right? So this is a step in the right direction.
I consider this quite the change for him, even if it was just one night. That’s better than nothing.
I just hope Democrats (and people here) can at least see the small silver lining in this. Things are bad (maybe terrible), but it’s not the end of the world. Well… yet.
Stay tuned.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:58 am“It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends — and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word.”
Since when does GW care what the world thinks?
December 19th, 2005 at 8:02 amWho cares if he admitted what he did? Do the 2200 soldiers murdered by the Bush regime suddenly come back to life? Are we going to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible, so that more families aren’t shattered? Are our civil rights going to be restored?
The Bush speech was “Yea, I did it, so whatcha going to do about it”.
He also didn’t admit HE was wrong, he admitted that others were wrong. Not good enough.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:21 amAndrew C says:
I want to kick the President out as much as the next guy here… but i’m a glass-half-full kinda guy.
So it’s really quite refreshing to see him essentially admit that he was wrong. I mean, he did!
You don’t go to government with the President you want, you go with the President you have. Right? So this is a step in the right direction.
Give me a break, pal.
1. This president exaggerated the facts to lead us into a useless war in Iraq, to do the dirty work for the arabs who used Infadels to shed the blood of a fellow muslim for them, while all but abandoning the chase for bin Laden and his terrorists?
2. This president and his poor judgement has left one the most inept Secretary of Defense’s in place because Rummy is “doing a heckofa job” squandering our military because of underestimating the troops needed or the growing insurgency?
3. This president has forced us to cut programs at home, all but abandon the Gulf Coast because our resources are needed to rebuild Iraq, at a cost approaching a quarter of a trillion dollars?
4. Over 2,000 dead and more than 15,000 severely wounded since he declared “Mission Accomplished?”
5. Lied over and over again last year about the true facts in order to get reelected and branding everyone who disagreed a coward and a traitor?
Correct me if I’m wrong, Andrew, but how easily you are fooled. Like all the democrats who were fooled into voting for W the second time, even. I mean, the glass you are talking about is not half full, knucklehead, its more than half empty.
Like all politicans GeorgieBoy will say anything or do anything, to help the Republicans rise again in the polls just time time for the 2006 elections.
How does that old saying go? “Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice—and I’m a real dipshit” or something like that.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:27 amIn 1984, the book, the ruling political structure was a self-perpetuating dictatorship. This was achieved by putting into action several thought control devices. However, another important tool for the maintenance of the fascist regime was the fact that it was in a perpetual war against some other fascist regime.
For those in power a perpetual war was an absolute necessity. In fact they were not aiming at winning the war, just in perpetuating it. There are several advantages in a never ending war.
Firstly, you have an external enemy and this binds your citizens together, under your leadership. Secondly, because there’s a threat you can always have “traitors” in your midst (i.e. those that oppose your policies), and blame them for whatever goes wrong in your country. Thirdly, since there’s a threat you can enforce a policy of spying on the citizens, of restricting their liberties and argue that it is for their own good.
This is what happens in 1984. Now I ask you: What is happening in America today?
Can the war on terror be won? Can it possibly end? It cannot: there will always be terrorists.
What are those who are against the continuation of the war on terror? Un-Americans, “traitors”. What is the Patriot Act? Legislation aimed at locking up the “traitorsâ€, spying citizens, restrict their liberties, ergo, control them. Am I wrong?
December 19th, 2005 at 8:33 amWhen we are out of Iraq, America wins. The only losers are the Bush administration and his supporters (and Halliburton). When they are impeached and imprisoned America will win. When we elect Wesley Clark president and finally get Ossama America will win.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:37 amMy wife’s cousin was an officer in the Marines. She’s been out for 3 years and is now helping to run the family farm in Indiana. Her father, who has farmed the land for many years, has Parkinson’s Disease now and her involvement is crucial for their farm and their ability to keep it going.
Last month she was called back into active service. She applied for a hardship disability due to her family’s situation and her father’s affliction.
She was denied.
Not only are we NOT replacing US military personnel with Iraqis, we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of the quality of recruits and we’re calling back people who have already paid their dues and now are desperately needed back home.
Arrrrrggggghhh…
December 19th, 2005 at 8:54 amBecause the soldiers are there to die for OIL. The Iraqi security and government are of little concern to the administration. The Oil feilds have been annexed into the US. As long as they’re safe and pumping free cash into the pockets of Cheney and Bush, everythin’s fine!
December 19th, 2005 at 9:05 amLike all the democrats who were fooled into voting for W the second time, even. I mean, the glass you are talking about is not half full, knucklehead, its more than half empty.
So 1/4 full then?
December 19th, 2005 at 9:10 amChris, isn’t it ironic that the enlisted or those in the lower paygrades cannot be spared and are being called back into service for Iraq?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but why are the top Generals, the supposed “brains” like the chairman of the joint chiefs, Gen. Richard Myers and that other halftrack, General Tommy Franks, allowed to retire in the middle of a war while the groundpounders, or those with “special skills” being called back, many after a lot of years?
Maybe wwallace could explain to me what would have happened during WWII if Eisenhower and Patton would have been allowed to retire so they could write books and hit the $$speech circuit.
I mean, I guess I better keep my dufflebag packed just in case they need another former grunt.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:12 amEisenhower and Patton would have put Osama out of business long ago and there wouldn’t be any war in Iraq.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:24 amGuacamole in #97 doesn’t get it.
Allow me to break it down for you. Bush had a full glass after 9-11, when the whole country, nearly the whole world, really was behind him. A full glass.
He squandered it. Pissed it away. His latest favorabiltiy ratings are down to 39-45% with more than half the country against him. That full glass is tanking, pal, and it will not be full again, ever, for this lying, dubassed president. No matter what, the majority will never believe him again.
By the way, the stuff in the bottom of the glass isn’t water, partner.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:25 amSo where’s the apple? It looks like one of those kindergarten pictures we all had taken. He turns OUR office into something resembling an elementary school. He has taken all maturity and intelligence out of the oval office. What a dolt who cannot speak. I really find it hard to believe people voted for such a punk.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:30 amJoe
I get it … I was trying to maintain the “full” side of view of it for the original guy.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:46 amWell, Giacomo, I can’t help but be a pessimistic loudmouth, foulmouthed idiot at times.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that comes from being a typical rightwing, conservative, dipshit which I fully admit to being. I mean, I mean well, I just can’t help myself at times.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:51 amBush is all bent out of shape over the fact that it was revealed he was engaging in illegal snooping on Americans, but doesn’t give a damn that his “brain” outed a covert CIA agent, endangering her life and that of her sources. Seems to me he promised to get to the bottom of that and never did. I hope this will lead to his justified impeachment, and soon.
December 19th, 2005 at 12:02 pmhttp://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach.htm
Take action now!
Remember to tell your Reps and Senators that they will not have your vote if they do not begin impeachment hearings immediately.
Share this link with everyone in your address book.
Demand Impeachment Now!
December 19th, 2005 at 2:12 pmJoe Sixpack…
Please don’t call me a “knucklehead” or “dipshit.” :( You don’t know me.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:23 pmThe big unanswered question is:
December 19th, 2005 at 4:40 pmWhy is this administration repeatedly allowed to break the law?
Why does the Right always seem to interpret anti-war messages as hate for America? Is it possible to disagree with the current war, and still love America? Maybe the dissenters strongly believe this war has little to do with national security, and love America enough to want to stop it?
This has little to do with love, or hate for America. These Rightys are so black and white, wanting to simplify complex issues.
So to you simple little children who call yourselves Republicans, these issues are much more complex than you are seeing them. If you Repubs were a little more secure with yourselves, didn’t take differing opinions so personally, didn’t fear anything that is not exactly like you are, and had an original thought, you may understand all the grey area here. It’s not a matter of either we love or hate America, or we are with with you or against you. Which is putting people in a position of either-or, and nothing in the middle.
That type of narrowminded inflexability is what we want to save America from, because we love it so much.
December 19th, 2005 at 5:13 pmSusan, you are dreaming. I share your dream — we fought hard for impeachment for the entire time the Dems had a chance to do that. Conyers has a MOUNTAIN of letters from both sides begging him to go forward.
Now only the Rs can call for impeachment, and they won’t do that unless Bush shoots Dan Rather on national television.
What we can do is fight off the vote-frauding of our states.
Absent a majority in the House, impeachment is a non-starter. We need quite a few Congressmen to be indicted first.
Scare R representatives by undermining the vote-fraud system they established for their ‘generational rule’ of the United States. Ban Diebold, et al!
December 19th, 2005 at 5:36 pm“The big unanswered question is:
Why is this administration repeatedly allowed to break the law? Comment by Keith H”
It’s called a COUP. The leadership of the Congress on the majority side are CO-CONSPIRATORS.
Soon to be INDICTED co-conspirators, happily.
Many countries have survived coups. America is not a weak country like Germany in 1933. We have also been betrayed by the corporate media, to abet the coup.
These felons need some feathers to go with all that oil.
December 19th, 2005 at 5:39 pmSo to you simple little children who call yourselves Republicans, these issues are much more complex than you are seeing them. If you Repubs were a little more secure with yourselves, didn’t take differing opinions so personally, didn’t fear anything that is not exactly like you are, and had an original thought, you may understand all the grey area here. It’s not a matter of either we love or hate America, or we are with with you or against you. Which is putting people in a position of either-or, and nothing in the middle.
That type of narrowminded inflexability is what we want to save America from, because we love it so much.
Comment by For Truth
It’s only by God’s Grace and the media induced ignorance of the public that you ratbastards are still walking around free.
December 19th, 2005 at 5:50 pm#112
I-RIGHT-I
There is no god. Show me proof, and I’ll apologize.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:06 pm“It’s only by God’s Grace and the media induced ignorance of the public that you ratbastards are still walking around free.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I”
Didn’t you get the memo? You lost god’s graces when you got divorced.
You’re going to hell, and there’s nothing you can do but sulk you sinner… You’re an evil servant of satan now… But that was abundantly clear to anyone that read your hateful tripe!
December 19th, 2005 at 7:13 pmAll you nazi republicans. I am the big brown eyed god in the sky. You die and go to hell!
December 19th, 2005 at 7:18 pmThe Big Unanswered Question is apparently this:
If that’s true, why are there still 153,000 American troops in Iraq, as many as there have ever been? Why can’t 125 battalions replace a single American soldier?
Because there is no surplus of personnel in Iraq.
Why did you think the US military was getting its arse kicked this badly and there is absolutely no security in any area of the country ?
Because there were enough troops but something else was the problem ?
At the end of the day America wanted a war but not a victory. You won’t commit the troop levels requried to defeat an insurgency of that size and you are too sensitive to military casualties to ever be effective.
This wouldn’t be a problem if you were a peaceful nation but you aren’t. And unless there is some suggestion GW Bush is 200 years old and been in office since birth you really should acknowledge that the US addiction to war isn’t a partisan issue.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:35 pmEmpty Tank is such a fool… Hey Tank, you need to go back to skool :()
What tank is saying (unfortunately he isn’t articulate, so I’ll translate) is that republicans lied about required american troop levels, just like they lied about available iraqi troop levels (the point of the thread that Tank isn’t intelligent enough to process).
Republicans lie, because the truth is inconsistent with their immoral values. Tank lies, because he’s too stupid to see the truth…
December 19th, 2005 at 8:33 pmRepublicans lie, because the truth is inconsistent with their immoral values. Tank lies, because he’s too stupid to see the truth…
And you invent things to criticise because you prefer irrational insults and sterotypes to actually addressing what is said.
Which is why you call me a liar yet are unable to tell us what it is I am lying about. The fact that you do this while agreeing with me indicates you’re retarded.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:49 pm“And you invent things to criticise because you prefer irrational insults and sterotypes to actually addressing what is said.” EmptyTank
And you make irrational stereotypes and claims to insult democrats.
“Which is why you call me a liar yet are unable to tell us what it is I am lying about. The fact that you do this while agreeing with me indicates you’re retarded.”
I call you retarded because you can’t even read the point of a thread and make a relevant comment.
We all know troop levels were too low, but instead of criticizing Bush for lying yet again, you backhanded insult democrats.
You’re a stupid retarded lunatic who wouldn’t know good values or decency if they stung you. Clinton’s war prevented a genocide, and yet your smears are irresponsible. We were attacked during WWII, the Korean and Vietnam conflicts were UN operations.
Your ‘claims’ are just as hysterical, as your arguments are irrational. You’re such an idiot.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:55 pmTank,
FYI, you lie, misrepresent, or misdirect towards democrats at least once on almost every post, clearly it’s a compulsion. And you never back up your claims with specifics, it’s always some prejudiced and nonsensical charge. Stop being such a retarded ’sympathy troll’, it makes you look like a tin foil lunatic.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:57 pmComment by Ryan Neat — December 19, 2005 @ 8:57 pm
And you make irrational stereotypes and claims to insult democrats.
…
We all know troop levels were too low, but instead of criticizing Bush for lying yet again, you backhanded insult democrats.
…
FYI, you lie, misrepresent, or misdirect towards democrats at least once on almost every post, clearly it’s a compulsion.
I didn’t criticise or even mention Democrats, so just who is misrepresenting and lying here is pretty clear.
December 19th, 2005 at 9:10 pmAs I said, when you can’t participate without lying about what is said your opinion isn’t worth shit. You are too detatched from reality to be relevant.
#121
Tank, Sometimes one person is so much smarter than another person that what the more intelligent person says is not understood by the less intelligent person.
In this case, Ryan is just so much smarter than you that you don’t understand what he is saying.
It’s kinda like Albert Einstein trying to have a conversation with Mr. Ed. Poor Ed just will never be able to understand…
December 19th, 2005 at 9:35 pmIn this case, Ryan is just so much smarter than you that you don’t understand what he is saying.
If Ryan’s so smart, why are all his posts riddled with Ad Hominem attacks? Any truly smart person would see how ignorant this practice is … Ryan seems unable to respond to a post he disagrees with without some sort of inflamatory label on the other person. Why (and why do you make excuses for it … do you allow your students to dissent in that fashion? I bet not.)?
December 19th, 2005 at 10:10 pmYeah the same thing happened when he was explaining to me that Democrats who voted to approve the invasion of Iraq didn’t know they were voting for a war. It just went straight over my head.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:11 pmI guess that was another case of imbalance of intelligence rather than just a blatant lie.
It’s no coincidence that Ryan’s comments are frequently deleted from the boards. All we ask for is facts in support of an argument, and all we get is ad hominem.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:23 pmryan’s political epithets lace the internet. just google “ryan neat” retard, or “ryan neat” nazi, or “ryan neat” fascist and you’ll get hundreds of ryan’s insults spread across the liberal blogs. he is a gift to comservatives that just keeps on giving.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:59 pmcaption contest
see both of I, the, I presnit, me, monarchs hands and ‘everything’ is la mesa, on the ‘table’. see?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:04 am#123
The difference between us is that you take his comments personally. When the kids call me something, which is usually out of frustration because they don’t feel they are being understood, I don’t take it personally. It’s called being an adult. And I don’t focus on it. You guys do. You focus on the name-calling and not the issue.
And, Giacomo, you guys are just as guilty at the name calling, so you really can’t say that Ryan is alone in this. I’ve been called many names by many of you. Even you. Tank has been far worse. And I just read a post by I-RIGHT-I a few minutes ago where he spewed racial epithets and wallace joined in. So, really, if you want to point our Ryan’s remarks, you should notice your own side’s remarks and see that it’s there as well. But not what’s important. It’s the issues that are important. And because you guys aren’t doing much to defend your view of the issues, you focus on the name-calling. And we know it’s just a diversion…
December 20th, 2005 at 8:32 am#124
Yeah the same thing happened when he was explaining to me that Democrats who voted to approve the invasion of Iraq didn’t know they were voting for a war. It just went straight over my head.
See Tank, you can’t even quote Ryan properly, much less understand him. He did not say that. Thanks for validating my argument.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:35 am#125
All we ask for is facts in support of an argument, and all we get is ad hominem.
Comment by Occam’s Neighbor — December 19, 2005 @ 10:23 pm
That’s just hypocritical, and not true. I was on debate teams in high school and college. Ryan hasn’t lost a debate yet. You know that. So you start trying to attack his argument by pointing out the aspects that don’t matter. It’s called ‘diversion’. You’re trying to make this personal. And, you’re calling the kettle black because you name-call on a regular basis.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:38 am#126
you’ll get hundreds of ryan’s insults spread across the liberal blogs. he is a gift to comservatives that just keeps on giving.
Comment by Dirty Sanchez — December 19, 2005 @ 11:59 pm
Yes, liberal… this is a liberal blog too. You came to a LIBERAL blog. Do you not get that?
December 20th, 2005 at 8:40 amYou’re too lazy, stupid and inept.
- Comment by Ryan Neat — December 16, 2005
I’ve consistently shown everyone what an idiot and a moron you are.
- Comment by Ryan Neat — December 16, 2005
You are definitely a moron conservative
- Comment by Ryan Neat — December 16, 2005
You’re a moron.
- Comment by Ryan Neat — December 16, 2005
You’re such a sad and pathetic little boy.
- Comment by Ryan Neat — December 16, 2005
Man you are one lying retarded propagandist moron.
- Comment by Ryan Neat — December 16, 2005
You and your fascist brethren always exercise moral relativism and convenience.
- Comment by Ryan Neat — December 15, 2005
You’re an idiot.
Comment by Ryan Neat — December 15, 2005
Are you getting the picture unbelievable … I took those quotes from two threads only.
The difference between us is that you take his comments personally. When the kids call me something, which is usually out of frustration because they don’t feel they are being understood, I don’t take it personally. It’s called being an adult. And I don’t focus on it. You guys do. You focus on the name-calling and not the issue.
No … I don’t take it personally. I could care less what Ryan thinks but I do find it curious that many are loathe to call him on it. Let me get this straight though … to be an adult is to be able to “take” name calling. Sounds fair enough … if I’m speaking with 3rd graders. Are you likening Ryan’s outbursts to your students outburts and thus his emotionally maturity as well? How about when you’re at a party with only adults … do expect to be called a moron (or should you just not take it personally). I should at least expect other ADULTS to act like adults … again, Ryan only denigrates himself … why do you keep apologizing for it. Could it be that you agree with Ryan’s opinions and thus you don’t wish to call a “spade a spade” … hmmmm …. It’s almost as if his idealogoy is paramount and not his actions ….. could it be that you suffer from cognitive dissonance (an accusation constantly leveled at me)? Physician, heal thyself. I have zero respect for Ryan’s manner … he may be smart … but his caca mouth makes him sound like a tantruming two year old.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:36 am#135
could it be that you suffer from cognitive dissonance (an accusation constantly leveled at me)?
See how that’s an attack that is actually worse than calling someone a moron?
If not, I’ll explain. It’s passive-aggressive because you’re making it seem like a question, but you’re actually insulting me. You’ve decided that I tolerate Ryan’s name calling and have judged me for it. I must be sick, is what you are saying, and that’s actually worse than if you called me a moron. Because calling me a moron is anger or frustration based. Calling me sick is more slanderous. And while we have no laws that punish for name calling, we do have laws against slander. One is an opinion (I don’t like you) and the other is a threat (you’re sick, therefore you should be institutionalized, or limited in your capacity in some regard). If you don’t see the difference, I’d be happy to explain further.
I’ve never apologized for Ryan. I think he’s articulate and backs up his arguments with evidence. I just read past the name calling because he’s entitled to his opinion that you’re a moron as much as you’re entitled to your opinion that he is.
There’s a Buddhist precept that You are right and you are also wrong. Took me years to understand that. What it means is that you are right in your own mind, and for those who agree with you. You are wrong to those who see it differently. There is only perspective. I just think your need to be right causes you to focus too much on Ryan’s imperfections (we all have them) instead of the issue.
If yo want to beat Ryan at a debate, you should research teh issue first, before you utter a single word, and know what he is going to say so that you can counter him.
For example, once, we debated the Death Penalty (which I currently do not favor). At the time I did, so I argued ‘pro’. I knew that my opponent would use the Bible, so I went to the Bible to find counter arguments to the opposition. Sure enough, they based tehir entire argument on “Thou Shall Not Kill”. I was able to defeat it with a passage from Genesis that says something about murder of a murderer is acceptable. Then added some other statistics about the costs of housing and appeals for those in the system vesus giving that money to the needy. I won the debate.
Unfortunately, I will say that it requires you to understand a side that you won’t allow yourself to accept as credible, and therefore I don’t think you can beat him. But, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and reserve judgment. Good luck.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:35 pmYou’ve decided that I tolerate Ryan’s name calling and have judged me for it. I must be sick, is what you are saying, and that’s actually worse than if you called me a moron.
I haven’t decided a thing … 1) Cognitive dissonance is not an illness … it’s a normal predisposition that most people suffer from (similar to buyer’s remorse). 2) I was pointing out that ALL suffer from this inclination … when confronted with info. that doesn’t match ones pre-conceptions … one will often slant the info. instead of changing the pre-conception. That’s all. Please note that this is not a value judgment (like calling someone a moron is) nor is it slanderous … it’s merely an indication that you’re a “normal” human. Ryan, while accusing everyone else of falling victim to CD, fails to notice its effects on his positions as well … you got caught in the crossfire on this particular issue.
I’ve never apologized for Ryan. I think he’s articulate and backs up his arguments with evidence. I just read past the name calling because he’s entitled to his opinion that you’re a moron as much as you’re entitled to your opinion that he is.
He’s occasionally articulate … he sometimes backs up his evidence. He’s perfectly entitled to think I’m a moron, but that’s not the point … you’re confusing freedom of speech (something we all have) with freedom to be heard (which none of us have). He has a right to say what he wants, if TP follows its own rules (From the terms of use - Respect other Bloggers — please do not threaten, INSULT (emphasis mine), abuse, intimidate or harass other Blog users) they’d put a stop to his garbage as no one has the right to be heard (or read).
If yo want to beat Ryan at a debate, you should research teh issue first, before you utter a single word, and know what he is going to say so that you can counter him.
You’re free to disagree, but I wouldn’t presume to speak about a subject that I knew nothing about. In those cases where I was ignorant, I asked others to “educate” me. Ryan, attacked me then as well. Boo Hoo for me, I guess. “Beating” Ryan isn’t really the point either … this isn’t a win/lose proposition … I want to discuss and debate. “Winning” isn’t a motivator when an intellectual discussion is occuring.
What it means is that you are right in your own mind, and for those who agree with you. You are wrong to those who see it differently. There is only perspective. I just think your need to be right causes you to focus too much on Ryan’s imperfections (we all have them) instead of the issue.
I am intimately familiar with this concept … I’ve often spoken on this very phenomenon … others (like Ryan) disavow its existance in their own pre-conceptions. Also, I have no desire to be right … I WANT to discuss issues fairly and lucidly … point then counter-point. This only happens with a few here (you, Worfeus, Gregor, Wayne) … Ryan chooses to snipe at portions of my statements and doesn’t stick to the theme of my post (or rarely does). That’s my beef with him. He attacks and mis-represents … when I point this out, he attacks something different.
I was able to defeat it with a passage from Genesis that says something about murder of a murderer is acceptable. Then added some other statistics about the costs of housing and appeals for those in the system vesus giving that money to the needy. I won the debate.
Perhaps you did. I think this is an example of fine debate … I would love to have this every so often (even with Ryan). Without “proof” of the truth (maybe God himself coming down and saying, “unbelievable is right, I don’t like the death penalty) there’s no winning here … no one keeps score. It usually falls down to “the person that I originally agreed with won”. That’s why the point isn’t to win. The point is to have intelligent discourse (like we are having now).
Unfortunately, I will say that it requires you to understand a side that you won’t allow yourself to accept as credible, and therefore I don’t think you can beat him.
I have never “questioned” the basic position that liberals (Ryan included hold) … if I thought all the positions were total BS, I wouldn’t be here. I do question opinions, research, “facts”, and suppositions. I also play devil’s advocate a lot … I can’t stand overly simplistic explantions and overly simplistic dismissals of dissent … they are intellectually subpar … often, I’m arguing for the validity of the contra-argument (and that those that believe the contra-argument aren’t Nazis, facists or any other heinous beast). I’m glad for the benefit of the doubt … you may ALWAYS disagree with me, but I think you’ll find that my intentions are not subversive in the least.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:19 pm#137
Honestly, Giacomo, I think you should stay away from Ryan. It’s clear there’s an impasse or an ability to communicate, and that you’re satisfied with the results. Seems like intentionally beating your head against the wall to debate him further. Sometimes you can’t find a compromise with others, and are betterto just move on. There’s some one here that I avoid becaue I know that we see the issue so differently that all any interaction ever leads to is a battle. I think I it’s not worth it and avoid this person. Might be consideration for you in this case if it’s not working for you.
I don’t agree with your accessment, but I think you and I see the world differently as well. But know you’re not ill-intentioned here. I wasn’t when I argued for the other side. I know you aren’t here to be hateful. It’s why I will talk with you. Because really, it’s compromise and consensus that allows us all to find the middle ground that we can all live with.
But I do think it’s this very opportunity to speak freely that we all need to take seriously in light of current events. No one should have extreme powers. Not Bush. Not now, not ever. And I will defend that position for as long as I’m around here.
Know anything about Nihilism?
December 20th, 2005 at 1:53 pmHonestly, Giacomo, I think you should stay away from Ryan. It’s clear there’s an impasse or an ability to communicate, and that you’re satisfied with the results. Seems like intentionally beating your head against the wall to debate him further.
I’ve made it my mission to make him behave in a civilized fashion with me … perhaps I am a pipe dreamer.
Know anything about Nihilism?
I can use it correctly in a sentence but don’t know much about it beyond the “belief in nothing” aspect.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:10 pm#139
I’ve made it my mission to make him behave in a civilized fashion with me … perhaps I am a pipe dreamer.
Well, it it were sex, it would make you a felon… But seriously, you know you can’t MAKE anyone do anything. The only person you can control is yourself. You can try, but I think you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.
Know anything about Nihilism?
I can use it correctly in a sentence but don’t know much about it beyond the “belief in nothing†aspect.
Comment by Giacomo — December 20, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
Actually it’s more like ultimate freedom… but I’ll bring it up in a more recent forum as this one is getting buried.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:10 pmQuote: “Know anything about Nihilism?”
Is it the ancient art of changing the subject when your original arguement gets shot to shit ?
December 21st, 2005 at 6:24 pm#141
No imbicle, unlike you, I was respectfully asking him if he knew anything about a topic of relevence in our argument that I was about to introduce. Nihilism is relevent. But as you know nothing about either, you lower yourself to slinging insults.
But I wouldn’t expect an obnoxious pig like you to understand respect or the matters of debate.
We continued our discussion in another thread.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:11 am