CNN: Bush Is ‘Very Seriously’ Considering Sending More Troops To Iraq
CNN: Bush Is ‘Very Seriously’ Considering Sending More Troops To Iraq
CNN’s John King reported this afternoon that President Bush is planning a “substantial policy shift” on Iraq and is “very seriously considering…agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing U.S. troop levels in the short-term.”
King said the White House has postponed the announcement of the policy shift to January because Bush “has asked for more advice about” how he could send 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and administration officials “need more time to put all that on the table.”
King said the White House sees a political benefit to delaying the announcement. “If you are going to disagree with the Iraq Study Group and not accept its major recommendations, then let some time go by, let the American people forget about that a little bit” and “buy some time for critics” to attack the ISG.
Watch it:
Full transcript:
KING: I talked to a number of senior administration officials today, and also some of the outsiders who have been consulted by the administration as part of this review, including one retired general, and they say they think the president wants more time for the reason Ed Henry just noted: because it’s not just one thing, you know, the whole litany — it’s not because of this or because of that. These officials all believe the president is planning to do something big. He is planning to do a substantial policy shift, and one of the sources I spoke to says he believes the president is very seriously considering, in the short term, agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing U.S. troop levels in the short-term and also resisting the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group that he put on the table the idea that the United States would begin to withdraw troops. The retired generals have said they believe, like the active duty generals, that any talk of withdrawing troops is a bad idea, and the president, we are told, has asked for more advice about, how could he do it? If he wanted to send in 20,000, 15,000 more troops for a few months to try to improve the situation, primarily in Baghdad, how would could that happen? So they need more time to put all that on the table. They need more time for the new defense secretary to study it. Another issue is this regional diplomacy. The president will not meet directly with Iran or Syria at a high level, but if they could pull off some sort of regional conference and essentially call the bluff of Iran and Syria, saying, “Can you come to the table with a serious proposal to help?” They think if the Iraqi government can do that, that might help as well. They’re also worried, Wolf, you’ve seen all these reports. Is the Iraqi government in trouble? Is there stirring up within Iraq against the Maliki government? So,the main reasons are policy questions what the president will do, but they’re also watching warily what is happening in Baghdad.
BLITZER: What about domestic politics, because as you know, some Democrats already suspicious that the president is going to delay the speech, not necessarily for strictly policy reasons, but maybe politics might be at play.
KING: What senior administration officials say is it is policy, policy, policy. The president is looking at big changes and he needs to get this right, so he is going to take the time necessary. But they also do believe there is a political benefit. You might get criticism now, as you just heard Dana say, from the Democrats. Why not before Christmas? But they believe there is a political benefit. If you are going to disagree with the Iraq Study Group and not accept its major recommendations, then let some time go by, let the American people forget about that a little bit, buy some time for critics. And you can the Wall Street Journal editorial page, other conservatives attacking, attacking, attacking the findings of the Iraq Study Group. Let that criticism take hold, especially if you are going to say, thank you for your report but I don’t agree with that much of it.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
222 Responses to “CNN: Bush Is ‘Very Seriously’ Considering Sending More Troops To Iraq”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
At least Bush is consistent about being a stupid-ass.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:51 pmYay! More Americans fed into Bush's meat grinder to make Halliburton more money.
Maybe Bush can reach the 1 million deaths mark before he leaves office.
-GSD
December 12th, 2006 at 4:52 pmIsn't this plot getting tired?
December 12th, 2006 at 4:53 pmthough i think ... no, i know it is a bad idea ... lets take a look at the silver lining ... when it is implemented and fails miserably, it will be bad news for John 'there goes my nomination' McCain.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:56 pmHe's well on target to pass one million deaths before 2008.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:56 pmThis is not a very good way to salvage his legacy. I'm just saying.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:56 pmPrivate's Jenna and Barbara Bush, front-and-center!
December 12th, 2006 at 4:58 pmI approve of sending more troops. Anything to win this thing. I am sick of all the talk about how we can lose this war faster.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:58 pmOne of Halliburton's Iraqi refineries went up in flames last week.
Bush needs to send a message to the Iraqi people.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:00 pmAnd the Democrats need to "Seriously Consider" impeaching this mother fu*ker.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:00 pmWho cares?
December 12th, 2006 at 5:01 pmRoger Roger is in favor of sending more troops.
Good, then HE should go, or send a relative to die in Iraq.
ANYBODY who still supports Chimpy should enlist and volunteer for Iraq immediately.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:01 pm3 years too late for more troops.
Pull out now before you impregnate the ground with more dead Americans.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:04 pmDuring Blitzer's arrogant and insulting question, "is this a Kucinich ego trip" Kucinich was saying use the 70 billion in the pipeline to bring the troops home and CUT OFF all future funding and ANYBODY right or left that continues to vote for funding this illegal war, is a fraud, knowing they want only a BETTER and easier occupation.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:05 pmTom3, That's one way of ridding the country of the 30% blind faith followers!
December 12th, 2006 at 5:05 pm'Winning' is defined as 'Staying Forever'. We can't win, but we can lose.
Bush says he doesn't intend to win or lose. He intends to hand Iraq off to the next administration, 'as is'.
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield have told us this war will last decades.
Prewar reports said that it will be profitable to pump Iraqi oil for at least 20 years.
We need to listen to the administration and get past the idea that there will be a victory. They are telling us they don't intend to achieve a victory, they intend to 'Finish The Mission'.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:05 pmOnly 17 years and 3,400,000 lives to go, and the mission will be completed.
Private’s Jenna and Barbara Bush, front-and-center!
Comment by Robert — December 12, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
A-men!
December 12th, 2006 at 5:08 pmGo Rodger, go. Both of you.
The war is lost. That's a fact.
The battle now is between assholes like you blabbering about more troops as John McCain is, and REALITY. McCain asked the top generals of this war if more troops would help at this point and they said it woulld not.
More troops more targets. No progress and no plan. Join up Rodger or STFU.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#14 Roger_Roger
We don't want to lose, we just acknowledge that we already have. We lost when we went into the country without any real plan except for a swift victory and being greeted with flowers and open arms by the Iraqis. The only way to win is to kill everyone in Iraq, and besides the fact that we are against such genocide, it would just piss off the rest of the middle east and we'd have even bigger problems on our hands.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:09 pmDid they ask where he will get more troops to send?
December 12th, 2006 at 5:10 pmAnything to win this thing.
Comment by Roger_Roger — December 12, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
Anything? What are you doing here then? Get yourself on the next military flight to Baghdad...
December 12th, 2006 at 5:10 pmWho cares?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — December 12, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Apparently, it's all he has...
December 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pmBush is hurtling down the path to impeachment, conviction, and imprisonment. It is sad that so many have to die before it can be done.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:14 pmHis measure of success is quantitative and qualitative. The more soldiers die (10,000 plus) the better he is doing. This moron will never learn
December 12th, 2006 at 5:15 pmOK, so according to Journalist King Bush is “very seriously considering…agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing U.S. troop levels in the short-term.â€....
So we try to clean out the vipers nest of the insurgency in Baghdad - check.
Iraqi's get their rears in gear and assume more responsibility for the
security of Iraq - check.
With increased Iraqi forces, American troops start drawing down - check.
America appears to have helped get rid of a dictator Dems thought had WMD's - check.
Iraq's fledgling democracy begins to take root - check.
America doesn't limp away with a black eye - - ah hahhhh.....THAT's what Progs are in a twist about......
(Pssst.....You gotta love the new head of the House Intelligence Committee. The poor dear, Sly Reyes, was in a bit of confusion regarding AlQueda, Sunnis and Shiites. I can see that Speakette Pelosi tapped the best Dem Man for the job - if only she had tapped the most qualified Dem Woman, Jane Harman. I can see why Dems think America will trust them with National Security.....ha!!!!)
December 12th, 2006 at 5:19 pmJohn McCain just pissed himself... he knows 20,000 troops won't make a difference... he just said that so that he could cover his ass in 2008 and say well if we would have tried it my way... blah blah blah
Guess he forgot that bad ideas are like candy to Wonderboy... tuff luck there Johnny Boy?
December 12th, 2006 at 5:22 pmGood, we need your help.
There should be a recruiters office close to just about any location in the USA.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:24 pm“If you are going to disagree with the Iraq Study Group and not accept its major recommendations, then let some time go by, let the American people forget about that a little bit...â€
We will not forget.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:25 pmP.S. I do not have herpes.If your “name†is some sort of pun directed towards me,then get a life.
Comment by angie in Ga. — December 12, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
Of course it is directed at you. You're the kid that no one likes but despite the number of insults or direct demands to shoo, still won't go away. Sad, pathetic and hopeless.
You and MA should go start your own blog and call it "Seriously Unfunny and Lonely Freaks of Nature" - because you are.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:28 pmWe will not forget.
Comment by Zooey — December 12, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
After November 7th, I'm surprised that they still underestimate us. Silly fools.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:30 pmAnd odds are 100 of the 20,000 will be celebrating their last Christmas this month.
Mighty A, your whole argument rests on a fallacy. The sad thing is, you believe in the lie. The good thing is, there are fewer and fewer people who believe as you do.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:30 pm"let some time go by, let the American people forget about that a little bitâ€
except for the american people stationed in iraq, who will have trouble forgetting about it.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:31 pmOK Roger and MA, what are acceptable troop levels to rid Bahgdad of that vipers nest? 20k, 30k, 50k? More? Are those just the troops in Iraq or is that considering the support troops needed to keep them supplied, trained and cycled out. You'll really need at least 3 times the amount of troops you want to send in to properly support them.
And then? what would you do with Sadr? Kill him you make a maytr. Not Smart. Appease him and he will continue to grow with his anti US rhetoric. Again, not smart.
Do we also increase the amount of $ going into Iraq to build up the infrastructure. Awful lot of $ has already been pissed away by contractors but all for the good of Iraq, Right?
Have you ever really begun to actually think this through? if so I'd love to see some of your well thought out plans on this.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:34 pm[...] Watch Video [...]
December 12th, 2006 at 5:37 pmand “buy some time for critics†to attack the ISG
This idiotic statement implies that if the ISG report gives the wrong answer, then the right answer must be to escalate.
Well, there is never more than two answers to a question in Bushworld: Bush's answer, and the wrong answer.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:40 pmProve it.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:41 pmangie can't have herpes, because angie can't get any while living in his parent's basement
unless he has messing with animals, again
December 12th, 2006 at 5:41 pmMore buying the spin from the White House: How is sending more troops to Iraq a "substantial policy shift"? That would be no "shift", but an continuation of the current policy, and an escalation of the involvement.
Contrary to what war planners said at the time, the escalation of the American involvement in Vietnam did not bring that conflict to an end sooner, although it did prolong the war and increased the death toll.
Much like Pres Bush now, Lindon B Jonhson refused to withdraw the troops from a needless conflict because he did not want to be the first president to "lose" a war. And countless lifes were lost so a politician could save face. Just like in Iraq.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:43 pmHow many more men must die for this mistake? How many must give their lives so red staters can once again say they are proud to be Americans? Before we can finish this war we have to say what it is for - otherwise, how will you know it is over? It looks like Bush and his sycophants are still fighting this war for all the wrong reasons.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:43 pmSo now more troops to try to prop up an imploding government and corrupt police and military. Sounds like a sure winner to me. The reality is that you can't use a military solution to solve a political - social - cultural problem which gwb created. The hearings need to begin soon. What exactly is going on and how much is it costing us?
December 12th, 2006 at 5:44 pmThe war was lost BEFORE it was started. The wrong group of people (BushCo) were doing the wrong thing (invading) at the wrong time. This was a fiasco waiting to happen, and happen it did. It does America no good to know that we (progressives) were right all along about this vanity mission, but at least we can hold our heads up. The reich wing is tearing itself apart playing the blame game, but we know the truth.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:44 pmI support sending more troops to Iraq. Draft the College Republicans, the 101st Keyboarders, Mighty Aphrodite, the rest of the war-mongering lunatics, and the families of all of the above.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pmHey Aphrodite: Any point to that posting, or just random gibberish? Looks like you better get back to studying for the bar.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:46 pm"Mighty A, your whole argument rests on a fallacy."
Comment by BnF
******Demonstrate the fallacy.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:47 pmThis is our chance to rid ourselves of this rightwing scum that is infestering the true values of this country. Get all those braindead losers that presume that they are a) smart or b) funny in posting approval bullsh!T for massmurdering criminals. Go MotherF!kkkers, go to Iraq, they are waiting for you. There is still enough explosives left to blow your brains out, which wouldn't be that much of a mess, considering the peanut size brain of the average rightwing moron.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:47 pmThe more troops you will send, the more will die. The black hole that opened where once was something called Middle East will absorb everything. Buckle up, it's gonna be the ride of the century.
Mighty Aphrodite,
In your little to-do list, you forgot the entries "Hug all the Iraqis who will greet us as liberators", and "Remember to pick up the flowers Iraqis will throw at our feet".
December 12th, 2006 at 5:48 pmComment by mighty aphrodite
Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"
December 12th, 2006 at 5:49 pmSt John McCain must be having a case of the vapors.
He may actually be getting what he wished for...
Say goodbye to your nomination, John.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:50 pmThe obvius fallacy; sending more troops is not a garauntee of victory. I believe that during Vietnam, the same thought came up, that increased troop levels would remove the VC, stabalize the country, and bring U.S. troops home. Playing a numbers game won't stabalize Iraq. I don't have an answer to what will stabalize Iraq, but I don't think that increased U.S. troops will accomplish that goal.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:50 pmOpen letter to Speaker Pelosi:
Please put impeachment back on the table. President Bush has demonstrated time after time that he is not willing to pursue any bipartisan course of action. Now, when a bipartisan commission issues recommendations he doesn't agree with, he merely goes out to garner opposing views and continues to flaunt the will of the American people; to send more of our children to die for his war; to further burden American taxpayers with debt; to further fatten the coffers of the War Profiteers.
Congress appropriated $1.3 million for a Commission report which is now being derided and dismissed by the President.
Please expose the criminal activities and wrongdoings of this Administration and begin the healing process, both within America and between America and the rest of the world.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:52 pmOn MA's list of "stuff to buy to go to Iraq": one year worth of "Depends"... Right-wing gasbags have a tendency to defecate themselves when they get near a war zone.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:53 pmComment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
You claim to be a lawyer, find the fallacy in your own argument. Hint: begin with your premise.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:54 pmMighty Aphrodite,
The fallacy is obvious to anyone with half a brain. If this is how you defend your clients, it is a wonder they don't get the maximum sentence possible every single time.
The fallacy is, in a few words: There is no guarantee any of the events you list will come to happen even with an increased level of troops, much less one will bring about the next one.
In the real world your listtle list is described as wishful thinking.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:55 pm"...let some time go by, let the American people forget about that a little bit†and “buy some time for critics†to attack the ISG."
But wouldn't the continuous attacking of the ISG result in keeping the public's eye open to the issue? Not to mention the fact that the situation in Iraq will, no doubt, speak for itself.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:55 pm20,000 more troops? Dubya better reinstate the draft and send hundreds of thousands of troops. Without overwhemling force this "Hail Mary pass into the end zone" doesn't stand a chance of suceeding. Given Dubya's stellar command of history, foreign policy, and leadership, there is not to be optimistic about. He'll probably send just enough troops to exacerbate the already bad situation even more.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:55 pmEndangered species, caged in fright,
Shot in cold blood, no chance to fight.
The stage is set, now pay the price.
An ego boost, don't think twice.
Technology, the battles unfair,
You pull the hammer without a care.
Squeeze the trigger that makes you man,
Pseudo-safari, the hunt is canned...
The hunt is canned.
/chorus/
All are gone, all but one.
No contest, nowhere to run.
No more left, only one.
This is it, this is the countdown to extinction.
Tell the truth, you wouldnt dare.
The skin and trophy, oh so rare.
Silence speaks louder than words.
Ignore the guilt, and take your turn.
Liars anagram is lairs,
Man you were never even there.
Killed a few feet from the cages,
Point blank, you're so courageous...
So courageous.
/chorus/
One hour from now,
December 12th, 2006 at 5:56 pmAnother species of life form
Will disappear off the face of the planet
Forever...and the rate is accelerating.
#51 - "Hey Aphrodite: Any point to that posting, or just random gibberish? Looks like you better get back to studying for the bar." Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
*******Hey And, I passed the bar years ago - You must have me confused with the newest member of the CA bar - the Shaman Braid Faire.
The point was "subtle" - no wonder it flew over you head. To clarify - Progs are not interested in winning - they are interested in whining. Many do an excellent hand-wringing imitation, also. Progs and Progettes are surely applauding the unqualified Congressman Speakette Pelosi annointed to chair the House Intelligence Committee. But as Nan has never been that tuned into National Security - just enough to know she hates Jane Harman - her choice is NOT surprising... I hope that helps!
December 12th, 2006 at 5:56 pm******Demonstrate the fallacy.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
OK
Iraq’s fledgling democracy begins to take root - check NOT EVEN CLOSE. Shiite are excluding the Sunni in all levels. Even the garbage isn't being picked up in Sunni areas. So one big Dipshit to you.
So we try to clean out the vipers nest of the insurgency in Baghdad - check. NO Progress since when? How about ever. We increased troop levels 3 months ago in Bahgdad and the violence increased. Another big Dipshit planted on your forehead.
With increased Iraqi forces, American troops start drawing down - check. HELLLLOOOOO. This slogan went out with "Heck of a job Browne". Iraqi forces are now over 300,000 strong. That is comparible to before we invaded. Looks like you are the standard bearer for "Dipshit of the Year"
Fallacy Demonstrated you hack.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:57 pm#14 Roger_Roger
I approve of sending more troops. Anything to win this thing. I am sick of all the talk about how we can lose this war faster.
Yes. More troops will win the war. More gas will make my car go faster so I'll put a bigger gas tank on it. Putting more electricity into my TV set will give me more channels to watch. Eating more protein will make my muscles grow bigger, so I will eat an entire cow for dinner.
It's just that simple, Roger. More is better. And we have an endless supply of troops to draw from, right? Oh well, that's not for you to worry about. Just send more troops.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:57 pm#61 - "You claim to be a lawyer, find the fallacy in your own argument. Hint: begin with your premise." Comment by Briseadh na Faire
*******If that the best you've got, counselor, I don't think you present a threat to the income of members of the California Trial Lawyers Assn. You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. But you were interested in international law, correct? You'll fit right in.....
December 12th, 2006 at 6:01 pmAngie,
I was not trying to argue that more troops would have won sooner, or lost sooner. I was simply pointing out the fallacy in MA's rather weak argument.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:03 pmI suggest you supporters of this "war" study Vietnam, with the increase of troops there our casualty rate only increased. How many young men and women should die for "oil"? When we could be spending those trillions of dollars on Solar, Wind, and developing new technologies.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:08 pmNo Justice - No Peace.
1) Impeachment
2) Imprisonment of all war criminals and profiteers
and seizure of all personal assets.
3) Immediate and Complete Withdrawal of US Troops
4) UN Peacekeepers
5) Rebuilding Iraq with the help of other muslim nations
funded by US reparation payments consisting of
conviscated assets of the 'offense' contractors industry
and war lobbyists.
Another question:
December 12th, 2006 at 6:08 pmWhere did all the taxpayers money go?
Just don't include soy in any of the MRE's. By the way, maybe that's why we ain't winnin' tha war on terra, damn soy in the MRE's.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:10 pmTime to take another look at that war authorization. I seem to remember that the Bush administration promised congress a few things in that document which haven't been delivered. Accountability seems to be in order. The people have spoken. They want our military out of Iraq. Now, some posters on this site seem to think that what the people want is not important. Those posters agree with the founders of our country, all of whom felt that what the people wanted was the most important thing. Bush is not a dictator. He is accountable to the people through our elected representatives. If you fascists don't like that, move to Paraquay with the Bush family.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:11 pmBush can't do anything that isn't going to be political - forget that people are dying, forget that the cost is incomprehensible, forget that he lied us into this mess, forget that no one knows how to make this any better, forget to try something, anything, toward a hope of improvement - no, wait for the politically expedient moment. Wait till the Dems come into power, then blame them. Wait till people start to forget how he was roundly criticized for this war. Wait until there is a time when he might be able to try to squeak by with less than total condemnation for his actions.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:12 pmBush should be condemned to hell now, and for eternity.
"The obvius fallacy; sending more troops is not a garauntee of victory."
Comment by Krazny
********Of course it doesn't Krazny - but it does IMPROVE the chances of securing Badhdad. IT IMPROVES THE C-H-A-N-C-E-S of victory. So your "obvious" fallacy is more of a supposition....The problem Progs encounter in life - - they want guarantees. Sorry to break this to you Progs and Progettes - there is no Santa, there are no guarantees and the best you can do is gain an "unfair competitive edge" over ones' enemy. It's called winning.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:12 pmI approve of sending more troops.
Comment by Roger_Roger — December 12, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
I dislike the "why don't you enlist and go to Iraq" taunts because I believe it is a very ineffectual argument: One does not need to be in the front lines to support a military operation.
However, when the policy is obviously flawed, and the war is going badly, asking more troops be sent is callous and downright criminal. In my opinion, the armchair generals spouting that nonsense should be ready to put their own behind on the line, instead of cowardly cheering from the safety of their own living rooms, like Rogerx2 and Mitey Coprolite do.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:13 pmThere's another lesson from Viet Nam. We now know that our leaders felt the war was unwinnable years before they started advocating a pullout. They continued to send boys to their death basically out of ego, not wanting to be the leader who lost a war. This is the same thing and the remedy is the same as it was for Nixon.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:14 pmNotice how many others here are 'intl law' students =), or in this case rhetoricist, and a poor one at that.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:15 pmReally, can you stay on any one topic without spinning into unrelated ones MA? Your int'l lawyer rhetoric is boring, lazy, and quite easily noticed, it got you beat before and will get you beat again and again. Int'l lawyer material you are not. sorry, I love you as a human but you have far too much bias, in my single view, to become wordly. =)
One of the many, many fallacies is that "securing Bagdad" has anything to do with our national security. It doesn't. Nobody who dies securing Bagdad is dying to maintain our security.
Sorry about the typo above. I meant to say that those posters would disagree with our Founders.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:17 pmZep, this is why I have been reminding people that it's completely useless to engage the mighty a-hole. She is here to provoke. If you make a cogent argument to rebut one of her absurd provocations, she'll act like she doesn't notice. I won't respond to her anymore and I suggest others who agree do the same.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:19 pmYou pretty much said that by increasing troop levels it would stablize the country, create a much needed ally in the middle east and bring out troops home. You are now backtracking because you got called on it. You are right that it might increase chances for just that outcome, however, lessons from Vietnam, show that is not the case, and the ISG did not suggest it as the most practical course of action. I have to wonder why people who have access to far more info then you and me would not suggest that course, if it wasn't going to work.
you are at best irrational. I will not take blame for your shortcomings MA
December 12th, 2006 at 6:20 pmOf the Year Flighty Far Righty. Dipshit of the year.
Maybe the shiites could pick up their own garbage? Is that how a democracy works? No.
Of the Year.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:20 pmit does IMPROVE the chances of securing Badhdad. IT IMPROVES THE C-H-A-N-C-E-S of victory.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
It also improves the chances that more people will be maimed, and killed without achieving the goal of securing Baghdad. Actually, an increased carnage is about the only thing that is sure to happen -because the policy is obviously flawed.
We were told the conflilct would be short-lived. Now they tell us there the need for an increased number of troops? It takes a not-so-Mighty Aphrodite not to see the obvious contradiction.
It’s called winning.
Rich coming from the twit who loses about every argument he engages in.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:21 pmThe problem with this troop strength argument (both ways) is that troop strength does not do anything by itself. It won't matter if we have a million soldiers in Iraq if they aren't used properly. If someone could give me a reason to believe that our tactics have or will change to something that might work, then they might be able to convince me that we don't need to pull out.
The question is stay in Iraq or leave. If you leave, troop strength is irrelevant because we're gone. If we stay, we are staying to do what job exactly?? If you can convince me that the job needs to be done and the job can be done, then I'm for giving them the troop strength they need to get the job done. If that's more than we got there so be it.
But there is NO point in talking about troop strength until we know what it is that we're going to be doing there. Obviously Bush has got at least the beginnings of a hair-brained scheme going on. What's the plan? What are we going to do THIS time and why should I believe that it has a better chance to succeed where everything else has failed? Answer me those and you can have all the troops you want.
I'm not going to hold my breath though.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:23 pmI.T.M.F.A!!
December 12th, 2006 at 6:29 pmIf you can convince me that the job needs to be done and the job can be done, then I’m for giving them the troop strength they need to get the job done.
Comment by Swordsbane — December 12, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
Not to nitpick, but first you need to define exactly what "the job" is.
Rid Iraq of WMD? Remove the threat Iraq poses to its neighbors? Those, I think, were accomplished per the White House.
Capture the elusive "terrorists" who attacked the US on 9/11? Or is it build a new, democratic Iraq, perhaps? Root out Islamic fundamentalism? Remove Iraq as a "safe haven for terrorists"?
Once you have defined "the job", you have to explain how the increased level of troops alone (with no other changes to the current policy and strategy) will help reach that goal.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:35 pmStop entertaining MA. The creature is a two-bit sore loser. The thing has been spectacularly wrong about everything ever since it started coming on this blog. Don't try to reason with MA: it does not have two brain cells to rub together.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:37 pmGregor Samsa; It's just like Vietnam all over again. Deja Vu. Apocalypse Again. Send in 20,000 more troops, followed by 65,000, followed by another 100,000, and 200,000, only to be in a stalemate at a higher level. More US deaths, maimed US troops, PTSD in even more not even mentioning the toll on the Iraqis.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
The Republican Party seems to be firmly staking it's future as the War Party. Could it do anything else? Like some crazed machine on a internal loop of continual decay.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:43 pmThe only reason Bush isn't sending the additional troops today: he want to be sure there isn't any other option that is dumber or more wasteful of human life.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:49 pmIf he does, the people will riot in the streets!
December 12th, 2006 at 6:50 pmThis is good - Bush will take McCain down with him.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:50 pmIraq for the Iraqis. It is THEIR country NOT OURS!!
Comment by Uncle_Ho — December 12, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
I believe the wingnuts (like Mitey Coprolite) have a hard time coming to terms with this simple fact. They are arrogant, self-important nobodies wanting to treat Iraqis as children who don't know any better and who need American help to even go to the bathroom.
It amazes me to hear the sons and daughters of a nation less than 300 years old, talk about teaching Iraqis how to govern themselves. Iraq, the cradle of civilization, taking lessons from a country that didn't even exist when Hammurabi was writing his legal code around 1700BC.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:51 pmThe mantra of the GOP is everything negative: War, destruction, lying, cheating, debouchery....Sodom & Gomorrah had nothing on the Republican party! They're hell bent on their own destruction, that's clear.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:51 pm"Rich coming from the twit who loses about every argument he engages in." - - Comment by Gregor Samsa
*******Dear Grgrrr - I hate to disappoint - but "winning arguments" at TP is not a lifelong goal. Winning at work is. I do wish Progs and Dems had the courage to say, "We do not want to win - we would rather bring our troops home and close the chapter on Iraq." Gosh, it's a time like this I miss pi$$-ant, Humanist - at least he had the "courage" to be an outspoken anti-American.....
December 12th, 2006 at 6:52 pmIf he does, the people will riot in the streets!
Comment by veritas
Absolutely.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:56 pmOne word: "suicide."
December 12th, 2006 at 6:58 pmRepublican Tom Delay, circa 1998: "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
Why didn't the good repub simply have the courage to say "we don't want to win" or "let's cut and run."
December 12th, 2006 at 7:02 pm"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
 Â
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
Maybe it's time for Hughes to testify to congress as to what she meant by that statement.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:04 pm"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
Gosh, if Tony thought Kosovo was much worse than Nam, what must he think about Iraq???!!!
December 12th, 2006 at 7:06 pmHaliburton must have a cost plus contract for the burials of U.S. troops and Iraqi nationals, thereby making the escalation profitable for members of the Bush administration.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:06 pmI hate to disappoint
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
In order to disappoint, you need to fail in meeting expectations.
I, however, have no expectations regarding you.
You are ThinkProgress' court jester, albeit a lot less funny. You are Pres Bush's whipping boy, only unable to recognize your own role as a useless idiot. You are ThinkProgress' own George Costanza, only less sophisticated and with less rhetorical skills.
I am willing to bet you have no clear idea of what you expect to "win" in Iraq.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pm"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
 Â
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Here, here, President Bush. I agree!
December 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pmSo we try to clean out the vipers nest of the insurgency in Baghdad - check.
The "vipers" we're trying to clear out simply melt into the populace or move to surrounding areas which are even more hostile and violent than Baghdad - check
We create more "vipers" by increasing our presence in Iraq, killing more innocent civillians as "collateral damage" and "mistakes" - check
We give insurgents and "terrorists" a greater ability to recruit angry Iraqis by proving one of their core assertions (that the U.S. is at war with Islam and wants Iraqi oil) - check
Iraqi’s get their rears in gear and assume more responsibility for the
security of Iraq - check.
Those same Iraqi security forces sell half of all American supplied weapons to the "insurgency", and the other half are now better trained warriors in local militias participating in "sectarian warfare" - check
Iraq's fledgling democracy crumbles under the strife of civil war and occupation - check
America limps away with the guilt of even more needless death and destruction, reputation tattered, moral standing gone, and further fanning the flames of hatred in Muslims worldwide.
Ah, THAT's what "progressives" don't want!!!!
December 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pmMy job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
 Â
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
Next year, try to keep this quote in mind, cons, while watching Pelosi bring the hammer down on all these crooks.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:10 pmThanks Bluedog 49... #108 is a great point.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:11 pm"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
 Â
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )
Why wasn't this good republican worried about troop moral? Not very supportive if you ask me.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:14 pmZooette - Did I miss your eloquent defense of Speakette Pelosi and her “choice†for Intel Chair????
No dear, you didn't miss it. You read all your clippings! Obsessively so, I've heard. What I addressed, Hagette, is your trembling fear that someone might find out exactly what you are. You know what you're hiding. Imagine if anyone else found out...
Still need that binkie?
The same could be said for that poor dear, angette in GA - but why waste the time?
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Bless your heart, Hagette. Angie from GA is outshining you today, and you're so used to being the prettiest trannie at the ball.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:16 pmWhat if all this is intentionally? Not to give Chimperor too much credit, but what if there is an intend to bring the government down and start to rule from the WH and the Pentagon (as it seems to happen already)? There must be
December 12th, 2006 at 7:18 pma plan to dismantle democracy in the working. Only then there
is sense in the nonsense bushyboy comes up with. Who will
stop the descend into 'executive orders'? A president who doesn't care about American lives wasted in Iraq will not care
about lives wasted on our own soil. The civil war we sparked
in the Middle East is highly contageous and will soon infect
our own country. It seems to be highly patriotic to believe that
'riots on the streets' could change anything. But with all those
detentions camps all over the nation it looks more likely that thousands of people will end up in an American Gulag Guantanamo-style. We need a whole new approach to democracy. The democracy of electronic voting machines is a joke. This country is already knee deep in totalitarism. Every hour that goes by without making neccessary changes at the helm will lead into total desaster.
My best guess, is Bush will delay making a decision one way or the other in Iraq for as long as he can, preferably leaving for the next President to decide. At least that way, he will not have to admit his failure so publicly.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:20 pmA group of the administration's Iraqi friends were shocked to find out that as late as two weeks before his invasion of Iraq, Bush didn't know the words Sunni and Shiite. Didn't know what they meant; didn't know that they were both residents of Iraq, etc.
That's why it's very strange and sort of pathetic that any conservative would try to make hay out of a congressman being a little confused about whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shiite.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:21 pmIt's obvious that the repub plan is to get out while providing a pleasing fiction that liberals and democrats are at fault for "not wanting to win." It's the same revisionist history they've dreamed up to explain Viet Nam, so it's not surprising that they'd play the same card again.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:23 pmMA should be able to help with this (seeing that he and his spouse/partner both served in the military} How many more troops will it take to secure Iraq and how long? Will it be victory or success? What (in your learned)opinon will be 1) the number of US troops killed and 2) the number wounded to acheive this goal?
December 12th, 2006 at 7:25 pm#120 Zooey,
Snap!
December 12th, 2006 at 7:27 pmwhy doesn't the slimy little turd, bush, go to iraq himself. let the snivelling liar walk in downtown baghdad and recieve the accolades he so well deserves.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:29 pmLet there be no doubt that Big Money is looking for some more of those Emergency Spending Bill funds. I mean think about it -- this all got kicked off with the $90 billion lost down the Enron rathole, among others of comparable magnitude, and then it's been a series of ever-larger thefts since then. This next one is going to be what, $180 billion? And then after that? None of it is subject to the normal budgetary scrutiny process. People, we are getting ripped blind by these arrogant bastards and I'm not at all sure it's going to stop any time soon. I think it's entirely safe to conclude that G.Dumya will continue to "stay the course" until the money runs out.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:32 pmSomeone stop this madman!
December 12th, 2006 at 7:32 pmMA - would you be willing to bet your life that more troops will help us "win"... if not why as a Christian are you so willing to bet the life of others... I thought you were pro life?
Oh by the way can you define this winning thing you speak of... we probably should figure out what it is so that we know when we’ve achieved it huh?
December 12th, 2006 at 7:32 pmOversight approaches.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:33 pmBush is a lifelong failure. He has had opportunities to stop being a failure, but instead he chooses to "stay the course".
December 12th, 2006 at 7:34 pm"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
December 12th, 2006 at 7:35 pmDemocracy in its present form does not work at all. It caters to the interests of a very few selected powerholders, while leaving the vast majority starving to poverty.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:35 pmIn 1997 I published an essay about a new approach to Democracy in Germany. The idea is basically to transport the principle of 'Jury-Duty' into a 'Parliamentary-Duty'. If you can get a letter to judge about somebody, you are as well trustworthy enough to judge about laws introduced into the Parliament. No more wasting of money for elections and lobbying. The true meaning of 'Of the people, by the people, for the people'.
A Parliament that consists of all ways of life, ethnicities and political views, bound to steer the 'Ship Of The Nation' into
prosperous waters.
A President that acts as a 'Representer' of the people, not as
a 'leader'. We don't need leaders. Those days should be over.
We need a system based on 'interdependency', not superiority.
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
 Â
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
Hannity was all fired up, but we lost no soldiers. After almost 3,000, why isn't he fired up today?
December 12th, 2006 at 7:39 pm#134 ItsJustKarma
I like the idea ... but would there be any requirement to eligibility other than just being a citizen? I don't know about you or many others here, but I wouldn't want to be represented by someone like ... lets say Larry the Cable Guy. That actually could be kinda scary ...
December 12th, 2006 at 7:44 pm"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
December 12th, 2006 at 7:44 pm Â
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
The retired generals have said they believe, like the active duty generals, that any talk of withdrawing troops is a bad idea
What? Which retired generals have said that... most have been saying just the opposite.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:45 pmSnap!
Comment by Tuber
:-)
December 12th, 2006 at 7:45 pmWe need a system based on ‘interdependency’, not superiority.
-- ItsJustKarma
That is exactly what Kofi Annan was saying in his farewell address. It was criminal the way the Reichwing twisted it around to mean something else. But then, they never want their "fact-deficient" followers to see that there really is another way to go.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:45 pm-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
Hannity was all fired up, but we lost no soldiers. After almost 3,000, why isn’t he fired up today?
Comment by Bluedog49 — December 12, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
Blue-Great stuff. Also , Slannity was drooling waiting for the first "Body Bag" to come back. Faux kept putting their military pros on that kept saying that without sending in large ground forces we could not win. Complete victory- No US troops killed in action-The bad guys in the Hague or in jail- and it only took about 4 1/2 months.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:52 pmWhen will network or cable news talking heads interview someone who was right about this war and ask for their opinion? So far, the only people we hear from are people who were wrong. What is this, Opposite World?
December 12th, 2006 at 7:52 pm*******Dear Grgrrr - I hate to disappoint - but “winning arguments†at TP is not a lifelong goal. Winning at work is. I do wish Progs and Dems had the courage to say, “We do not want to win - we would rather bring our troops home and close the chapter on Iraq.†Gosh, it’s a time like this I miss pi$$-ant, Humanist - at least he had the “courage†to be an outspoken anti-American…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite
OK, I do not want the U.S. to win in Iraq, I would rather bring our troops home and close the chapter on Iraq. Oh, and I want you to eat sh*t and die!!:D
December 12th, 2006 at 7:52 pmAfter the instant knee jerk emotional reaction to the following question, I would like a thoughtful answer. Thank you.
What would happen if there was the perception of America losing the war? How would that be bad for our nation besides people's own ego problems? Seriously, so what if we get the hell out of there and save our guys and our resources? We can slap anyone who wants to talk shit about it right? (there's your ego-saving measure).
December 12th, 2006 at 7:53 pmBut you have yet to address the top-drawer selection for House Intel Committe(SIC) Chair by Speakette(SIC) Pelosi.
Comment by Mightette Hypocrite
Since Mightette Aphidette/Hypocrite has nothing valid to say about increasing the troop levels, he/she/it will be exhausting Nancy Pelosi's less-than-admirable choice to head the House Intel Committee ad nauseam. Of course, only Dem mistakes catch MA's eye--not Trent Lott saying that he can't tell the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, or the very conservative Joel Hefley being removed as Chairman of the Ethics Committee by outgoing House Speaker/Porker Dennis Hastert for actually doing his job by admonishing Tom Delay for lapses in ethics, etc.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:54 pmBack to the actual topic: I'm not opposed to sending more troops as long as they include at least one of the Bush brats, two or more of their cousins, and at least 1/2 of the able-bodied sons and daughters or nieces and nephews of Republican members of Congress, including outgoing ones like Bile Frist.
Joe, from time to time, I like to pull out some golden oldies. Cons, especially, rely on our short memories.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:55 pm99: Both funny and profound:
"The only reason Bush isn’t sending the additional troops today: he want to be sure there isn’t any other option that is dumber or more wasteful of human life.
Comment by Publicus"
December 12th, 2006 at 7:57 pmI had faith that the Dems wouldn't pursue impeachment, as they have stated. But if he keeps pursuing these insane policies, this may be their only choice.
Where would more troops come from when our military is already strecthed too thin? How would this make our country more vulnerable in the future?
Bush's only hope is that they wouldn't impeach him because Cheney would loose the V in front of VP. Dems could counter that by impeaching Cheney first. But Bush could counter that by naming somebody even more wildly unsuited for the job. Vice President Bolton anyone?
aphrodikey, please don't pretend to be articulate. Big words don't make an argument correct. Being correct does. go back to soccermomming
December 12th, 2006 at 8:00 pm#136 AshenShard
Do You believe Larry The Cable guy could be worse than the one who is representing us now? ;-)
December 12th, 2006 at 8:01 pmBut in my original work there are requirements to be fullfilled
of course. I wouldn't settle for less than what's going on right now in our political landscape. Let me reassure you the details can be worked out. And once more, look at the 109th congress. Six years of incapability to address the most important issues that plague our country. I mean can you imagine it could get worse? Larry The Cable guy will never be able to sign 'executive orders' and war can only be declared by a 3/4 majority of the parliament.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — December 12, 2006 @ 7:32 pm
Notice that MA has had his a$$ handed to him and has crawled back under his rock-just like always.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:02 pm#130 - - "MA - would you be willing to bet your life that more troops will help us “winâ€â€¦ " - Comment by GW
********Where did you get that line - Reese Witherspoon in "Legally Blonde"?? Figures.....
"if not why as a Christian are you so willing to bet the life of others… I thought you were pro life?" - more GW
********I am anti-abortion in 99% of cases and anti-death penalty. I have NO problem killing our enemies. They have a harder time strapping themselves into planes and cutting off heads when they are dead. I am willing to utilize a volunteer military to defend America and her interests. Apparently, you didn't get the memo from Islamic fascists that THIS is WAR. Like Justice Jackson, I don't view the US Constitution as a "suicide pact".
"Oh by the way can you define this winning thing you speak of… we probably should figure out what it is so that we know when we’ve achieved it huh?" - GW
December 12th, 2006 at 8:04 pm*********Oh and by the way, can you retain my answer for more than 3 nano-seconds - I'm tired of repeating this for you remedial readers. WINNING is the state in which the US can leave Iraq with a well-trained, well-equipped and well-paid military and police force to restore a level of civility in Iraq. Winning may require the tribal barbarians be separated - that is for them to decide. Personally, I would pull US forces out of Germany, Korea, Japan, the Balkans, etc and concentrate on the Middle East.
ForTruth, there is no war to win. We tore apart a society which had found a way to coexist peacefully for many generations and which had sufficient resilience to survive years of inhumane economic deprivation, a society which has far more to say for itself than our big-pussy American culture. Where is the winning in all of that?
What needs to happen is for the US to exit and to start paying sufficient war reparations for the Iraqis to rebuild, and to make a profit at our expense, if they choose. One could hardly equate paying criminal reparations with victory, but it might do something positive to restore the honor of the US.
Let's forget about winning and start thinking about honor. Maybe we can find some consensus there.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:08 pm> What would happen if there was the perception of America losing the war?
A lot of right-wing hotheads would explode either on TV or in front of downtown federal buildings and/or schools. Neocons and a lot of pundits write books explaining why it's Not Their Fault. Putin grins evilly on Pravda TV while slowly caressing a big white cat. You get 48-hour nonstop raves in the Middle East with "Allah is great" chants and AK47 at full auto. Tony Blair is run out of town. Continental Europeans generally make a rude gesture in the direction of the setting sun, then get on with life. Canada mulls about joining the EC, while the UK takes an interest in NAFTA. Japanese show red faces whenever someone mentions the Coalition of the Willing. China is too busy making money (all tricks allowed) to notice. Pakistan tries not to be eaten alive by Islamic radicals but nevertheless pursues its nuclear arms race with India. The last icebear dies of heat stroke.
Did I forget something?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:09 pmAngiette - Such a voice in the wilderness! It seems like many Dems are less than impressed with the Speakettes choice for Intel Committee Chair. and would you tell your little friend Lora, I addressed the increase in troop levels - - already......And Lora, when was Trent Lott Senate Intel Committee Chair??
Good night, Progettes!!
December 12th, 2006 at 8:11 pm"We must take the blame for the trouble a degenerate militarism has put us in.
Only by completely turning away from this shameful period can we return to order."
Kurt Tucholsky 1890-1935
Any questions left?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:17 pmangie you seemed completely different before this evening, is it just me?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:20 pmAphidette, a well-trained, well-equipped and well-paid military is part of what we destroyed when we occupied Iraq. A restoration of such assets is not going to result from continued occupation -- US activity to-date has produced exactly the opposite. That's what we call fact-based reality. In that vein, the fact that you continue to prefer your ludicrous fantasies regarding the eventual outcome of the US occupation is merely symptomatic of mental illness.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:22 pmAn interesting stat from the Washington Post (May 17, 2003): "According to a May 1, Gallup poll for CNN and USA Today, 79 percent of Americans said the war with Iraq was justified even without conclusive evidence of the illegal weapons, while 19 percent said discoveries of the weapons were needed to justify the war."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1155-2003May16
seventy nine friggin' percent??? Antiwar people at that time were considered traitors. I remember, I was called that.
One simple question: Where the hell were some of you current "antiwar" people in 2002/2003 when we needed you? We could have stopped this war before it started. If you supported war in 2003, post your anti-war/ anti-Bush rants somewhere else. Go away. I can't stand people who are wishywashyweathervanes and are opposed to war only when it is safe to be against it.
If you supported war then, you got your war. Go join up and fight.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:24 pmI have NO problem killing our enemies.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
Except not all the people killed, maimed and tortured by American forces in Iraq, have (or had) any ill will towards the US. This one is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Apparently, you didn’t get the memo from Islamic fascists that THIS is WAR.
I must confess, I didn't. Maybe you and GW did. Does any of you care to share it?
I don’t view the US Constitution as a “suicide pactâ€.
True. Your opinion of the constitution is likely that it is just a "god damn piece of paper".
WINNING is the state in which the US can leave Iraq with a well-trained, well-equipped and well-paid military and police force to restore a level of civility in Iraq.
Your answer doesn't address the question of how the scenario is a "win" for the US -which is what you have been babbling about.
It is a win for Iraqis, to be sure. How is this a "win" for the US? Is the US now in the business of nation-building?
And how withdrawing from Iraq before that heavenly state of perfection translates into a "loss" for the US? What does the US "win" or "lose"?
Winning may require the tribal barbarians be separated - that is for them to decide.
You are getting close to making you first sane argument: Iraq is for Iraqis. It is for them to win it or lose it. Iti s their choice.
Personally, I would pull US forces out of Germany, Korea, Japan, the Balkans, etc and concentrate on the Middle East.
Right. Throw more bodies at the problem. That should fix it.
Maybe you haven't noticed but this approach ain't working.
As I said, you can never disappoint me.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:24 pmYou have excellent perspective.Never lose that.
Comment by angie in Ga. — December 12, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
Why, oh, thanks...
Is that you, Angie from GA? The $7M Angie from GA?
You certainly sound different today...
December 12th, 2006 at 8:26 pm> MA- would "Civility" include- Knowing proper place settings for a dinner party and the exact month and day to stop wearing white? Also, what's this thing with them not speaking English? I also heard( I think on O'Lielly) that they didn't have the decency to celibrate Thanksgiving. How do you expect to make them "Civil"?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:27 pmAnd why the hell should the American people pay for that? How is that considered a 'win" for the US?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:28 pm"...the state in which the US can leave Iraq with a well-trained, well-equipped and well-paid military and police force to restore a level of civility in Iraq"
yeah... but how do you achieve that militarily? do you really think that will be the outcome if you just kill enough people? do you really think the Iraqi police can be "trained" not to kidnap Sunnis and torture them with power drills?
what IS it like to live in the world of pure imagination? 'cause I have been wondering since the first Wonka movie...
December 12th, 2006 at 8:35 pmActually, Spudge, the US should pay for that. We broke it.
Pottery Barn, remember?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:36 pm"why the hell should the American people pay for that? How is that considered a ‘win†for the US?"
I would pay for that, if it was for sale. cf. the "Pottery Barn" rule.
problem is, it's not something you can pay for. you cannot break an omelet to make an egg. things don't fall back together.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:37 pmjinx stonehinge...
December 12th, 2006 at 8:37 pmcomment by angie from Ga.
Watch out for the people who completely change like that,
***Making circling motion with my finger, beside my head***
December 12th, 2006 at 8:37 pm"In the arena of international affairs dear,you are but a small child playing “jacks†on the sidewalk by her lonesome." Comment by angie in Ga.
******So true - - in the International arena, I am as insignificant as all here. But angiette - how does it feel to be the crack on the sidewalk I'm playing "jacks" on?
Well kids, we're where we're going....Tooodles......
December 12th, 2006 at 8:39 pmjinx? care to elaborate?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:42 pmjinx: something we used to say as kids when we said the same thing at the same time.
great minds think alike...
December 12th, 2006 at 8:45 pmWINNING is the state in which the US can leave Iraq with a well-trained, well-equipped and well-paid military and police force to restore a level of civility in Iraq.
And why the hell should the American people pay for that? How is that considered a ‘win†for the US?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — December 12, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
Spudge-Notice the key word here "RESTORE"-MA admits we need to restore civility to Iraq.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:47 pm“MA - would you be willing to bet your life that more troops will help us “winâ€â€¦ †- Comment by GW
********Where did you get that line - Reese Witherspoon in “Legally Blonde�? - Comment by MA
I have no idea of what you are talking about here Mighty… but I think I’ve finally figured out where you derived your lawyer fantasies from.
I have NO problem killing our enemies. They have a harder time strapping themselves into planes and cutting off heads when they are dead. I am willing to utilize a volunteer military to defend America and her interests. Apparently, you didn’t get the memo from Islamic fascists that THIS is WAR.
I did not get the memo… what country did it come from… was it Iraq… I can’t remember… I remember it came from some county… maybe a couple of countries… but I can’t remember if Iraq was one of them… was it Mighty… was it? Oh and by the way – a consensus report by every intelligence agency in America says that our presence there is making us less safe and is diminishing American interests… it seems strange that you would want our boys die for such a cause… doesn’t seem quite Christian or quite American to me.
WINNING is the state in which the US can leave Iraq with a well-trained, well-equipped and well-paid military and police force to restore a level of civility in Iraq.
This sounds like a great idea… I suppose we should squash this 1000 year civil war while were at it… that should only cost trillions of dollars… tens of thousands of American lives… and 10 to 20 years of American military commitment… sounds like a wise investment to me!!!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
December 12th, 2006 at 8:47 pmI have NO problem killing our enemies.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
Do you live vicariously through our soldiers? Because you aren't killing anything.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:51 pmBaaaaaaaah. Is there no end to the stupidity. The only way in which more troops would work is if a draft were imposed and the number of troops were increased so substantially-to, say, half a million, as Shineseki and Garner recognized would be necessary at the beginning of the war to maintain order while they did....well, it's moot because really, there is no good reason to be there with such a large number of troops as it is. But if they're just gonna send more troops by a tiny number, it's basically kowtowing to the reddest of the red voters.....who the election made clear, are in the minority.
Troops home NOW!!!!!
December 12th, 2006 at 8:55 pmValentinian - thanks. Better yet, here's something from a really great mind.
You don't win at that kind of game. The best you can hope for is some kind of return to honor. Unfortunately, in the dark minds of G.Dumya and friends, greed trumps honor, and winning is just a cover word for fact-deficient chumps. Given that kind of situation, the only recourse is to defund the son-of-a-farbisna.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:58 pmAnd Lora, when was Trent Lott Senate Intel Committee Chair??
Question by Mighette Hypocrite
Mighette Aphidette,
December 12th, 2006 at 8:58 pmI thought yeven ou might know that Trent Lott served as Senate Majority Leader for a while and will soon be the GOP Minority Whip--respectively the number one and number two positions within the party.
Well kids, we’re where we’re going….Tooodles……
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
No MA- You have that wrong- it is "You are what you eat"-We know what you eat. Also, I think it is a road too far. Tennis anyone?
December 12th, 2006 at 9:03 pmI have no problem with this if the Bush brats are first off the landing craft, hitting the beach with their AR15s locked and loaded. And I mean all the Bush brats, including that smarmy jackoff in Texas.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:27 pmYeah, right.
#176 I think Bush's daughters' privates onscreen would be more likely than Bush's daughters AS privates in Iraq.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:34 pmthis is exactly why it is insane that we are not already well advanced in building the case for impeachment. the bushliar-criminal is so obviously not up to the mature reasoning that Iraq FUBAR requires.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:44 pm.
"...including that smarmy jackoff in Texas"
OMFG. Yes, that could almost make a war supporter out of me. Pierce Bush strapped to the front of a Stryker... yeah, I could support that.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:49 pmAnything to win this thing. I am sick of all the talk about how we can lose this war faster.
Comment by Roger_Roger
I trust you are posting from Iraq, Roger Ramjet.
Otherwise you are just another coward, ready to kill other peoples'
December 12th, 2006 at 9:54 pmchildren for a mistake.
Bless your heart, Hagette. Angie from GA is outshining you today, and you’re so used to being the prettiest trannie at the ball.
Comment by Zooey — December 12, 2006 @
ha..LMAO
But seriously, I did have that coming....sarcasm/OFF
smiles
December 12th, 2006 at 9:55 pmsmiles
Comment by angie in Ga.
Heh.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:06 pm#178 pluege
this is exactly why it is insane that we are not already well advanced in building the case for impeachment. the bushliar-criminal is so obviously not up to the mature reasoning that Iraq FUBAR requires.
Every time Bush opens his mouth, he moves more people over to the side of "let's impeach the bastard right now". Popular opinion is slowly but surely moving Congress toward getting us out of Iraq. It's going to put impeachment back on the table, too.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:14 pmAn illegal war of aggression, a war crime. But don't hold your breath. No one will be held responsible. No one will be punished. Americans are a bunch of fat and piggish jellyfish. 90% are zombies who have no idea how to think for themselves or have ideals and values of their own. "What luck that men don't think." Americans are hopelessly enslaved by the "two party" mindset. "Bush is evil." "Hillary is evil." Folks, they're all evil. They are all liars. They fatten themselves on our labor, and send the fool-hearty off to fight foreign wars, illegal and unconstitutional wars. Those in our voluntary armed services are simply getting what they signed up for. Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing new. America has been embroiled in foreign wars for over 100 years. The truth is that Americans hate to lose. They think of war as some sort of game. "Hurray, we win!" "Aw shucks, we lose." They think nothing of the millions killed, maimed, sickened, disheartened, etc. The millions of shattered lives. The millions of survivors who have lost a loved one. The millions of misplaced who have lost all their wealth and have nothing to return to. Americans are soulless pigs.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:29 pmBush is so far out of touch with reality that this is getting very dangerous for the people of America, hell the world, and as if it wasn't already bad. You have Iran stating today that Israel will not be around much longer. You have the Bush and Blair governments falling apart before our eyes, yet still they are saber rattling as if they have some kind of support internally or abroad. We still have two years of this asshole in office. I'm trying to be a pessimist here but it's looking a little bleak.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:35 pmI have no problem with this if the Bush brats are first off the landing craft, hitting the beach with their AR15s locked and loaded. And I mean all the Bush brats, including that smarmy jackoff in Texas.
Yeah, right.
Comment by RUCerious — December 12, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
O.K the "Smarmy jackoff" I'M down on that -But-But- JENA-dang she is really hot. Could we leave her out? WE don't get to chose our parents-What did she do? She loves to drink/party-has a credit card-leave her out.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:38 pmThis milestone is for MA/IRI/Jason/ and the likes. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16059273/displaymode/1107/s/2/
December 12th, 2006 at 10:46 pmIn 1942 Hitler also threw more troops into the cauldron called Stalingrad. When the city was captured by the Soviets 80 thousand Germans went into captvity, five years later 8 thousand had survived and returned to Germany. Is Baghdad to be another cauldron, a meatgrinder?
December 12th, 2006 at 11:09 pmLet every unit and every soldier who is called up for deployment refuse to go. What can they do to them? Send them to the front?
Alexy
Once thing is clear from John King's little puppet act: the Bush White House may be totally clueless when it comes to foreign policy or war fighting, but they can still know how to play the Beltway media like a freaking Stradivarius.
A pity these clowns aren't half as good at governing as they are at PR.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:21 pmWhat can they do to them? Send them to the front?
Alexy
Comment by Alexy — December 12, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
Just think-nearly 2 million people died in that one battle ( lasted almost a year). Are humans friged up or what? Now back to something really important-Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman-flag burning-gays getting married-people not speaking english (Texas trailer parks)-them damn 10 commandments not posted in front of every building(whatever they say) and Tom Delayed new blog. And I know this is true because I saw it on T.B Jebus had blue eyes and was caucasin( not a Arab or Jew).
December 12th, 2006 at 11:37 pm"I thought yeven (SIC) ou(SIC) might know that Trent Lott served as Senate Majority Leader for a while and will soon be the GOP Minority Whip–respectively the number one and number two positions within the party."
Comment by Lora
*******Do us ALL a big favour and return to the realm of syntax and spell checks - then I won't have to correct you......We WERE discussing the Intelligence Committee Chairs and you brilliantly threw in Trent Lott. Yeeeeessss....I am aware of his former, and upcoming positions. Are you aware Speakette Pelosi has selected a well-meaning moron to head up the Intel Committee?? Are you aware your friends think you need a sense of humour???
Toooooodles.............
December 13th, 2006 at 12:37 amYou guys have to read this! Very revealing!
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=20159
I love this one most because it is related to TP and regarding
December 13th, 2006 at 12:42 amall those trolls that post here:
"18. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
I guess the plural of that would be Ignorani
ROTFLMAO
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Ok, you have proven yourself incapable of finding the flaw in your own argument and only capable of hurling insults at me. Fine. Now I have more than a 4 minute passing period to post (I still teach).
Your argument rests on the fallacy that adding 20,000 more U.S. troops will achieve any of your stated objectives.
We have tried to wipe out the vipers nest in Baghdad. Remember, just this past summer there was the much publicized insertion of 70,000 soldiers in Baghdad. That move was greeted by an upsurge in violence in that city which has not abated.
You had other misstatements as well. "America appears to have helped get rid of a dictator Dems thought had WMD’s" which ignores the fact that the "Dems" were only provided with cherry-picked information.
"Iraq’s fledgling democracy begins to take root - check." 3 years now, and Iraq's government cannot stand on its own without 144,000 U.S. troops backing it...that's not a fledgling democracy, that's a puppet government propped up by an occupying force.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:59 amAnd, Mighty A...if you are serious about improving the chances of victory in Iraq, 20,000 more won't make enough of a difference. For that size of a country, fighting a guerrilla civil war, about 1 million troops would be necessary...and that's a conservative estimate.
The only other military solution would be genocide. Hopefully you won't propound that.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:01 amBnF
Unfortunately I heard that before. I was briefly in Nevada in 2005 and somebody said "What a waste of money and soldiers that war in Iraq is." I thought 'wow, great and that in Redneck Nevada...' And the second half of the statement was: "We should have dropped a few nukes on those ragheads."
December 13th, 2006 at 1:20 amThe only half way possible insurance against nukes are GI Joes and Janes down there. Unless they will be sacrificed. Which in turn could be a possibility with the deluded child king still at the trigger.
#199
December 13th, 2006 at 1:27 amCouldn't agree more on that. The world is not entirely lost with humans like you around...
And I would like to pay deep respect to Harold Pinter. What
a great mind, being able to put it together like that. There is
definitely nothing more to say about it.
Impeachment, Imprisonment, Seizure of all assets.
Baghdad could best be thought of as a pressure cooker.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:33 amMore troops securing it means more checkpoints, roadblocks and all the military control needed to limit and check all traffic.
This chokes off the commerce that is needed to keep a city alive.
The more troops, the more heat you put on the pressure cooker, the higher the temperature goes before it finally blows a gasket and sprays hot steamy shit all over the walls.
ItsjustKarma, Yep! I agree 100%....First we have a madman and his war monger buddies installed in office, something that never should of happened and then we have a war and hundreds of thousand's killed that never should of happened. Now we must clean out the madness and demand Imprisonment and seizing of all their assets....Never let this happen again....Blessings
December 13th, 2006 at 1:34 amHere is another hilarious one:
http://www.gregpalast.com/found-saddams-weapon-of-mass-destruction
December 13th, 2006 at 1:37 amthe second half of the statement was: “We should have dropped a few nukes on those ragheads.â€
Comment by ItsJustKarma — December 13, 2006 @ 1:20 am
I have heard statements like this one before. The first time I heard it was at the beginning of 2004, when it was obvious not all was rosy and attacks against US troops were beginning.
It's puzzling to me how people can make flippant remarks like that. I believe it is part of the anger of realising Iraqis had not welcomed the "liberation" with open arms, and it's meant to punish those ingrate Iraqis -even if only figuratively.
Why anyone would expect Iraqis not to defend their country is beyond me. They might have loathed Hussein, but they obviously dislike the presence of foreign troops even more.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:40 amISG Report extra tidbit.
Yet neither President Bush nor Democratic leaders who will take over Congress in three weeks have embraced the panel's report since it was released last week. Bush set it aside in favor of his own review, but, faced with conflicting advice within the administration, the White House said yesterday that plans to announce a new Iraq strategy by Christmas would be delayed until January. Democrats remain undecided and kept their distance while trying to pressure Bush.
"I don't think I've ever seen politicians walk away from something faster," said Gordon Adams, who was a White House defense budget official under President Bill Clinton.
~Sad state of affairs and with the soldiers right in the middle of a political" battle.A crossfire.Nothing more disgusting than this.~
December 13th, 2006 at 1:48 amThank You guys for Your great posts. I wish there wouldn't be this war. I have a hard time to get amused about those morons that keep on posting unrelated and unneccessary comments here.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:56 amLater!
"You had other misstatements as well. “America appears to have helped get rid of a dictator Dems thought had WMD’s†which ignores the fact that the “Dems†were only provided with cherry-picked information."
Comment by Braid FaIRE
***********I was NOT referring to the "cherry picked" info current Dems whine about - - I was discussing the WMD's former President Clinton, Senator Swimmer, Former VP Al Roar, Senator Heinz-Kerry, et al referred to......You remember when THEY were SO sure of what gutted US intelligence was saying?
I can imagine you'll be stuck running for coffee or chai tea and doing research for an occasional brief shortly.....Well look at the bright side - if that's a possibility....EVERYONE has to be good at something.......
Sweet dreams!
December 13th, 2006 at 2:54 amMY first post didnt get through:
That is the most human, filled with integrity and beautiful post Ive read.
What world do we want? An unidimensional, simplistic, lacking of self-esteem winners-losers world? Or a one where there is honor?
Stonehinge, I bet you are a serious (in the philosophical sense) martial artist.
December 13th, 2006 at 3:05 amOne more thing:
I love this guy.
December 13th, 2006 at 3:08 amI am sorry. I must have missed the discussion about Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust forum. Is that not a “Progressive†topic? Or do you all still have you heads up you’re a$$ when is come to the middle east?
Please discuss it and tell your true feeling about how you don’t care about Israel getting exterminated by these lunatics. You discuss Dancing with the Stars
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/delay-dancing/
And think that is worthy news. Let’s discuss Iran.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:38 am#26
Iraqi’s get their rears in gear and assume more responsibility for the
security of Iraq - check.
your delusional as usual. none of these generic statements are going to come to pass. Mark my word. My only question is, can you please tell us who you're planning on blaming if they all come to naught? Cindy Sheehan? Nancy Pelosi? The "liberal" media?
December 13th, 2006 at 7:44 am[...] They’re going to need it, apparently, because Bush has driven the military into this hole, and his New Way Forward appears to be to keep digging. CNN’s John King reported this afternoon that President Bush is planning a “substantial policy shift†on Iraq and is “very seriously considering…agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing U.S. troop levels in the short-term.†[...]
December 13th, 2006 at 7:46 amI only hope the War on Terror is eventually as successful as the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:54 amHey Happy Guy, why don't your ask your Republican buddy David Duke, He in Iran at the Holocost Forum.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:00 am#222 mparker - My Buddy? Your the ones who want all the Jews dead. So are you going to discuss this forum? How you buddy country France thinks this is great? How you love Iran and anyone who want to kill Jew?
December 13th, 2006 at 8:34 amHappy Dude #218.
Wow! You are really striving for attention, aren't you?
to take an article from September and use it to create a pathetic strawman argument...
You had to look back 3 months to compare and contrast?
That's as disappointing as JMH hijacking threads with his disgusting racist posts!
Dude, it really must suck to spend so much time in your parent's basement!
But since I'm in a combative mood, I'll challenge ya!
First and foremost, how do you feel about Bush increasing the troops in Iraq, when nearly 89% considered Iraq a failed policy action?
and,
If you are so concerned re:Iran and Israel, you could always........
Get your a$$ to nearest recruiting office, and protect Israel from a hypothetical assault and/or onslaught from Iran!!
December 13th, 2006 at 8:38 amYeah, I didn't think so.... CHICKEN $HIT HAWK!!!
To roger_roger and all the others who think this is a good idea, SIGN UP or SHUT UP! And that includes your families. Many of us have taken pride in serving our country but we took pride in serving for a noble cause not a criminal cause. If you like it, you fight it you damn pussies!!!
December 13th, 2006 at 9:10 amThe insane, bull shit bush doesn't want to do anything about this terrible Iraq mess he and his handlers created. Constant war for profit and oil is working well for the neo-con's...Huge profit's and the dictator is able to do what he know's how to do, create more war's, lie to the public and the world, bluster and saber rattle while thousand's die and our own country is in ruin's...The rich get richer and the middle class is joining the poor... baby bush will never do what should be done, stop the war and bring the troop's home, he has no honor and is alway's going to be the DNF. did not finish president...He will put more troop's to die for oil in Iraq..He and this bunch must be removed immedietly from office , impeached and imprisoned and all assets seized..
A lot of sarcasm has been directed at soon to be Speaker Palosi....I also have been a critic of the Dem's in the past for their defening silence and lack of response to the old base of which I have been a part....Regarding Palosi's not picking Harman, many troll's want to make a huge deal over Palosi's choice....Let me say, it's a known voting fact and apparent to any one who has been watching Harman and many other's over the year's, Palosi made a good choice in passing over Harman....Harmon is no better than Lieberman, merely a rep. lite running on the Dem ticket...Harmon has continuely kissed bush's ass and voted his way....She would never be my pick for anything...One last parting thought..Since bush is the war monging president and Harmen is a follower, just like MA, anything they are for I am against.....No more bush war's.Bring the troop's home now.....Blessings
December 13th, 2006 at 9:11 amSorry, too late to qualify your statement now. If you intended to list specific individuals in your initial post, you should have done that. You failed to do so and I trashed your argument. It's too late to go back and say, "but what I meant was..."
I can only imagine what your appellate briefs must look like...
December 13th, 2006 at 9:26 amBush's Iraq policy is like his lottery policy. You can't win if you don't play! We will therefore keep playing the lottery until we bleed our coffers dry.
What, you don't want to play the lottery anymore, and instead want to find gainful employment? You're a quitter! Go cut'n'run with your fellow Democrats. I swear, all we need is a few more plays and we're gonna win this thing. I can feel it! Go lucky numbers 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42!
December 13th, 2006 at 10:04 amHow you love Iran and anyone who want to kill Jew?
Comment by Happy Guy
So you are worried about the killing of jews? First, you should be worried about what is actually happening: 600,000 iraqi dead. I have never read from you any remorse about those people...but you want us to worry about the non-existent killing of jews by Iran? What a shitless idiot.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:04 amGood one BnF.....My guess, regarding MA and his being an attorney, don't think so.....Briefs.? His answer will be like the add's...Boxer's or brief's...LOL..Blessings
December 13th, 2006 at 10:11 am#224 DRxJ - It makes my day when I get under your skin so deep. Really, you follow everything I say and go back to things I said. You are the one who puts the Happy in this Dude.
ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL
The reason for a "Hijacking" of a thread is becuse you people are not touching the topic. Address the issue in a thread. You people discuss Dancing with the Stars as if that is a real topic. But do you discuss Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map? No way, you support terrorist state. Do you condem Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust forum? No way, you love it when he come here to insult us.
Your pathetic and a laugh every time you respond to me. Because is shows me I must be right to get under your skin so deep. Get into the real world.
ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL
December 13th, 2006 at 11:33 am#224 DRxJ - It makes my day when I get under your skin so deep. Really, you follow everything I say and go back to things I said. You are the one who puts the Happy in this Dude.
ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL
The reason for a "Hijacking" of a thread is because you people are not touching the topic. Address the issue in a thread. You people discuss Dancing with the Stars as if that is a real topic. But do you discuss Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map? No way, you support terrorist state. Do you condemn Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust forum? No way, you love it when he come here to insult us.
You are pathetic and I laugh every time you respond to me. Because is shows me I must be right to get under your skin so deep. Get into the real world, did you wife leave you because you are an idiot? Are the only “friends†you have on this site or outside waiting for the mothship.
ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL
December 13th, 2006 at 11:35 amHey Juan C. So are you also saying the 6,000,000 Jews dead in Holocaust did not happen? That threats from a county to wipe Israel off the map while approching the end of a nuclear development program is nothing to worry about?
Of course. You ron this website. You hate American and everything we do. You love terrorists and don't think we should protect ourselves.
Good for you Juan, have some cool-aid
ROTFL
December 13th, 2006 at 11:43 amThe patient is hemorrhaging. A few extra pints of blood is not going to save the patient.
There are two options - 500,000 troops to completely pacify the country or withdrawal. The first entails destroying the country but for what? To bring beheaders and assassins to power? Also the first option mobilizes Arab sentiment completely against the US. 500,000 troops may be enough to pacify Iraq but not the whole Middle East.
That leaves the latter option the only viable option - withdrawal.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:56 amwow Happy Dude
got so orgasmically excited that you posted twice? Hard to post with one hand, eh?
Don't worry tho, you could never....ever get under my skin!
Things that get under my skin:
Dead American Soldiers (ie Heroes)
Dead Innocent Civilians
Hungry and/or Homeless Children
Genocide and Torture in Africa
Things that have no bearing one way or another on my life:
Happy Dudes postings!
Now go get a kleenex and wipe up. Sticky keys are a pain in the A$$
ohhhh, you totally avoided my issue, as usual.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:58 amServe, my little friend, serve and protect us from a hypothetical war with Iran!
Occupations are unsustainable and unwinnable no matter how many gazillion troops are thrown into the occupation.
what war mongers refuse to understand about the losing proposition of occupation is that occupiers eventually want to go home, whereas the occupied aren't going anywhere - THEY ARE HOME. The occupied know this dynamic and know that they only need to bide their time slowly bleeding the occupiers in order to be rid of the occupiers. Unless occupiers are prepared to inhabit a territory with their native-born (e.g., the European conquest of America), occupiers ALWAYS PACK UP AND GO HOME no matter how many gazillion troops are thrown into the occupation.
Chief republican loon mccain's call for more troops, and the chimperor's grabbing this onto this to further delay withdrawl from Iraq, will have no effect on the outcome, but will kill more people and prolong the suffering.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:00 pm.
Sing it for me DRxJ "I got you, under my skin". ROTFL.
Talk about avoiding, you never discussed my origianl post. This site refuses to address Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust forum and so do you!
Here is another one you won't read about
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061212-123555-4731r.htm
I can see you all red faced now. ROTFL, ROTFL. I am glad you hate me so much. Don't forget to search for my previous posts. ROTFL.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:36 pm[...] It’s not really a surprise, but it now appears we are indeed going to double down in Iraq. Trent: “Double down.” Mike: “What? I can’t.” Trent: “You always double down on eleven” Mike: “I know, but I can’t. It’s $200, it’s plug money.” Trent: “Mike, if you don’ t look like you know what you’re doing.” [Mike and Trent argue] Mike: “Double Down.” [...]
December 13th, 2006 at 12:39 pm#238: This site refuses to address Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust forum and so do you!
So, your conclusion is that people who post at this site support Ahmadinejad? And that we agree with his (and David Duke's) ridiculous notion that the Holocaust never happened? Seriously, dude, I doubt you'll find much sympathy for that point of view here.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:54 pmHey, Pelosi's new Intel Chairman wants more troops in Iraq
Dig it -> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/
And MSNBC is one of your cool-aid sites, ROTFL
December 13th, 2006 at 12:54 pmBesides upholding the constitution (which he has not done), the president's second duty is to listen to the people, not just a few selected ones. The election sent a clear message to the president, and the mere thought of increasing troop levels is his arrogant way of saying F#$% you, America! He must be impeached along with Cheney, Rice, Rove, etc...
The longer we allow him and his fascist comrades to seize this country the worst it will be for all of us. It is up to us the people. The democrats in congress are just the other side of the same coin, ruled by the money and not what the people want.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:02 pmWrite to your congressperson to stop the insane bushler from destroying our military.
http://www.Congress.org
December 13th, 2006 at 1:23 pmHe's gonna send those troops in.
Thousands more to their deaths. For nothing.
The only reason he's waiting is because he knows it won't go over well to call up the troops right before Christmas.
Gotta wait til after the new year to send more kids to their deaths.
That's all.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:10 pmWhat Happened? I was gone...I thought we were winning the war? Isn't this the death throes of the insurgency? What about the good stories on Fox News that aren't being told, like GI's sharing soccer balls with the youth? Maybe all this talk is just a mistake. What is 'The Way forward'? I thought Bush promised to 'Stay the Course'? Where did the NeoCons go? I'm confused.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:15 pmThe point is the idiot decider-in-chief has done exactly what he wanted to do in Iraq and ONLY what he wanted to do.
Now, if ANYTHING in Iraq was getting just a little bit BETTER every day, there would be reason to prolong this misadventure and I think Democrats would support staying.
But exactly the opposite is true. We find that not only are things getting WORSE, but they're getting much worse than we've been told by the MSM.
Even with their milestone achievements like the elections, the situation in Iraq is still deteriorating a little bit every day.
No backseat driver - neither the ones screaming for withdrawl nor the ones screaming to "stay the course" really make one bit of difference in REALITY.
Bush ain't listening to any of us.
And unless you believe in ESP or mind control by proxy, no amount of wishing or hoping or "whining" on either side of the isle can do anything at all about what's happening in Iraq. Or what our so-called "leader" plans to do about it.
So stop blaming Democrats for having the balls to face the truth that we aren't "winning" and nothing in Iraq is getting "better".
You idiot trolls are trying to convince me you're intelligent? Please!
December 13th, 2006 at 6:38 pmYou are willfully blind and deaf and dumb. And dumb.
may as well put bullseyes on the soldiers, open season for americans.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:53 pmIf only he could find someone to send. Why not send all the republicans' children who without a doubt would be more than happy to go fight this purported "war on terror."
December 13th, 2006 at 6:53 pmIt's not for nothing:
December 13th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
This is Bush 2007: First we create the Amero, then the NAU, then attack Iran. No wait....! First we attack Iran, create the Amero, then NAU, then have Martial Law. No wait....! First we will nuke a U.S. city, have Martial Law, begin NAU, then create the Amero. No wait... I left out Iran, shi*. Okay 52 card pick up. Who goes first?
December 14th, 2006 at 9:45 pmI agree with your rant, Briseadh na Faire: But, my family has been terrorized by our own food supply. I've been reading...
December 19th, 2006 at 5:39 amhttp://www.thinkscapes.com/FoodSupply.html
I suggest that we just start going medieval on their arse. Agression is the only thing these arabs understand. Also they respect a worthy foe. They don't respect weakness and indecision. To win this war you must crush the enemy underfoot, you must be prepared to do what the enemy will but with twice the power, twice the speed and with absolutely no mercy and then the enemy will either submit or be wiped out. It was pointless starting this war if you are not prepared to follow it through no matter what the consequences. If you want to be known as the greatest fighting machine on earth then you must prove it otherwise you will be known as the weak ass nobodies who got their asses handed to them by a nation that couldn't even beat iran or kuwait. If you read this and think about it you know it all makes sense. America will be the biggest laughing stock in the world and your creditabilty will plumet to the lowest levels ever. You failed in vietnam and it looks like your ability to stomach this war is fast fading.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:01 amNow that more troops are being sent to Iraq I suggest the whole country gets behind the troops and backs this war to it's conclusion. This is not the time to question the move you must be 100% behind the troops to show them that they have the support of their fellow countrymen and women.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:29 pm