Right-Wing Think Tank Advocating Two-Year U.S. Troop Escalation In Iraq ‘Has The President’s Ear’
Right-Wing Think Tank Advocating Two-Year U.S. Troop Escalation In Iraq ‘Has The President’s Ear’
Last night on CNN, reporter Suzanne Malveaux noted that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-wing think tank in Washington, DC, “has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking” on Iraq. Last week Bush was briefed on a report by AEI scholar Frederick W. Kagan that calls for a troop surge in Iraq that “would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months.” Watch it:
Kagan’s report specifically calls for at least 30,000 more Army and Marines per year for the next two years. It also advocates longer tours for ground forces and increased deployments for National Guard troops. The full report can be found here.
Transcript:
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aides say the president is weighing his numerous options for changing tactics in Iraq, following his consultations last week with Iraqi leaders and advisers at the Pentagon and State.
Sources say one conservative policy group that has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking is the American Enterprise Institute. It briefed White House officials last week about its own report, which dismisses the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation to move U.S. troops from fighting positions to training Iraqi soldiers.
FREDERICK W. KAGAN: A surge of two or three months is not going to be productive. We’re proposing a surge that would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months. At the end of that, we would expect that we will have brought the security situation sufficiently under control.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
84 Responses to “Right-Wing Think Tank Advocating Two-Year U.S. Troop Escalation In Iraq ‘Has The President’s Ear’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
"Surge"?! That was the euphemism for a short-term increase in troops. Let's call it what it is: ESCALATION
December 19th, 2006 at 11:18 amThis is exactly the same course they have been staying and saying for the prvious 18 to 24 months.......
December 19th, 2006 at 11:24 amAre those job applications under the the institute's logo?
December 19th, 2006 at 11:24 amShorter Kagan: Dig faster!
December 19th, 2006 at 11:26 amWasn't Kagan on the PNAC crew???
December 19th, 2006 at 11:26 amPublicus #1...
We agree. We've changed the title to read "escalation."
December 19th, 2006 at 11:27 amHow appropriate. Bush, who is always wrong, gets helpful advice from AEI, which is also always wrong. It's the wrong leading the wrong again. Failures and losers all.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:27 amIt is obvious that this President does not give a damn today about the opinion of the American people. He has assumed virtual dictatorial powers and until there are people marching in the streets by the hundreds of thousands he will continue to act with total disregard for what anyone thinks. The Democrats better damn well be ready to stand up to this guy come January. If they capitulate on this and give him this 12-24 month window to continue with his fantasy war they might as well just pack their bags and head back home. They will be no more use than the proverbial "teats on a boar hog". I for one am damn sick and tired of no one having the balls to push back. If we, the American people, let this happen then there should be no sympathy spared for anyone as we spiral into chaos.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:28 am.Well. Let's see here. Bush and his neocons want to do away with the U.S. military, so they can then outsource the military to independent (corporate) contractors. Of course, we all saw how well that worked with Katrina. Nevertheless, Bush has two years left in office and he wants to do a two year troop surge. By that time, our military should be pretty much wiped out and worthless, leaving us no choice but to then outsource any further military duties to corporations - SUCH AS HALLIBURTON!!!
In sum, it appears that AEI is recommending that Bush spend every remaining day he has in office destroying our military so they can then outsource it to private contractors.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:28 amBush keeps verifying that the definition of insanity is, in fact, doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
Can we impeach him now?
December 19th, 2006 at 11:30 amuntil there are people marching in the streets by the hundreds of thousands he will continue to act with total disregard for what anyone thinks.
Comment by Mike — December 19, 2006 @ 11:28 am
Hundreds of thousands marching in the streets against Bush make a difference? No way. This guy will keep plowing forward anyway, wreaking ever greater destruction to our country and the world. Only impeachment, conviction, and imprisonment will stop this clown.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:31 amWe’re proposing a surge that would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months. At the end of that, we would expect that we will have brought the security situation sufficiently under control.
Someone please remind me the last time these asshats were correct in any prediction that they have made about this invasion and occupation. I will wait by my computer growing old......
December 19th, 2006 at 11:31 amHmmmm. 18 to 24 months? Why...if we were to make it last until January, 2007, then it would become the responsibility of the next president. Not intentionally, mind you. But, as long as it's presented as a two-year plan, we could just keep telling people to be patient and wait until the two years are up. It would shift the blame and stifle dissent at the same time. Brilliant!!! There may be hope for saving Bush's legacy after all.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:32 amI think the AEI would be much more effective in convincing the
American public that their way is the right way if...
...they wore tiny little uncle sam hats strapped to their heads.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:32 amAEI scholar Frederick W. Kagan
December 19th, 2006 at 11:33 amI saw this asshat windbag on a Sunday morning talk show a couple of weeks ago. He's so freaking divorced from reality that he should pay alimony.
#5 Hayduke
Wasn’t Kagan on the PNAC crew???
It's pretty much all PNACers he's listening to, now. They're the only ones who are still looking for a way to keep troops there instead of getting them out.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:34 am#13
Make that "January, 2008".
December 19th, 2006 at 11:35 am11. Does your definition of insanity render irrelevant the age old axiom: If at first you don't succeed, try, try again? Why not give up the war on poverty - we obviously aren't winning.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:37 amanywhere from 18 to 24 months. At the end of that, we would expect that we will have brought the security situation sufficiently under control.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:38 amThis line of reasoning, pardon the use of that word in this context, is so far off. Where would you station the troops? How would they be used? To attack the Shiite militias? What a recipe for disaster.
Our supply lines to Kuwait would be cut off, our troops under attack from both Sunni and Shiia.
The only way out of this clasterfack is GET OUT NOW.
paul, paul, paul.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:40 amThe main reason we're losing the war on poverty is the complete abdication of our governmental policy to big corporatia.
The reason we're losing in Iraq is because we went into Iraq.
Try again, this time with a little more effort.
# 13 chimpeach, you beat me to it. You said what I think in every detail. In better English, too.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:41 amWhat the hell is a corporate sponsored think tank doing making policy for our government? This should be made illegal. The AEI is not an elected or appointed official, it's a privately owned think tank whose sole objective is to influence public policy for financial gain. I think they used to call this kind of thing FASCISM.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:41 amYes keeping the troops in Iraq for the rest of Bush's term in office is the plan! So 2 more years of Hell in Iraq, and a new war on Iran, or Americans must force the Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney in early 2007!
December 19th, 2006 at 11:42 amIt seems this administration, rather than doing what the safest thing in the interest of the troops and the American people, will instead give a roll of the dice. His presidency is already a failure, so if escalation fails he really has nothing to lose. However, there is a very slim chance that it will work and save his presidency. Therefore the reason he is doing this is because, in the interests of his presidency, his standing will either remain the same or improve.
The odds are in his favor, that is why he will go through with this. Of course he is betting with the well being of our troops who have their lives to lose on this course.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:42 amPaul,
Enlighten us on YOUR definition of winning in Iraq?
Is it when Halliburton makes more than the GNP of the rest of the free world? Or maybe when we pass the number of troops killed in Vietnam?
December 19th, 2006 at 11:43 amPaul
Our government should be spending money on helping our own first rather than enriching corporations in an illegal war.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:44 amKagan and his whole family are PNAC signatories.
From Wiki:
"Frederick along with his brother Robert Kagan, who is a member of the Aspen Strategy Group, and their father Donald are all signatories to the Project for the New American Century manifesto titled Rebuilding America's Defenses"
Why not just ask Bill Kristol what to do? He knows everything, at least, he talks like he does.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:46 amHere's a quote from said report
We must send more American combat forces into Iraq and especially into Baghdad to support this operation. A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the spring of 2007 is necessary, possible, and will be sufficient.
These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, will clear critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shi’a neighborhoods, primarily on the west side of the city.
After the neighborhoods have been cleared, U.S. soldiers and Marines, again partnered with Iraqis, will remain behind to maintain security.
As security is established, reconstruction aid will help to reestablish normal life and, working through Iraqi officials, will strengthen Iraqi local government.
This is unadulterated balderdash.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:46 amHow do you "Clear neighborhoods"? We did this over the last several months, and as soon as we leave, the insurgents are back again.
This is a pile of intellectual garbage, fit only for pigs.
Damn, that means that Cheney and Bush will lap it up.
Bush has already made up his mind what he wants to do. He's just shopping around for "experts" who will give him justification supporting his wishes. They "fixed" the intellegence around a chosen poilicy to start the war, why change tactics now??
December 19th, 2006 at 11:48 amIt's time for the Joint Chiefs; Gens. Abizaid, Casey, and Schoomaker; and the division commanders in Iraq to chime in loud and clear on this. At this point, I wouldn't object to a military coup if that's what it takes to pry the little emperor's hands off of the reins of power. It's time for him to go now. Right now.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:48 amIsn't it strange that all these AEI and PNAC "scholars" have never been in Harm's Way or never will be? How many of their family have ever been to Iraq?
They are Chickenhawks who have no interest but their own Zionist and financial goals.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:51 amYou remember how Harry Reid got jumped this weekend for saying that he would be willing to talk about a temporary surge?
I, too, was pissed at the time. But Harry is a shrewd operator, and I reserved judgement to see what he was driving at. And here's answer, I think...
If Bush is leaning towards escalation, Reid can come forward now and say - out of the question. I'll talk about serious changes in approach, but not more open-ended commitments.
And assuming Bush responds in his typical pig-headed manner, Reid will succeed in splitting the GOP. The alternative is for Bush to be seen to cave to Democrat demands.
Either way, this is looking like a very big, very important early win for the new Senate Majority Leader.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:53 am#32 Dumb_Fox
That's a good point. I don't know that it was Reid's intention or that he foresaw Bush wanting to make the "surge" last for two years, but it does offer a place to drive a very big wedge. Then again, if Bush backed off to a couple of months, where Reid said he thought it was acceptable, it would still be sending in more troops. Once they're in there, who's going to make Bush stick to his plan and bring them back out again. They shouldn't even let him get his foot in the door.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:04 pmWhy is it that all of those who favor sending more troops never had the testicular fortitude to actually serve in the military?
Sure, McCain's the exception, but he's gone completely nuckin' futs, so I'll get past that.
The rest of these clowns, however, don't know what it's like to fight, nor what it's like to lose a loved one due to war. Which is probably why they think it's just such a peachy idea.
Freakin' fuqtards ...
December 19th, 2006 at 12:04 pm28. I just read the report and that was one of the several things that jumped out at me. They don't define "clear". What they do show is a strong US military presence and to "contain" the population.
This could have and should have been done at the beginning. Before the insurgency took hold. To "contain" the population now would require several hundred thousand soldiers for several years (which they also advacate). The amount oaf violence will surge if this takes place. Targets of all types will now become available. Just as the recently retired (read fired) Rumsfeld pointed out.
Without defining Victory there will not be a strong backing of this direction from the american people.
Also, if this goes forward and as badly as it has the potential to, there will be no chance for republicans to gain seats in congress or the White House.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:08 pmSadly, this is the only saving grace. If the republicans start to truly look out for the future of their party, they will have to put an end to the Apocolyptic tendancies of the far right.
blockquote>"...American Enterprise Institute (AEI), ... “has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking†...
Should read "Has had the Decider by the balls for the last six years and cutting off circulation to his tiney brain."
December 19th, 2006 at 12:09 pmI can't wait until they announce this. His approval numbers on the war will plunge into the teens. These guys are ensuring a Democratic takeover in '08. Too bad so many kids will have to die to bring people to their senses.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pmAEI:
December 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pmAssholes Enabling Idiots
AEI:
Accelerating Economic Income (their own of course)
December 19th, 2006 at 12:16 pm"...Has the pResidents beer and is doing his thinking for him......."
December 19th, 2006 at 12:17 pm18 to 24 months... Just in time to land the whole mess in the lap of a new Administration. Bush will then scarper to Crawford and blame the Democrats. This is a brilliant plan, indeed.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:17 pmAnd where is the Chimperor going to get his toy soldiers to defend his honor?
This smells more and more like Vietnam. Time to bring back the time proven practice of fragging. Bush...front and center!!
Seriously, this sad little man needs to be impeached before we lose everything America stands for. He is delusional.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:21 pm18 to 24 months.....Just enough time to solidify his place as the worst President in the History of the United States. Just enough time to throw the republican party into complete dissarray. But too much time to allow for needless death and destruction for the sake of shattered pride.
I'm reminded of "A Christmas Carol" when Jacob told Scrooge "It's too late for me, but not too late for you"
This President could swallow his pride. He could admit he was wrong. He could start to make amends. But he hasn't been visited by the Ghost of "Presidents future".
December 19th, 2006 at 12:26 pmSo their idea is that, SIX years into this nightmare, security should be under control
December 19th, 2006 at 12:26 pmShould read “Has had the Decider by the balls for the last six years and cutting off circulation to his tiney brain.â€
Comment by Rebel In CA
Succinctly and correctly stated!
December 19th, 2006 at 12:27 pm#42 nanlichi
Don't give Bush the benefit of being delusional, because that wouldn't be criminal. He is fully cognizant of the fact that Iraq is spiraling out of control. The problem is all he cares about is his legacy, and Iraq is attached to that legacy. Consequences be damned, he is going to do whatever it takes to try and salvage it and escalation is the only path to that end. Any other route he takes is synonymous with accepting failure... this path, though it will likely still lead to failure, is the only one that has any chance of such a success that it would elevate his presidency.
Of course, he is willing to send Americans and Iraqis to their death for his ego. This isn't delusional, he is fully aware of it, it is criminal.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:27 pmIt looks like the NeoCons war team took Baker/Hamilton's (ISG report) to the dumpster.... The war starting again...more than 100 billion dollars added, thousands of more troops will be added ...until Bush ends his term. Will Iraq stay and hold together as a country without being fragmented with the war going on and on ? will peace be near? .... James Baker will be shocked to see how his repeort is treated...may be not !! knowing the Bush family for years. Now what is the newly elected Congress going to do about it? just play the checkmaster machine role as they did in the past...or will Congress start to ask questions before writing those big taxpayers checks!!
December 19th, 2006 at 12:29 pmAttention newly elected Democrats: The mid-term election was a referendum on the Iraq war. Do you get that? We put you in office to get us OUT of Iraq, not consider other short-term options or anything else. There are several ways to deny Bush any more troops. America is on your side, Bush/Cheney must be stopped.
That is all
December 19th, 2006 at 12:31 pmSorry, that saying is for little trains trying to get up hills.
WE HAVE AMERICANS DYING FOR NO REASON!
You get your ass over there and be the next try. Jerk.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:35 pmI hope these neo-clowns have a good souce of money to pull this off.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:36 pmI think King George should adopt the AEI plan and escalate for 2 years. Then when the wheels fall of this and it fails, there won't be a republican left in DC after the 2008 elections
December 19th, 2006 at 12:39 pmIt's pretty clear now what has to be done:
1) Cut off all funds for U.S. forces in Iraq except those necessary for their removal.
2) Impeachment and conviction. Then hand them over to the Hague to answer to the world for their crimes against humanity.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:42 pmCheck out Mr. Kagan's bio on the American Enterprise Institute website. It's available, along with his resume, here: http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.,scholarID.99/scholar.asp
Mr. Kagan has apparently not served in the military (I apologize if I'm wrong). How easy is it to suggest extending tours and "surging" more troops without directly understanding the real price that will be paid?
And for what? An ill-defined mission to achieve a downward-defined "victory" . . . and even that will elude our grasp, at the cost of much further bloodshed.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:47 pmAshenShard,
I stand corrected and I agree with you. Iraq has been all about Bush's legacy from day 1. Bush had a hard on for Iraq well before 9/11. Even before he was selected President, he wanted to be remembered as a War President, wanted to pick a fight somewhere so that he could make his mark.
That's why he engenders so much hate and loathing, we are not looking at the bad outcome of a good decision. He knew full well what he was doing when he rolled the dice.
And the price of his legacy is America's sons and daughters, fortune and honor.
He will be remembered, and reviled as the worst person to come along since Hitler.
I say frag the bastard, but I don't mean it. (hear that Chertoff??) The man deserves a fair trial, and one last cigarette. Don't deny us the drama please.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:47 pmnan - perhaps after the trial and conviction,
December 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pmthe blindfold is put in place, and instead of the cigarette, he's handed
a willie peter grenade, pin out.
Timely and a very good read:
A 'Surge' in Wasted Sacrifice
December 19th, 2006 at 1:02 pmBy Eugene Robinson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800945.html
They've got a hold of much more than just his ear... if you know what I'm saying...
December 19th, 2006 at 1:04 pmKagan is a freakin ghoul. I give him about 5 years before his
December 19th, 2006 at 1:10 pmneck devours his head.
RUCerious..... As appropriate as a willie peter might be, I really do wish the Chimp a long life. In jail and miserable, and surrounded by large, lonely men.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:12 pmRe: #17 #13
Make that “January, 2008″.
Comment by chimpeach
Make that "January, 2009." Bush is scheduled to leave office at the beginning of 2009. Yikes, it's scary just thinking about it. Let's up the schedule by a year or two.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#60 nan - Whatever the Hague decides, I'm OK with, as long as the Bush family is shown in all its deceitful perdition.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:19 pmScrewbush, thanks for posting Eugene Robinson's op-ed. Excellent. His last statement is profound, and this truth is what will finally get the American people into the streets, and force impeachment BACK on the table.
What could be more immoral than sacrificing American blood and treasure to save face in a lost war?
December 19th, 2006 at 1:50 pmSo AEI has determined that the best smokescreen to employ as prelude to the next election is a bunch of bullshit about how we could've "won" in VietNam, and will "win" in Iraq if only the whiny tittybaby American public goes along with increasing troop levels. (btw, what in the hell do opinion poll results have to do with actual military results, ever? - why is it accepted as true that it was American public opinion that ended or "lost" the VietNam effort. that's just ignorant, magical thinking with no provable cause-effect link whatsoever)
December 19th, 2006 at 1:57 pmHmm, let's see - electorate says 'No way' to escalation...let's find some plutocrats who say 'bring it on' to escalation and say - 'hey what a great idea!' After all the delusion that America is a government of the people, for the people, by the people is for the little people.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:35 pmW just can't admit that he lost. COULD the USA quell the violence and establish a government in Iraq? The answer is yes. But the cost would be high. Thousands of more Americans (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) would die. And the financial cost would be HUGE. Even W wouldn't be able to just not raising taxes. Americans do not want this cost. My grandfather was in the navy. He is a staunch conservative, but thinks W's handling of Iraq is absolutely abysmal. If W actually had the "conviction" we were told he did, he would have sent in a much larger amount of troops at the start. Of course the public would have hated it because the cost (in dollars and lives) would have been very high, but it may have been less in the long run compared to now.
Now I don't want it to sound like I ever supported invading Iraq. I never did. But I do believe we have the finest military in the world and we could have "won" if we were willing to sacrifise the dollars and lives. But that's just the thing.
This invasion was NOT worth one life nor one dollar. And we should NOT attempt to continue it. Accept defeat, Mr. Bush, and move on. You have the blood of hundreds of thousands on your hands, and possibly millions more in the future. You claim to be religious. I would pay good money to see how you would fair on your religion's day of judgement. I have no doubt what your eternal fate would be. Too bad I'm not religious.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:43 pm[...] Other bloggers weighing in: MemeOrandum; The Moderate Voice; Daily Kos; QandO; Firedoglake; Think Progress; PoliBlog; The Democratic Daily; Outside The Beltway; Hullabaloo; Political Animal; The Heretik Technorati Tags:Â Bush, Current Events, Harry Reid, Headline News, Headlines, ICG, International Crisis Group, Iran, Iraq, Iraq Study Group, ISG, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Military, News, News and Politics, Politics [...]
December 19th, 2006 at 2:48 pmReality check you are right on about the funding cut off. This is precisely the prevailing wisdom : Surge now before the Democrats take over Congress and then let them try to cut off funding for the troops after they've been sent. Uncle Karl ain't dead yet it's a pure political stick to use on the Democrats in the next election. It's what they do best; waste all the public's resources they can while protecting us from evil and advancing Democracy. Right?
December 19th, 2006 at 2:54 pmthe hell with bush's ears, cut off his balls and make him eat them.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:46 pmthat is the least he deserves for slaughtering innocent women and babies in iraq.
Mr. Shrub, to HELL with your legacy, unless you'd like to IMPROVE upon it, then consider ideas and opinions which DON'T already exist in your empty head, dumbass.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:06 pmIf this is the best that Bush can do then it's time to cut off his ear. He has listened to enough nonsense from these fools.
December 19th, 2006 at 7:27 pmWe will never get out of Iraq with the constant attiude that it's always someone else's fault for this fiasco. We will never find an honest solution when so many Americans are so unwilling to accept any blame.
Let me repeat some stats: 79% of Americans supported this war on May 1, 2003 (Gallup/CNN/USAToday). Look it up. It aint' just Bush, AEI, Hannity, Rush, The Grinch, blah blah blah to blame. It's most of America to blame.
Chances are that many people posting "antiwar" rants on this website were actually war supporters in 2003. Many wishywashy democrats were part of the majority prowar crowd in 2003 and now want to be part of the majority antiwar crowd in 2006.
Way to take a stand, you gonad-less dems!!
December 19th, 2006 at 7:36 pmDoesn't the President understand that the rightwing idiots are the ones that talked him into invading Iraq in the first place. The were the ones that said we'd be greated as liberators and encouraged him to say mission accomplished. He obviously doesn't learn from his mistakes. If your friend is drilling holes in the boat and you don't want to sink, maybe just maybe you shouldn't take them fishing with you again. This foolish attempt on his part to be to the right of Ronald Reagan is going to prove Hillary Clinton right. He will go down in history as the worst President in American history.
He thinks that the balance of power has shifted to the right and he's completely wrong.
December 19th, 2006 at 7:50 pmHere is an interview (transcript) given by FREDERICK KAGAN on News Hours PBS:
Watching the interview at the time lead me to believe this guy's thinking is questionable-
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/iraq_11-20.html
December 19th, 2006 at 7:52 pm73 - Sven, you're cordially invited to pucker up and kiss my ass. Not only did I never support this Iraq mistake from the get-go, I said during the campaign in '99 that GWB was/is a dangerous psycho-retard-puppet, acting at the pleasure of a pack of outdated, outmoded spook holdovers from the Cold War, and I was, and am, 100% correct. You, on the other hand, are a sour-graper, a dead-ender, and exhibit a high probability of showing up on CNN as the perpetrator of some kind of gun crime, probably the slaughter of your own family, or perhaps a handful of coworkers.
Merry F'in Xmas, ya F'in goof.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:53 pmIt's more like AEI has the "president's" cahjones just like PNAC and the likudnik cabal.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:42 pmI have alot of faith in Mr. Reid.He will vote to keep this war going so we can stamp out terrorism and the Muslims.They are threatening Christianity.This will not stand.When the Roman Catholic Church tell any nation to go to war,they go to war.Nations have no choice in the Vatican`s decisions.They all obey the Vatican.Even the United States of America.Our Vatican is the most powerful govt.and the most powerful banking establishment in the world.You cannot change this.Therefore you must come on board to be spared from noncompliance with the Lord our God.You have no real choice.Not at the end of the day.It`s God Almighty or nothing.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:45 amBring home the troops, replace them with the American Enterprise Institute.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:20 amThis is off of this thread - House Armed Services Chairman ‘Extremely Concerned’ With Iraq Escalation Plans -Dec. 18 ,2006
Available in older posts section for free and at absolutely no charge. You have to read the whole thread to appreciate it.It`s a real gem.
Not so fast;I have one thing I’d like to add to this discussion.
Atleast twice in the last 50 posts,unbelievable said that she ‘doesn’t lie’.
Yet she told me,thus everyone else on this blog,last spring,that her Mother was dead.This turned out NOT to be TRUE.
Now answer your own question: What kind of person would say that about their own Mother just for the sake of winning an argument?
Now you all are beginning to see why I’ve had such acrimony with her in the past.
Just for the record,BnF, I never,ever,insulted her Mother,that’s if you were referring to something I might have said.
She told me her Mom was dead after I said she probably lives at home with her Mom.
All this can be found in the archives.
This is who you are dealing with,and she has no respect.
Comment by Si Byl — December 20, 2006 @ 2:22 am
Trueblue,
Of course, Unbelievable is offended by any remark about sexuality:
Men’s peak is 17, and women’s is 40. I’m guessing I’m closer to 40 than you are to 17? :)
Comment by unbelievable — April 17, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
and:
I think it’s a plot by women in their 40’s so they can get 17 year old men :)
Comment by Tundra — April 17, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
I assure you, that’s mostly a guy fanatasy. As men age they get better in other ways. :)
Comment by unbelievable — April 17, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
and this:
If a course is called “Shaving your legs†there is no reason to discuss how to braid leghair (That’s for unbelievable)
Comment by Tundra — April 17, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Flirting with me again, I see ; )
Comment by unbelievable — April 17, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
finally capped of by this:
If I were asked for a one line answer to the question “What makes a woman good in bed?†I would say, “A man who is good in bed.â€
- - Bob Guccione (1978)
Comment by unbelievable — April 18, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
and the email Unbelievable misquotes?
“If I were asked for a one line answer to the question “What makes a woman good in bed?†I would say, “A man who is good in bed.â€
- - Bob Guccione (1978)
Comment by unbelievable â€
amen to that!!! (care to put the hypothesis to a test? —just kidding…)
Perhaps it is Unbelievable who is envious of my spirituality. She has derided the thought of breathing a cloud away, yet I’ve taught others to do so as well.
Perhaps she was offended because I was just kidding. After all, I have mentioned on these boards that I wear a kilt. And you know what they say about a woman scorned. I mean, to take what I wrote and somehow twist that into insinuating that I, a married man, was interested in having an adulterous affair with someone who lives a couple of thousand miles away takes either dimentia, a great imagination, or wishful thinking.
And Trueblue, as you can see, a shaman would say “Amen.â€
There’s another word, a greeting, I say to you:
Namaste.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — December 19, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
December 20th, 2006 at 4:10 amI hope the Corporate Media picks up on the influence of the AEI. They've been running the Bush Administration ever since 9/11.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:54 amOf course Bush would latch on to this insane strategy!
This is the only way to "stay the course" (stall) until 2008 and blame whatever happens on the next Administration!
And that's two more years of private contractors and war profiteers looting from Iraqis and Americans alike!
Yipee!
Thankyou neo-con think tanks!
We couldn't destroy the world without you!
December 20th, 2006 at 9:08 amAnyone ever look at the members of this Stink Tank:
President and trustees
Christopher DeMuth, who served in the Reagan administration, has been president of AEI since 1986.
Bruce Kovner is the chairman of the board of trustees.
Lee Raymond, ex-CEO of ExxonMobil, is the vice chair of AEI's board of trustees.
Scholars and fellows
December 20th, 2006 at 4:23 pmLynne "Lov'n them Lesbo's" Cheney, wife of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, AEI senior fellow
Newt "The Poopstick" Gingrich, member of the Republican Party and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives between 1995 and 1999, is a senior fellow at AEI focusing on health care (he has founded the Center for Health Transformation), information technology, the military, and politics.
Jeane Kirkpatrick (John Boltons wife) is the former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and an AEI senior fellow
Michael Ledeen was previously involved in the transfer of arms to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair
Richard "NWO" Perle served on the United States Defense Policy Board and is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense
Wow!
The barking moonbats are out in force tonight.
Leaving their batty little droppings all over this thread.
January 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pm.
[...] Frederick W. Kagan, an American Enterprise Scholar who “has the president’s ear” on Iraq and crafted the escalation plan, is actually not a “military expert,” according to a look at his resume. [...]
January 15th, 2007 at 9:36 amI'm new to this website, but delighted to find compatible feedback!
I've really found it disconcerting, the never-ending appearances of the AEI,
Heritage Foundation, CFR and other 'neo-con' types who keep showing up on the C-Span stations - as tho' they're gratis some sort of experts on whatever they're spinning.
This fellow Kagan, and the boozy ex-general he's been dragging around with him are just the most horrible examples of what we've all been dreading -- the American government falling prey to endless neo-con influence. With the inevitable result of yet again thousands of human lives in Iraq - women, children, the aged - at risk because of this miserable, disgusting little coterie of powermad maniacs and their complicit corporate
cohoots.
Who can we turn to to tell us who exactly are these faceless, flabby 'scholars' are -- from the AEI .....and other rightwing 'think-tanks'?
How is that the American public has little to no knowledge of them -- yet they wield such enormous influence over the Executive branch of the U.S
government?
Their power seems to me to be frightening. I'm right now beginning my first Political Science course at college, and I'm going to try to look into this.
January 15th, 2007 at 10:09 pm