FLASHBACK: Bush Insisted The ‘Sober Judgment of Our Military Leaders’ Would Determine Troop Levels
FLASHBACK: Bush Insisted The ‘Sober Judgment of Our Military Leaders’ Would Determine Troop Levels
The White House is “aggressively promoting” a plan to send “15,000 to 30,000 more troops” to Iraq “over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the Washington Post reports today. “The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops.”
Bush has repeatedly insisted that troop levels were determined by military commanders. A year ago, Bush said he would not raise troop levels because the “commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job.” “As we determine the right force level,” Bush said, “our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.”
Watch Bush on June 28, 2005:
Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
what an asshat.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:04 pmThat’s it. I’m blowing up that picture for my dartboard. Smirking putz.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:06 pmWhat? Are you calling Bush a LIAR?
December 19th, 2006 at 1:07 pmGood. Cuz he iz.
Caption Contest:
“Damn,I’m such a moron”.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:08 pmNow these generals are the people makin’ me look bad on the internets and TV. We all I got for them is one big HAH! I am still the Decider and I decide that I will not , nor do I have to listen to you. I got plenty of people that I know willing to do the things neccessary to save my ass…Who’s runnin’ this show? It’s me isn’t it?
December 19th, 2006 at 1:08 pmour troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.â€
December 19th, 2006 at 1:08 pmNo, I guess that’s the drunken, power mad misjudgments of our chymperor.
chimpeach - I’m printing it out for my custom toilet seat covers.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:09 pmThat picture looks like a MAD magazine cover.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:11 pmhe does tell the truth about somethings.
After abu grahib
“we’re transparent, because we’re a free society, and free societies are transparent”
he told us we are not a free society. I don’t think i can count the number of ways our government is no transparent.
troop levels, energy policy, epa, fda, katrina, new allegations of censorship, new calls to repeal the first amendment, to store all internet user records in a searchable database…..we are no longer free according to our commander in cheif
December 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pmI am so sick of seeing and hearing everything bull shit bush has to say I am going to shut it all down…I have had enough of this piece of shit to last a life time…From now on I intend to spend my time writing email’s to all the Dem’s demanding this wacko be Impeached, indicted, jailed and all assets seized along with his cohort’s…..Blessings….Bring the troop’s home now…Demand the Dem’s do their job now….
December 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThink.org as well as the media news outlets are so transparent. It is laughable really. I mean could we not simply turn the whole idea of this article on its ear simply by stating that the confused left wingers called for more troops and now are calling for less? Could it not be implied that they dissenters are confused and cannot seem to make up their minds? What a ship of fools. The only certainty here is that the left will ridicule what ever the administration does then instruct their allies (the terrorists) in what would work to their best benefit to undermine the Bush administration. Then hope for more death and destruction so that they can say “I told you so”. Meanwhile they will work tirelessly to cover for the fact that it was the failed Clinton administration policies that dragged us into this war.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pmBillyBob - fold to the center to see the ass.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pmThat’s it. I’m blowing up that picture for my dartboard. Smirking putz.
Here’s another one for your dartboard –> http://thumbsnap.com/v/6YvXAPG0.jpg
This one clearly portrays the level of intelligence we are dealing with here…truly, he is a chimp. No. Let me correct that: he is evolving toward the level of chimpness.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pmIt’s just like the run-up to the war, Bush knows what he wants to do, and just needs to find the right advisors to parrot what he wants to hear, allowing him to claim to be reacting to the “intellegence” and “evidence.”
He doesn’t care what the reality is, he just wants somebody (at this point, practically anybody) to say that yers, he should do what he’s already planning to do.
Pathetic.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:17 pmjoeslogic - a true oxymoron, or perhaps just a moron?
December 19th, 2006 at 1:17 pm# 12. LOL
December 19th, 2006 at 1:18 pm(Caption:)
“Dang, are my eyes getting closer to each other ?”
December 19th, 2006 at 1:19 pmI find it interesting: Bush IS saying what we are saying right now. So he was actually correct back then. And if my mind serve me correctly, while he was saying that, everyone on the other side was saying we need to send in MORE troops. So may Bush actually be concidered a good leader in at least that respect?
What I wonder now is, maybe we SHOULD have had more troops at the time of his speech, and it’s only when we need fewer troops does Bush decide to raise the numbers.
Damn you, politics. You confuse me so.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:19 pmThe other story of the day is that LaLa Bu$h had a cancerous tumor removed a couple weeks ago.
At first, I thought the reports may have been referring to GDumbya, the biggest cancerous tumor of all time. But I see that GDumbya is still around. I guess LaLa had a little skin lesion or something.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:19 pm…And, pray tell, dear leader… what is your definition of sober judgement?
Ar Ar Ar
December 19th, 2006 at 1:21 pmjoeslogic, you are one tree short of a hammock!
What a skidmark! It’s about time you got off that “it’s Clinton’s fault” mantra. This is and always has been GDumbya’s war. He’s the one who lied his way into it; he’s the one who phucked it up; and he’s the one who is too stupid to find a way out of it.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:22 pmRUCerious,
The latter, methinks.
Been awhile since some dipshit blew the Clinton alarm.
uselesslogic…I don’t take kindly to some asshat like you telling me I’m with the terrorists. You’ve never walked in my shoes. Until you do, you have only warped opinions & clown logic to base anything on. Terrorism is real. We are Americans. When you classify posters here as terrorists, you are blatantly showing your stupidity.
Be careful, or I’ll send Jason M. Hendler to your house. At night. And he’ll climb in bed with you. Then he’ll wake you up. We’ll stop there.
Be afraid, Joejob. Be very afraid. He of the mask will make you wish you had gone to Berkely and become an activist.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:27 pmJason, we have work for you to do…
…And, pray tell, dear leader… what is your definition of sober judgement?
GDumbya hasn’t had a sober judgement in his entire pathetic life. The closest he ever came to such a thing was when he graduated from college and suddenly realized that he wasn’t on the TANG enlistment waiting list.
But then he called Poppy and got that little problem all fixed up for him.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:28 pmIn other words, he was for listening to the military leaders before he was against it?
December 19th, 2006 at 1:28 pm#11 joeslogic, look’s like you drew the short straw for today, no matter…..We are sick of you 26% spewing you’re reich winged crap…You’re post is just like bull shit bush, as full of shit as a christmas goose…..Be gone reich winged troll….
December 19th, 2006 at 1:29 pm# 11, joeslogic:
Isn’t Limbaugh on the air now?
Shouldn’t you be tuned in to him? And what the he!l does Clinton have to do with this?
Here is a new,more fitting name for you– ’sloppyjoeslogic’.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:31 pmYou know, the military leaders over at General Dynamic like Retired Gen. Jack Keane. And the military experts over at Halliburton.
Like I said, the advice that matters. The advice of my friends who are getting filthy rich from this War.
That’s why we’re gonna move forward. Put in more troops. Build more bases. Extend the tours of duty until I’m outta office and McCain gets to take command as my duly appointed successor.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#11 joeslogic
I mean could we not simply turn the whole idea of this article on its ear simply by stating that the confused left wingers called for more troops and now are calling for less? Could it not be implied that they dissenters are confused and cannot seem to make up their minds?
We shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. But, since we did, there was a time when we needed to have more troops than were there, in order to accomplish the stated objectives. It would have helped to stop the looting, for example. It would have been especially helpful to have prevented the looting of ammo dumps where the insurgents were able to find the explosives to make IEDs. But, Rumsfeld would have none of it, and any of the generals who tried to tell him we needed more troops for that purpose were told to shut up or they were pushed into early retirement.
So, Bush and Rumsfeld wouldn’t listen to the generals back when we said that they should. They didn’t increase the numbers of troops when it would have helped. Things are much different now. It’s long past the point where adding troops would help.
I hope that cleared it up for you. It was only your confusion that made it appear that the “left” was confused.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:39 pmIn a way, it is determined by the Generals. Basically, whatever the Generals want, Bush does the opposite. If the Generals want more troops to go into Iraq…Bush gives less. If Generals say more troops wont’ do any good now that Iraq is a mess…Bush gives more troops. If Generals want more body armour…Bush rides his bike.
Really, if those Generals haven’t learned that Bush does the opposite by now, then really they must WANT the opposite to happen.
Or something. I don’t know.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:40 pmBush Plan To Increase Troops In Iraq
Tuesday 19th of December 2006
by Jay Randal
President George W. Bush never intends to remove any US troops from Iraq, but has plan for increasing troops starting in January 2007 by 20,000 or more?
Dubya intends to escalate the conflict in Iraq: to cause more bloodshed and mayhem, to break the back of the US military, and to spit in the faces of entire Congress.
At least 70% of the American citizenry want the war ended in orderly fashion ASAP, but the Bush Regime membership ignores them, and the press acts stupid.
The occupation of Iraq has turned into the most horrific fiasco in US history, a diabolical debacle of immense proportions, and a quicksand quagmire with no end.
Lusting for control of the “Black Gold Crude Oil,” in Arabia, is NOT moral justification to remain in Iraq forever, NOR is it worth the lives of American troops.
Since the Oil Cartel conglomerate drools for profits, then they can hire a private mercenary army of thugs to control Iraq’s oil, or perish trying to hold onto it.
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
December 19th, 2006 at 1:45 pmJoeslogic is a troll, he is just baiting everyone here.
If he REALLY believed what he is saying, he wouldn’t be here, since his IQ would be in single digits and his trailer wouldn’t have have internet access.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:45 pmobviously, by “our military leaders” he was dishonestly referring to himself as CinC - that’s how stupid he knows everyone is, in the press and in the public.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:52 pmLook at that F**kFace.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:52 pmHe gives a sh!t about this country, about its people and about
the world. He has fun f**cking it all up because he is the little dipshit from the sandbox, the destructor. “You see! I can f**k with you as much as I want! You can’t do anything about it!
Ne-ne-ne-neee-neeeee!!!!”
Who is coming up with a reward? “Wanted - Dead or Alive”
Nah. Forget about the alive.
“What me worry?” — Alfred E. Bush
December 19th, 2006 at 1:55 pmAnother Bush flip-flop.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:55 pmNo you couldn’t, because we are stating that you would need to send 500,000 troops. Sending 50,000 will do nothing. You either reinstate the draft or bring our men and women home. You either go to a war to win or you don’t go. Of course you wouldn’t know that because just like the rest of the republican chickenhawks, you have never served in the military.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:57 pmBush’s sober days are over.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:00 pmSOBER and JUDGMENT: two words with which we all wish Bush was a bit more familiar.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:01 pmjoeslogic is just a deadender in its last throes
December 19th, 2006 at 2:02 pmI had no idea that the left was instructing the terrorists in how to undermine the Bush administration. I thought the terrorists were acting on their own which is why, according to Bush, we are in Iraq.
If the left is the terrorist mastermind, then shouldn’t Bush be sending troops into every town in America to “smoke ‘em out”???
December 19th, 2006 at 2:03 pmRemember the Army recruiting slogan - “An Army of One”?
Looks like Dubya might be that Army of one, and it is the K9 Corps, as Barney is all that is left for him to lead into battle.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:06 pmWith the Joint Chiefs of Staff in public diagreement over Dubya’s “surge” once wonders how much longer this can last. The longer Dubya continues to pursue this foolish and wasteful war born out of ignorance, the further the standing of the US will drop in the eyes of the world. How much more damage can our country take from this idiot. Impeach him!
December 19th, 2006 at 2:08 pm70% of those polled are dissatisfied with how GW is handling Iraq. If 51% is a mandate then what is 70%? It’s a direct order from the american people.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:10 pmThese War Profiteers love war only Congress can stop them now.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:11 pmSnow said a couple of weeks ago that what the generals have been doing is not working so preznit W doesn’t have to listen to them any more… I guess he doesn’t see the irony in suggesting that chimp boy should keep the reigns considering his stellar track record.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:14 pm36 - Joeslogic is a hit and run troll. His points are without factual basis.
Generals called for massive numbers of troops for the initial invasion. The “left” never got to respond to that, because Bush never followed that advice and refused to initiate the massive military buildup necessary.
To do the job right then, as now, requires on the order of 1 million troops. The entire country would need to be locked down under Martial Law for 3-6 months and every square foot searched for weapons and explosives. The borders would need to be completely closed and impenatrable as well.
As it is, we’re swatting flies with a club. It causes a lot of noise and damage, but kills very few flies.
Meanwhile, our young women and men will continue to die so that the priviledged few can make billions more in blood money.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:16 pmSo he was against it before he was for it .. mhh .. it sounds familiar ..
December 19th, 2006 at 2:18 pmBush: The generals may be sober, but I’m not. That’s why my new plan — I Can Do What I Want To DoDo — is going to send a bunch of our finest men and women to their death over there in Iraq. Cus I’m the Decider. That’s all that matters. This is my country, my government, I got my Pentagon man, my Treasure man, my CIA man, they’re like little toys to me. I just enjoy moving them around.
I dare you to tell me I’m way off on this.
PS: has anyone noticed it’s impossible to pass a spell checker over any text where you’re trying to mock our fine President?
December 19th, 2006 at 2:18 pmDon’t be so hard on joesillogic guys. It took him 8 years to write his little essay about why he is so angry that he never got to get a blow job, but William did.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:23 pmBut I know, even if there would be pictures about Dumbo getting laid by Dick and Rove, it is all those stinking liberal terrorist who are responsible for all this. Like those goddamned pacifists that don’t want to kill others. Those are the real terrorists. ©The Pacifists Are Terrorists®.
It’s amazing how one can assemble single letters in a fashion
to form sentences that show how endlessly stupid oneself is.
You Go Joe! Drafted and gone to Iraq, where they need more, way more single braincell equipped robo-soldiers.
Now wait, now I got it!
They want to show us that we have to spend $3 Trillion in a new Robo-Soldier bill. The fully automated ©Insurgent Eraser® by Lockheed Martin will solve all our problems.
Fully protected by Carbon®-Kevlar®-Titanium® Armor and
rechargable in as little as 8 hours.
GI-Robo-Joes and Janes is what we really need.
More weapons, way more weapons.
You don’t need health insurance. If you get sick we just shoot you, like a horse.
Sober judgment. Thats a good one.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:24 pmIt’s all a concerted action to drive US citizens insane. They just fk with us until we loose it and then lock us all up. And
December 19th, 2006 at 2:25 pmpeople like JoesIllogic will be the wardens…
TP, you might want to be thankful for a president like Bush. Based on his statement (above), you should be able to perceive that he’s a man full of wisdom and knowledge. He’s a rare president, and you will not find many more like him. Libs, embrace him.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:27 pmBush was drunk when he said it. Doesn’t count. He was working on drinking his swagger back.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:28 pmI recognize this game. Same one the Chimperor uses with deficits, come out with an outrageous number, then when it comes back lower you claim success. 50,000 troops for two years? That’s crazy!
So when the puto comes back with 20,000 for 6 months, he can claim that he decidered on a sound course.
The man is evil incarnate.
And to ScrewBush’s question, my spellchecker changes Chimpf*ck to Chimpmunk. But I really do mean Chimpf*ck.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:28 pm46. As it is, we’re swatting flies with a club. It causes a lot of noise and damage, but kills very few flies.
Very good analogy.
I sense that this latest blurb is another feeler sent out. They won’t be delivering any official message until Jan. so the trial balloons are going out. I do believe that GW is still cognizant of what type of legacy he will have and will try influence it in these last two years.
A part of me also believes that this President wants to push us to Armagedon.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:28 pmThis retarded doesn´t give a damn wether the ISG, his counselors, panels of advisors or the military advise/suggest no more troops deployment.He is God`s representative on earth so he, like the pope, is infallible.What a moron….
December 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pmSaint Darryl - you are an asshat. The statement made above was made in the past and he is now directly contradicting what he said. Your fatith-based rhetoric appears fatally flawed. And this statement is your proof that he is a ‘rare president’ - if I believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster I would say ‘thank you your Noodleness that Chimpy is indeed a rarity’.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pmDaryll, we’ll embrace his RARITY–hell, I’ll even thank YOUR god that there has never been an American president like Bush before. He’d damn well better be unique.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pmDaryll ~ I might not want to be thankful for a man who has screwed up everything he has touched his entire life.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pmBased on his statements above, it is clear he is trying desperately to save face by finding some neocon lunatics as crazy as he is to justify expanding the occupation till the end of his term.
It’s a very good thing he’s a rare president. The country could not survive another like him.
Sober… Oh, the irony…
December 19th, 2006 at 2:34 pm#52,
Fortunately, evil like Bush has been a rarity.
Unfortunately, a monumentally stupid anti-christ worshipper such as yourself is born every minute.
You applaud murder. You cheer oppression. You promote deception.
Your mother, sister, and wife must be proud of you. All one of them.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:34 pmDaryll…. If Bush was caught blowing Barney you would support him.
I would too, at least no soldiers would die for that perversion.
But you can’t be serious, you are just here to stir some shit. No-one in their right mind could post the ridiculous comments you do in seriousness.
Poor liitle man.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:38 pmSorry I kind of got carried away here…
BUT it seems to be clear to me that the real reason of
getting 750,000 more troops to Baghdad
IS IRAN.
We need more soldiers down there, just in case it will get
nu-clear.
For starters:
Newton’s Third Law:
To every action (force applied) there is an equal and opposite reaction (equal force in the opposite direction).
Another way of stating Newton’s third law is that if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B exerts a force of the same magnitude on A, in the opposite direction.
Buckle Up guys, it’s gonna be a tough ride…
December 19th, 2006 at 2:42 pmThat right all you left wingser show your @$$.
Tenebrae, could this have been where he gathered his pre-war intel?
Quote:
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.â€
Quote:
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.â€
Quote:
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.â€
Quote:
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
“There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.â€
Quote:
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.â€
Quote:
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.â€
Quote:
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.â€
Quote:
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.â€
Quote:
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.â€
Quote:
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.â€
Quote:
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…â€
HAHAHA!!!!!
Talk about a bunch of skid marks.
Bush stands for principal and ethics in even if this means standing against popular culture he stands for what he thinks is right. While the left expediently holds their finger in the air to find the direction of popular opinion then trumpets this as their mantra. All the while working with the left media and their allies the terrorists to mold that popular opinion in a direction to their likening. They will not let truth stand in the way of their duplicitous pursuits.
And for any of those thinking it is not fair that I should once again post these quotes well get used to it they are in the history books and not going away.
Now do the right thing and join in. Be a team player in the war against terror and stop shamelessly betraying your country. You UN-PATRIOTIC little butt wipes.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:43 pmNo,
December 19th, 2006 at 2:45 pmDarryl applied for Saturday Night Live®, but his act was too dumb for them. So now he’s trying it here.
#52 Daryll
. Based on his statement (above), you should be able to perceive that he’s a man full of wisdom and knowledge. He’s a rare president, and you will not find many more like him. Libs, embrace him.
I don’t know what’s happening to me, but I feel oddly comforted by your words, Daryll. Strangely, it seems to make perfect sense. Yes, he IS a man full of wisdom and knowledge. He’s a bright shining beacon that…that glows like a bare incandescent bulb on a back porch on a balmy Georgia night and I feel myself drawn to him. Drawn to the light. I want to embrace him. I want to embrace you, Mr. President! Let me…ZZZZZAPPP!!!!
Dammit!!! Goddam Feeb-Zappers!
December 19th, 2006 at 2:45 pmAhh.. Joe’s logic apparently is pulling quotes out of context from ten years ago and using it as a reason for attacking Iraq today. Thanks, Joe! I’ll keep that in mind next time I need to prove a point. Maybe Reagan has something that will support my views when taken out-of-context.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:46 pmBefore that, his only source of advice was the low spark of high heeled boys.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:47 pmImpeachment Good for Republicans and Democrats
A debate is raging as to whether the U.S. should impeach George W. Bush, but it’s not a partisan debate. Democrats and Republicans fall on both sides of the issue.
Members of both parties opposing impeachment seem to be worried that pursuing impeachment will hurt their chances in the 2008 presidential elections and beyond. Given that the argument seems to be turning on whether impeachment is good for winning elections, it seems odd that so many members of both parties are in agreement about opposing it. Obviously, one of the parties will get a political bump.
While few reasonable people can doubt that Bush has done more than enough to warrant impeachment from a constitutional perspective, it looks like some Democrats and Republicans won’t be motivated to impeach until they can see why it’s good for their political futures.
Therefore I’m going to put aside the fact that holding Bush accountable for his numerous mistakes is the ethical thing to do. I’m also going to put aside the way impeachment massively increases the chance of Congress undoing his rubberstamped legislative damage, and that impeachment is the only way to deter future presidents from continuing from where Bush leaves off. That’s right — even ignoring all this, impeachment is still a good idea, and for both parties.
Democrats, up until now, you’ve had a Republican majority in the Congress. When people criticized the government, you could claim with some credibility that there was nothing you could do about it. But now you have both houses of Congress.
The people voted to put you in office in good measure not because your party expressed a coherent and positive vision for America’s future, but because they were concerned about what’s been going on under Republican control. If you fail to hold this president accountable now, you’re out of excuses. People will look back and say that both parties were complicit and opportunistic — and they’ll be right.
You only maintain the moral high ground if you defend the Constitution in contrast to the Republican controlled Congress. Members of Congress, it might be good to remember that this was the oath you swore to when you took office.
If you fail in this, the public will see you as no different from those you replaced, and you will lose your precious elections.
Ten years from now, when your child asks you what you did to stop Bush’s systematic destruction of the foundations of our democracy, you’ll have to say, “well, nothing, honey. We had an election to win.” Actually, you may want to make sure you tell them in person, to avoid the wiretap surveillance.
And Republicans, you’re like the football coach who pridefully refuses to pull a player off the field after everyone else can plainly see the need. The sooner you pull the man, the more highly respected you’ll be. The longer you wait, the more you tie your party’s future to the corruption and incompetence that has already been attributed to this administration.
So whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, it’s time to join together on impeachment. All who do will reap the spoils. Those who do not will be subject to the judgment of history.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:49 pmhellinabucket you have a point so now with your numbers game working so well on your behalf and them being as accurate as they are. Please please please please get hold of your representatives in congress and talk them into pressing for the impeachment of president Bush. I am begging you it would be a pleasure to watch.
Oh that’s right the numbers are not half as good for the newly elected congress. So sad.
:(
December 19th, 2006 at 2:51 pmTP, you might want to be thankful for a president like Bush. Based on his statement (above), you should be able to perceive that he’s a man full of wisdom and knowledge. He’s a rare president, and you will not find many more like him. Libs, embrace him.
Comment by Daryll
Daryll, good to see you back again. A true man of reason and intelligence.
But I do have to ask how it feels to be embracing a Minority Decider? Is it a turn on for you? Do you feel his energy?
December 19th, 2006 at 2:51 pmHey dipsh!t!
It’s no longer called ©War On Terror. It’s now called ©War On Extremism.
Hopefully playing in a Theatre next to YOU very soon.
And You think You are so smart. You are disgusting with Your
December 19th, 2006 at 2:52 pmpost. Fascist thread oppressor.
this f’n piece of crap doesn’t know fiction from reality, he can’t keep his lies straight.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:54 pmhow on earth did america elect this turd, the world spits on bush and america.
I recognize Joeslogic. Defending the evil Chimp against all logic. Joe’s the Christian woman married to a child molesting pervert who is raping their 12 year old daughter. “He wouldn’t do that, he stands for principal and ethics”. Go ahead and pull the pillow over your head Joe and ignore the bloodstained sheets and screams at night. Better to sacrifice your daughter than admit a mistake.
Bush is a man of God right? Just ask him.
In the meantime, sensible people need to take this perverted evil bastard out and take back our country. Impeach, put him on trial, put him in jail!
December 19th, 2006 at 2:55 pm#63 joelogic
Nice work, Joe. So, your point is that Bush and everyone he had working in the Pentagon, CIA, the VP’s office, etc., who put together a bullshit story to lay out for Congress, while hiding the incovenient facts that would have given them away, was really good at lying? Or is your point that the Democrats in Congress are really gullible for having believed all of it? Or could it be your point that so many people in the administration told such audacious lies that the Dems should have never suspected that the president would engage in something that was clearly treasonous?
You do understand that Bush lied to the country to justify invading Iraq, don’t you? And you’re quoting a whole long list of Dems who apparently believed the lies. How does that make Bush right? I’m not following.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:56 pmParrotlover77
Ok I’m all for a good debate with a man who takes the higher ground such as yourself it will be a pleasure. If you could please explaine to me which of those quotes were taken out of context?
December 19th, 2006 at 2:56 pmProblem is that most of the people in the democratic country he is president of don’t agree with “what he thinks is right”
December 19th, 2006 at 3:01 pmIt is a war against terror, a war against good and evil, a war against extremism, and it looks like the media and the left have positioned themselves to play the spoiler for the side of evil. Yes it is a war against the left wingers golden rule “Political Correctness” P.C. is the number one tool of the enemy.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:02 pmHot damn it’s Daryll my favorite man child… you know Daryll your child like naivety would really be endearing if you promised not to vote or reproduce… unfortunately it’s probably too late on both those counts.
If it is - please do us all a huge favor and consider adoption… and maybe only voting for people also named Daryll… this is not a perfect solution… but it could work to minimize the negative affects of your inability to think like a grown up.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#63 joeslogic
Bush stands for principal and ethics in even if this means standing against popular culture he stands for what he thinks is right.
I’m going to have to ask you to go look up “principal” and “ethics” now, because you clearly don’t understand what the words mean. And, no matter how you look at it, standing up for “what he thinks is right” when he’s so tragically wrong is not a good thing to do. Any moron is capable of standing up for what he thinks is right and may often do so. I don’t want a moron running the country and killing a lot of innocent people, just because he thought he was doing the right thing.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:04 pmPentagon PR stunt:
December 19th, 2006 at 3:04 pmSending Patrick AFB staff to Mt. Hood.
I told You the military is good.
joeslogic,
If you really agree with this war, go sign up and fight for what you feel is right. Do it, stop letting other people die for your war. Have some spine. grow a backbone. Being a soldier is an honor. It was when I was in and it still is. So, now is your chance to prove that you are a true patriot.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:08 pmJoeslogic,
I don’t see any of your quotes where they say it is a good idea to attack Iraq, overthrow their government, remove their police and military forces, stay there for three years AFTER removing Saddam and proving there were no weapons of mass destruction, and stay there permanently. I served in Iraq for 18 months, and we accomplished everything we needed to do three years ago. All of the quotes you provided were FOR the removal of Saddam, and the search for wmd. There were no WMD, and Saddam has been removed. Why are we still there?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI told You so!
http://www.army-technology.com/ contractors/ civil/ foster_miller/ foster_miller5.html
It’s probably better for domestic jobs, because that thing doesn’t look like it would survive long in Iraq. But it’s a step
December 19th, 2006 at 3:10 pmin the right direction.
Mass Murdering 24/7
#77 joeslogic
It is a war against terror, a war against good and evil, a war against extremism, and it looks like the media and the left have positioned themselves to play the spoiler for the side of evil. Yes it is a war against the left wingers golden rule “Political Correctness†P.C. is the number one tool of the enemy.
And with spear and shield in hand, joeslogic breaks into song:
“Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before…”
C’mon joe, sing along.
“…Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe; forward into ba-a-attle…”
C’mon joe, you’re not singing.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:13 pmCan you tell us who is good and who is evil please?
Also which side are we on in Iraq? Sunni/Shiite.
And the bonus question: Would you consider a war against good and evil a “Holy War?”
December 19th, 2006 at 3:13 pmI have no problem sending in more troops, if I can get a good answer to three basic questions:
1. What is the definition of a military victory in Iraq. In other words, when the extra troops have accomplished THIS, they can go home.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:15 pm2. Who is the enemy? They kept changing that up when I was in Iaq and they still do. Our extra troops need to know who to kill. Sunnis? Shiites? Kurds? Everybody?
3. Why is adding more troops going to help now, when it has caused more problems before? We have proven this. We doubled the number of troops in certain hot spots, and they got even worse.
chimpeach, Joes logjam does remind me of a Crusader, Crusader Rabbit.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:17 pmMerry Christmas Joe! Enjoy the new year, as the Democratic congress begins to restore some sanity, checks and balance to this government.
chimpeach You have fallen victim to the left wing rhetoric that has been disseminated throughout the media for the past few years. It seems that you have forgotten that it was the terrorist that attacked this country in an act unprecedented in the history of this country Pearl Harbor does not even compare. They flew planes into the world trade towers and killed thousands in an attempt that they honestly believed would cripple out country. They did not do this because GW was in office either. War was declared on our country years before this by the same group of people and they were not taken seriously by the Clinton administration. With connections between a terrorist group who not only had declared war against our country and out way of life. And a dictator who was known to be in possession of weapons of mass destruction there was not a choice here Iraq had to be done NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. For you to sit back after the fact and try to warp the truth and then actively work to undermine efforts in the war against an oppressor that assaulted us is treason. The problem is the masses of people have been lulled into a set of false beliefs by the likes of propaganda machines like think.org
December 19th, 2006 at 3:19 pmEver since effectively disemboweling former Army Chief General Eric Shinseki for his January 2003 statement that the occupation of Iraq would require “several hundred thousand soldiers,” President Bush has laughably claimed he would look to his general to request more boots on the ground. In January 2006, Bush repeated that “I’m going to continue to rely upon those commanders, such as General Casey…his recommendations will determine the number of troops we have on the ground in Iraq.” By October, the President was still singing from the same hymnal, proclaiming “if the generals tell me they need more troops, I’ll send them.”
For the details, see:
December 19th, 2006 at 3:21 pm“Iraq and the 7 Habits of Highly Defective Presidents.”
And the bonus question: Would you consider a war against good and evil a “Holy War?â€
Comment by Spudge_Boy — December 19, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 3:22 pmAccording to Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. we are at war against Islam. This is probably my favorite right-wing talking point as it requires no rebuttal. They say we are at war with an entire religion, while in a country funded on religious freedom, and I don’t have to respond with anything. They look stupid enough as is.
69. Joeslogic (yes it is your logic). The call for impeachment will only grow. This administration can’t hide all of their blunders. GW flips flops more than pancakes at IHOP.
Congress has already heard from me and they will continue to hear from the American public.
Keep up your Swan Song because it helps in fine tuning the arguments for impeachment and imprisonment.
The most Patriotic thing to do is to speak out against your government when it’s proven to be unconstitutional.
joe’s logic is not only faulty, it’s missguided, short-sided, myopic, partisan and not based on anything other than what you’ve been told.
An opinion without fact is just that, an opinion. Just like Rush Limbaugh has opinions, no facts but he loves to tell us his opinion.
joe likes rush.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:26 pmAt 40 I would go back if they would take me. As for the soldiers in the military well they are making their enlistment quotas. Do you honestly believe that soldiers enlisting are against the idea of fighting in the war against terror?
I’m sure there are some planted by left extremist to be used as a tool for their use against the war effort but those get what they deserve they know what they are getting into. And I was in the first war once a Marine always a Marine in my case.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:26 pmFirst of all “yeah right on your Pearl Harbor comparison.”
Then how come we didn’t invade Saudi Arabia, since most of the terrorist that attacked us on 9/11 were Saudi.
And with the help of their friend George W Bush and you, they are accomplishing that goal.
Wrong. Ever heard of Able Danger?
Not sure that is a whole sentence or thought.
THERE WERE NO WMDS RETARD.
Nice try tying Saddam to 9/11 BUT IT ISN’T TRUE.
Propaganda. Hmmmmmmm. Let’s see who said.
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
That was George W Bush.
And where can we find this think.org?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#88: Joeslogic: you have fallen victim to the right-wing rhetoric that Bush is somehow a competent leader. He has failed to execute the war in Iraq and now, after falling flat on his face time and time again, he is asking to send in more troops. Unlike what you are claiming, most people on the Democratic side suggested we send in more troops FROM THE START so that we’d be able to provide security and stability. But, “The Decider” knew better and Iraq is now a quagmire and in the midst of a civil war. Bush is now asking for the equivalent of ordering more lifeboats to the Titanic . . . when the ship is sinking and three days out of port.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:29 pmJesus Christ, Joe
December 19th, 2006 at 3:32 pmCrusaders have been in Iraq / Middle East for 1,500 years killing people for religion.
Don’t you get it?
This is a freak’n playground war, with the ‘My God is better than your God’ mantra played out for centuries.
Bone up on some history. Look at the facts.
This isn’t about patriotism, it’s about religious fanatics on both sides.
And who wins? The DEVIL!
Why does Joe support Satan? Where’s the logic?
Joe?
It seems that you have forgotten that it was the terrorist that attacked this country in an act unprecedented in the history of this country — Comment by joeslogic.
Joe: why would you bring this up? It happened on Bush’S watch, after he had been overtly warned of an impending Al Qaeda attack. And, upon hearing the news that the United States was under attack, PROCEEDED TO CONTINUE TO READ TO SCHOOLCHILDREN for several minutes. Bush cannot lead.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:32 pmChris,
A secular country (America) is at war with a religion (Islam) in what was a secular country (Iraq), which has lead to a government that is based on Shira (Islamic) law.
For peopl like joesilogic, this makes sense. To me it is absurd.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:33 pmComment by joeslogic — December 19, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush has said so three different times. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi. You’ll notice that we never have attacked Saudi. Hussein had no connections to Al-Qaeda. Your own republican congress has stated this several times. Both the House and Senate intelligence committees have said there was no link between Saddam and Bin Laden. YOU are the only one warping the truth here. By the way, do you personally think the Shiites or the Sunnis should be in power? And don’t try to say they should share, because we all know that isn’t going to happen. I served in Kuwait in 2000, and I personally thought Clinton’s containment policy was a good one. We had troops stationed all over the middle east and we were able to be rather effective. We weren’t all bogged down in one gigantic quagmire.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:33 pm1. What is the definition of a military victory in Iraq. In other words, when the extra troops have accomplished THIS, they can go home.
First of all Military victory in Iraq has already been achieved. “Mission Accomplished”
As for establishing a stabile democracy in Iraq. That is party of the much larger picture and it’s boundaries go beyond Iraq we are talking about the larger war against terror now. Defeating Iraq was just a battle. In that sense the answer is no different than what the administration has been saying all along once the Iraqi government can handle it on their own. It seems that the left’s end game is to see to it that this does not happen so that they can use it as a tool of propaganda for the next one hundred years.
You seem to have a level headed sense of logic at least in the questions you pose Chris. Consider what I am saying and join the effort. Weather you like it or not if we pull out to soon and the left gets the chaos they are hoping for. Appeasement will not protect us against unprovoked attack. Appeasement simply begets more attacks remember were appeasing when we were attacked in New York and have not been attacked since we took the war to them rather than let them take the war to us.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:36 pmJoeslogic… You will hear this from several here that actually pay attention to the world, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You are an incredibly stupid person my man. Sadam and Osama were enemies, not co-conspirators. They didn’t even share the same religion. In your tiny little mind, they are linked because they don’t blow Jesus.
Christian extremists were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. By your twisted logic we should burn the churches and shoot the survivors.
Wipe your chin buddy, and throw away your God glasses.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:37 pmamerica, get ready for “the draft”, send your children to canada, do anything but let them be slaughtered in iraq.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:38 pmdo as bush says, not as he does.
Isn’t the age limit 42 now?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:41 pmSee, Joe can go!
Joeslogic, there are/were no WMD.Period.All the quotes you cited are based on opportunism, politicians willing to back their interests and agendas, lying to the american people based on a false and wrong supposition.They all spoke ignorant/dishonest words.All of them who claimed WMD existed were acting irresponsibly.Time tells no lies.There is no link to Alqaeda, there is no link to WMD and there is no threat in Irak.
You and your warmongering instructors have to face the truth.Mission impossible?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:41 pmYou are making an excuse. You see, they raise the age to 42. You are free to go back anytime within the next two years, but you will put it off.
No they aren’t.
I honestly believe that anybody that is signing up for the military right now has no other choice or they are 28%ers like you.
I personally know two other people that have joined up. I tried my damnedest to talk them out of it, BUT THEY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE.
Another of your crazy sentences, but I figured this one out.
Anybody that doesn’t know what they are getting into shouldn’t sign up. And it is nice to see that you will attack somebody that has signed up for the military based on their politically leaning.
I was in Operation Desert Storm. I think the first war was between David and Goliaths tribes.
Go Army!
December 19th, 2006 at 3:42 pmOK, Joe, assuming we agree with you, (and we are as batshit insane as you seem to be)
December 19th, 2006 at 3:42 pmWhich soveriegn Islamic extremist nation should we nuke first?
Oh, and Joe, since the vast majority of the Iraqi public wants us to get out now, why do you hate Iraqi democracy so much?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:45 pmWrong, anthrax letters sent to the Democratic leaders was a terrrorist attack. I know you people love to say that we haven’t had a terrorist attack since 9/11, but it isn’t true and is more propaganda. I know you like using that word a lot, let’s see if you can admit the truth. I like that word a lot.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:46 pmYou see Chris your whole argument starts to collapse like a house of cards when you acknowledge the fact that we as a country were threatened both by Al Qaeda as well as from the Iraqi government. That mere fact regardless of the existence of a connection shows the potential for disaster. Then if you admit that there were connections the whole house of cards falls like the big bad wolf just stepped in and blew it all away. One again I beseech you to join in the effort of the war against terror not in the effort against the war on terror.
The reason that the left has gone so far out of its was to obstruct the idea that there was a connection is that they know how this is played out like a chess game and saw in the beginning that this is the one straw that takes down their whole argument. It is all about politics here hardball politics with high stakes. Once again the left is not going to let the truth stand in their way.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#88 joeslogic
chimpeach You have fallen victim to the left wing rhetoric that has been disseminated throughout the media for the past few years. It seems that you have forgotten that it was the terrorist that attacked this country in an act unprecedented in the history of this country Pearl Harbor does not even compare.
Nope. I still remember it. Nineteen terrorists, right? And all of them were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt. No Iraqis. No connection to Iraq. We even got Bush to admit it, and I think Cheney might have mumbled it once or twice too, that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. So what is it you’re babbling about?
I think what you’re forgetting is that we went after the terrorists in Afghanistan and then suddenly started pulling troops out of there and decided to invade Iraq. Remember, no connection between Iraq and 9/11. In fact, there’s a whole lot of stuff you’re forgetting: warnings from the Clinton administration to Bush that were ignored, Cheney’s counter-terrorism panel that was chosen in February 2001 but never met, the PDB that warned about bin Laden “determined to attack in U.S.” and was ignored, and so on. You need to go back and refresh your memory. All this stuff has been discussed ad nauseum and all of your points have been refuted and put to rest a long time ago. There really are a lot of things that we could be discussing instead of going back and rehashing all the arguments you’ve lost over the past five years.
Turn off Rush. Go find yourself a good strong dose of reality. You’ll feel better for it.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:48 pmComment by joeslogic — December 19, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Artillerymen do not write tax code. Tank gunners do not discuss geo-political strategy. The military is there for the purpose of a military victory, which has already been achieved. Yes, there is still much to do for Iraq, but not with troops. They have done their part, and it is time for them to come home. Increasing the number of troops, increases the problem. When Bush took office, according to DOD, there were more than 20K Al-Qaeda terrorists. Now there are more than 50k. Their main source of finance and backing is Saudi. It NEVER was Iraq. The military part of this war is over, and has been for three years. We stay there only because Bush has no plan, no strategy, no idea what to do. So he waits, and lets the next guy take the blame.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:49 pmYes, fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here. We have heard it a million times. That only counts if you only consider the Muslims terrorists. At which point, you are fighting a Holy War. I noticed you didn’t answer my simple questions.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:49 pmHe never said that we were threatened by al Qaeda or Iraq. you are just making shEt up now. Great debating skills.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:50 pmWhy would anybody admit to something that is just not true?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:53 pmAppeasement simply begets more attacks remember were appeasing when we were attacked in New York and have not been attacked since we took the war to them rather than let them take the war to us.
Comment by joeslogic — December 19, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
A couple of points you might want to think about Assclown:
1. Americans are attacked every 15 minutes in Iraq.
2. Taking the war to them has resulted in more American death than when they took the war to us.
3. We are not taking the war to the people that took the war to us.
4. We have been attacked… if Richard “the Shoe Bomber†Reid would have brought a lighter instead of matches a whole plane load of Americans would have been killed.
5. Our intelligence agencies all agree that our actions in Iraq is making us less safe NOT MORE SAFE!!!
6. You are a dumbass!!!
December 19th, 2006 at 3:54 pmSober judgements stop at the gate of the White House.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:55 pmComment by joeslogic — December 19, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
Again Joe, It was your RIGHT-WING republican congress that said there was NO connection. NONE. Bush himself has said that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. There is no vast left-wing conspiracy. That is the kool-aid you are drinking. And trust me, Iraq was not a threat to us in any way. I was there for 18 months. They couldn’t have ever done anything to us. They were pathetic. I have to go now. Work is calling.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:55 pmTo much all at once from this orgy site of populist left wing slime. God it sure is starting to stink.
On WMDs and the pursuit there of just look at Joe Wilson he proved that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium. But if you keep saying it is not so for a lot of idiots that are to shallow to use their brain they actually start believing this.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:00 pmOK, joeslogic has to be a put on.
#117 did it for me. There’s no way that this guy is for real.
Ha, ha, joe.
You had us going there for a while.
Joe Wilson, (snicker) proving they were (giggle) trying to buy yellow cake (gaffaw)…
bwwwwahhahahahahaha!!!
Wow. Thanks for the laugh.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:04 pmBush is now simply ignoring staff just to do so based on the “I’m the President.” Daddy had Baker try to bail him out or at least sugarcoat it to preserve the Bush family legacy. W ignores it. JC’s are pushing back, he ignores it. Bush is doing everything he can to self-destruct rather than face the very real failure of his presidency. His people are trying to stop his descent, but he will not listen.
Cheney is still using his 1% doctrine like a gambling addict, he has no other option than to stick to the plan. In order to make those profits for his buddies, gotta stick with the plan. It’s a long-shot, but it just might work.
I think we’re looking at several states succeding in the future (oh 5 years) due to the debt incurred by the US. The US is insolvent and the Army is broke. War, is a racket, it uses public money for private financial gain under the color of honor and patriotism.
W is the best thing that ever happened to the Bush family, he will single-handedly destroy everything they’ve achieved (Legit and Illegit). Jeb and George P are out of politics in the future. If they do win anything, you’ll certainly know the votes are rigged.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:05 pm#117 joeslogic
On WMDs and the pursuit there of just look at Joe Wilson he proved that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium. But if you keep saying it is not so for a lot of idiots that are to shallow to use their brain they actually start believing this.
I’m sure that makes sense to you somehow, but spare us the convoluted explanation. At this point, if it’s possible that you’re still taking yourself seriously, I think you’re the only one. You’re just sounding goofy now.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:05 pmOn WMDs and the pursuit there of just look at Joe Wilson he proved that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium.
Comment by joeslogic — December 19, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
This pretty much says it all, folks. joeslogic didn’t get the memo, and has spent the past 18 months living in a cave. Probably barricaded himself in with his guns, an ample supply of K-rations, and the essential plastic mattre