Escalation begins.
By on Jan 21st, 2007 at 9:33 am
Escalation begins.
Despite overwhelming opposition among Americans, “more than 3,000 US troops have arrived in Baghdad, the first deployment of extra forces promised for the Iraqi capital by President Bush. The US military confirmed the troops’ arrival, as seven people were killed in Baghdad by two bombings.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Too bad the big chickenshit chickenhawks can’t lead the charge, walk point, and take the first bullets. I think Dubya and Cheney would have a different opinion of war with that experience. It is something missing from their resumes since they are both cowards who never served in combat.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:39 amMore Madness & Insanity Begins! This psychologically compromised Imperial President needs to be stopped before he totally destroys this country.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:39 amIvan, The Terrible – Henry VIII – Napoleon – Nero, The Fiddling Despot – George W. Bush – all in the same “hall of horrors” as individuals, leaders, and ultimate destroyers of the very country they purport to serve.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:40 amKurdish Iraqi soldiers are deserting to avoid the conflict in Baghdad
Kurdish soldiers from northern Iraq, who are mostly Sunnis but not Arabs, are deserting the army to avoid the civil war in Baghdad, a conflict they consider someone else’s problem.
The Iraqi army brigades being sent to the capital are filled with former members of a Kurdish militia, the peshmerga, and most of the soldiers remain loyal to the militia.
Much as Shiite militias have infiltrated the Iraqi security forces across Arab Iraq, the peshmerga fill the ranks of the Iraqi army in the Kurdish region in the north, poised to secure a semi-independent Kurdistan and seize oil-rich Kirkuk and parts of Mosul if Iraq falls apart. One thing they didn’t bank on, they said, was being sent into the “fire” of Baghdad.
“The soldiers don’t know the Arabic language, the Arab tradition, and they don’t have any experience fighting terror,” said Anwar Dolani, a former peshmerga commander who leads the brigade that’s being transferred to Baghdad from the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:41 amHow can anyone expect a draft dodger (Cheney – three times exempt) and Dubya (AWOL while in the Guard) to empathize with a situation (or have firsthand knowledge of due to experience) which is alien to them? Let’s draft Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rummy into this “escalation”, huh? At lease, the Bush Twins out to be out there in uniform serving the whims of their father – isn’t this called “fairness”?
January 21st, 2007 at 9:42 amSupport for Bush’s Handling of Iraq War Down to 24%
January 21st, 2007 at 9:42 amBanned Station Broadcasts Voice of Rebels in Iraq
January 21st, 2007 at 9:43 amThis despot needs to be “checked” by the Congress for these overreaching actions of his. It’s time that we, the people, take back the control of this country and that means that the ONLY option we are left with, in the face of such overt madness, is IMPEACHMENT.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:44 amAyatollah Snubs President, Offers Nuclear Deal
January 21st, 2007 at 9:44 amThe new word for “escalation” is “killing of our own” as that’s clearly what will transpire….we’re “offering our own up in sacrifice” in order for a twisted emperor to save face! This is reprehensible, amoral, and demented. When will the people say “enough”?
January 21st, 2007 at 9:45 amIraqi President Urges US to Talk to Syria and Iran
You know George bush NOT even talking looks so bad for Americans how can they as a nation justify a President that has his head so far up his backside he cannot talk, AS SADDAM WOULD SAY BUSH HAS NOT REACHED MANHOOD YET
January 21st, 2007 at 9:46 am24%?? 24% ?? Surely this number is overstated and/or biased by our sycophantic mainstream media before it reaches public consumption – that’s certain! Let’s send these 24% into the line of fire in Iraq and see how they like it then.
When a President’s actions reach 24% support and he still overrules the wishes of the congress and the people he serves, it’s clear that we either need to “put up or shut up” and declare ourselves an imperialistic dictatorship….and certainly not a democracy or IMPEACH he who so flagrantly overlooks the will and the heart of the people whom he serves and who pay his weekly paycheck!
It’s time to say: Mr. Bush, you’re fired! Now STFU!
January 21st, 2007 at 9:48 amChina: Satellite Strike Intended to Promote Star Wars Ban
and george bush takes this sign that we need a start wars program more than ever – SPIN – waste of money completely you could save millions of american citizens lifes in hospital with the same money
January 21st, 2007 at 9:49 am#11 The problem is that most sociopaths will no compromise or desire to see the other side of issues…ergo…the unwillingness to diplomatically (if it were even possible in such an alcohol/drug addled brain) discuss the issues at hand.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:49 amWith each passing day and overt action in direct contrast to the will of the people, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that it’s time for Bush to go. The remnants of our democracy willl not endure another two years of mismanagement and corruption.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:51 am#14 what money?? Surely you jest as this country is in a financial hole it may never crawl out of! I guess it might be the money we taxpayers pay for our “representation” in this joke of a democracy we now have? Surely another Boston Tea Party is in short order?
January 21st, 2007 at 9:52 amIt seems that cutting the purse strings is the only way to stop this corrupt regime.
24%?? 24% ??
look at antiwar.com Home page 24%
I cannot give you direct link as link goes to msnbc and these link dont work in think progress they must be edited to refude these URLs
January 21st, 2007 at 9:53 amveritas. It is understandable to disagree with Bush. He is making difficult decisions during a difficult time. Your call for impeachment is an overreach. Bush is charged with protecting and defending the U.S. We were attacked on 9/11, and the actions that many here protest the loudest are, I believe, attempts by Bush to defend this country from future attacks. If he chose to not take the actions he has, and the country was attacked, he would be charged with neglect. It is possible that Bush’s plans may fail, but it is my belief that his motives are in the best interest of this country. There is obviously precedent for impeachment. President Andrew Johnson was impeached after the civil war. (I believe he came within one vote of being deposed). Years after his presidency, he was elected to the Senate from Tennessee, were he was applauded on the Senate floor, as people has realized his views on reconstruction were corrected, although they were very unpopular during his presidency. Also, as time goes on, you find less and less people that think Clinton’s impeachment was a wise idea. In much the same way, I believe that over time, most will understand that Bush’s motives for his decisions are good and not criminal. When you are confronted with war dead daily that at times seem senseless, it is easy to believe that those making the decisions should be replaced. But if it were that simple and obvious a decision, ask yourself, why does the newly elected Democratic congress drag its feet on withdrawl. It is not easy. And there are consequences for both continuing the war and also for withdrawing the troops. Respectfully.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:10 am“But second, last summer the Bush administration came out with a new policy asserting that the US regarded space as important a dimension for the nation’s security as air or sea power,” it added.
“It may have been no coincidence that, within weeks, China ruffled American feathers by using a ground-based laser to illuminate a US satellite — and highlight its own reach into space,” it said.
The United States, whose spy agencies claimed China destroyed the ageing weather satellite on January 11, and its Asian allies have expressed misgivings.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:21 amWhy aren’t the Bush Twins leading this mis-escalation?
January 21st, 2007 at 10:23 amWe were attacked on 9/11, and the actions that many here protest the loudest are, I believe, attempts by Bush to defend this country from future attacks.
Hey paul,
We attacked ourselves through false flag terrorism. (See : Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin). How deluded can you be?
January 21st, 2007 at 10:26 amMeanwhile,
January 21st, 2007 at 10:26 amCarl Levin and Joseph Biden are this week’s FOX DEMOCRATS.
paul…
You are nuts!
Nearly everyone get it now…but not you.
Iraq had no WMD.
We were not greeted as Liberators.
Brownie didn’t do a heckeva job.
The president DIDN’T get the warrants he kept telling us he was getting for wiretaps.
Bush daily violates the Constitution that he has sworn to preserve, protect and defend. He sends our sons and daughters to die fighting in a war of his own creation. He lies and lies and lies.
But you still believe in him. Sad.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:33 amI guess the decider can’t get past, “Bring them on.”
Republican bumper sticker. Take your profit and shup up!
January 21st, 2007 at 10:36 amPaul,
January 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amWhat do paid, neocon trolls do with all the money?
I think they want you to pay it back as a contribution to the Rupuke party!! LOL
Responses to #18:
“Bush is charged with protecting and defending the U.S.”
I hate to sound like a broken record, but Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and 2004 also clearly looked rigged.
“We were attacked on 9/11, and the actions that many here protest the loudest are, I believe, attempts by Bush to defend this country from future attacks.”
No one from Iraq did not attack us.
“It is possible that Bush’s plans may fail, but it is my belief that his motives are in the best interest of this country.”
“POSSIBLE”? We’ve been in this war for 4 years, and nothing has changed for the better. You could argue they held elections and formed what is only kind-of a government, but how has that been working out?
Also, as time goes on, you find less and less people that think Clinton’s impeachment was a wise idea. In much the same way, I believe that over time, most will understand that Bush’s motives
You love your talking points. Clinton was impeached for having sex, and then lying about it. We want Bush impeached for lying, and then organizing the situation we have now that has killed more American soldiers than civilian who died on 9/11, and killed hundreds more Iraqi civilians, and injuring thousands more Americans and Iraqi civilians. Can you see the difference?
why does the newly elected Democratic congress drag its feet on withdrawl.
Because Democrats never had a spine. And they realize there is still a vast portion of the US population which are complete idiots, and won’t vote for them in 2008 if they come out looking like they are against the troops – which Republicans have been doing to them for a while now. Dems need to learn correct responses to the BS allegations from Republican talking heads.
And there are consequences for both continuing the war and also for withdrawing the troops.
Please list the consequences for both.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:39 amWhile US soldiers and Iraqis are killed daily,the MSM news all focused on Hillary/Obama contest, although we are still 2 years from knowing who is going to be the winner…It makes anybody sick to keep hearing about how Hillary can bring in the cash faster than others..and how McCain got a lot of millions already in his purse..Do we know where this money coming from? From coporations,and other special interests groups who are packaging these candidates that selling the same thing every 4 years presidential election campaign,and the average American left alone to fight inflation,health cost,school tuitions,interest rates,property taxes and many other costs. The average American also is asked to fight a war they planned,and the ones who are not fighting it,are asked to support it financially and others…yet we hear all day about how Hillary/McCain ,Obama as if this is the big news for America now..and how sickening to hear that Hillary can raise more millions than others,and how McCain got good backers with big figures…THIS ELECTION SYSTEM IS TELLING ALL PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE EXCLUDED ,UNLESS YOU GOT THE BIG DOLLARS TO BE IN IT.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:44 amDO SOMETHING:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
January 21st, 2007 at 10:45 amKurt. I’m an airline pilot that has 3,000 hours in the same planes the hijackers used on 9/11. It would have been easy (until 9/11) for a small group of motivated hijackers to get control of the airplane and, on a clear day, to find Manhattan and hit the Towers. More difficult to hit the Pentagon, but very, very doable. I have watched a couple of the productions on 9/11 conspiracies. They just are not credible. It would be impossible to silence the thousands of people it would take to pull it off. (when Silverstien says ‘pull it’ he was talking about pulling the emergency responders out of building 7). Also, if the Bush Admin could pull off 9/11, tell me why they can’t figure out a way to plant WMDs in the desert to justify the invasion. Don’t take my word for it, ask yourself why thousands in the press avoid a story that would make Woodward green with envy. It is just not credible. If it were, it wouldn’t be a conspiracy theory 6 years later.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:45 amAlso, if the Bush Admin could pull off 9/11, tell me why they can’t figure out a way to plant WMDs in the desert to justify the invasion.
Comment by paul — January 21, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Honestly, I’m surprised they didn’t try this… It’s not beneath them to fabricate evidence, as we saw with the invasion of Iraq in the first place.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:50 amPublicus. You get the MVP for your monday morning quarterbacking skills. Everyone thought Iraq has WMDs before we invaded. Bush, Clinton, Kerry, almost everyone in Congress (R) and (D),the U.K, the U.N., etc. The U.N. wanted Saddam to give it access, but was unwilling to take any action. The U.S. (at that time) was very sensitive to the propect of another terror attack in light of 9/11. Under that scenerio, Bush acted to answer his charge to defend the country.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:52 amIt would have been easy (until 9/11) for a small group of motivated hijackers to get control of the airplane
Really? You’d just sit and wonder “why am I being killed?”
C’mon, unless all pilots are big, fat PUSSIES, at least ONE plane should have been able to fend off attackers with little razor blades, for sh*ts sake!
I know several commercial pilots who’ve said you just can’t take over a cockpit THAT easily.
And as for flying huge commercial planes into buildings, I’ve been in a flight simulator and IT’S IS HARD AS HELL to aim the beasts, much less fly them with authority.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:53 ampaul –
So, now that you KNOW BETTER that Saddam didn’t have WMD, you’re happy to send our sons and daughter to die over there?
And, just because the Dems and others were cowardly about standing up to the president…or they believed his lies when he withheld the truth…doesn’t mean we all believed that BS. I certainly didn’t. And I don’t think it took any genius to figure out that the whole thing was lying BS…Anyone older than 12 had heard it all before repeatedly by heartless war mongers.
Oh, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11…so, if there’s another terrorist attack, you can thank Bush & Company for recruiting a whole bunch of formerly nonexistent terrorists to come after us…
January 21st, 2007 at 10:56 amEveryone thought Iraq has WMDs before we invaded. Bush, Clinton, Kerry, almost everyone in Congress (R) and (D),the U.K, the U.N., etc.
Comment by paul — January 21, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Based on faulty evidence. It’s been proven that the Bush Regime misled those who supported him.
I’ll give you the fear factor – because I know how cowards are motivated by it (and Bush is a coward) – but he still violated international law with a pre-emptive strike.
Saddam’s military was no match for ours. We could have bulied him a bit more to have been more certain about what he did and did not have. Too many people have died for a very grave mistake – which should be something that is considered in the first place.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:56 amC’mon, unless all pilots are big, fat PUSSIES, at least ONE plane should have been able to fend off attackers with little razor blades, for sh*ts sake!
Comment by DieNowForPeace — January 21, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Flight 93. I think we have to consider the element of surprise. It’s a pretty big factor.
I used to date a Navy pilot. He let me fly his flight simulator. I agree it was hard to manuever as someone who had never done it. But someone with hours of training could do it. My ex-boyfriend did. He could land that thing on an aircraft carrier during a storm in the dark. Was amazing.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:02 am#29 -Paul..since you said you claim you are a pilot,how can you explain that Mohammad Atta passport was found next day in a pristine condition,in the midst of the mountain of rubble of the two towers,but the ‘black Box’ was not found,and not even one piece of the aircraft itself?
January 21st, 2007 at 11:03 amDieNowForPeace. I image that you are sitting in front of a computer. Image in the next 5 seconds that a group of three or four young men with box cutters barge though a door behind you and slit your throat with a box cutter. (oh, by the way, your strapped into an immovable chair). Would that make you a big, fat pussy? The pilots didn’t die because they were afraid, they were caught of guard. Much like this country was caught off guard by 9/11. The actions you oppose from this administration, are in large part, a reaction to a changing world; so we won’t be caught off guard again.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:18 amunbelievable.
Honestly, I’m surprised they didn’t try this… It’s not beneath them to fabricate evidence, as we saw with the invasion of Iraq in the first place.
I have read many of your posts. You seem very intelligent. Think about what you are saying. Planting WMDs in the desert would be very easy compared to engineering a domestically generated 9/11. The reason the Bush Admin didn’t plant WMD, is, it is not as corrupt, dishonest and evil as many here would like to believe.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am37 -Aharon..so if you kill 10 million Moslems or Arabs will be even more bargain for a guy with your mentality. Why is it killing millions of Moslems to you is a ‘Bargain’…but killing Jews is a’Holocaust’….?!!! You seem to be happy about the math of seeing 655,000 Iraqis die,simply because they are Moslems,according to what you wrote and applying your death rations. You need help for your lust of killing people.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:25 am#29 -Paul..since you said you claim you are a pilot,how can you explain that Mohammad Atta passport was found next day in a pristine condition,in the midst of the mountain of rubble of the two towers,but the ‘black Box’ was not found,and not even one piece of the aircraft itself?
Comment by tarazan
There were no aircraft, all that we saw on TV was an illusion. I can tell you this because I am a magician and I know about illusons and misdirection.
Also, All those people that saw it were paid actors. The THOUSANDS of witnesses wew all extras in an elaborate production.
All the papers that littered the streets(that we saw on the “video”), were not there. Everything was vaporized by the state of the art pyro that was used to level the building.
Here is my only nagging question. If EXplosions blow things outward, and IMplosions are a controlled series of EXpolsions, then why , at the “Point of Impact” of the”Aircraft” does the frame-work of the buildings bend INWARD and not OUTWARD.
please note the HEAVY amount of sarcams in this post.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:33 amtarazan. When an airliner hits something, it is an explosion. I am sure you can find 100 things that seem to be inexpicable. You are looking at a tree, but can’t see the forest. 4 airliners rigged to fly by radio control and taken out of service. The thousands of people that track them (maintenance, dispatchers, concessionaires, crews, etc.) silent? Hundreds of passengers gone. Where did they go. Cell phone communications with the passengers before the planes crashed. How did that happen? Are the families lying? The reports of the hijackers training to fly. Fabricated? The shear amount of agency coordination to make the event happen and then to keep everyone quiet? Thousands of people. (They can’t keep the fact that Armitage outed Plame under wraps). All this from an administration that is considered inept by most here. And they can’t send a 3 ship of C17s to the desert loaded with WMDs and a crew to make it look authentic (with argueably the highest stakes for the Administrations credibility). You can ask a hundred questions about details that don’t make sense to you, or you can ask yourself: “How could this administration pull something like this off?” There are a lot of issues to discuss about this administration and its policies, but trying to further this conspiracy only jeopardizes your own credibility.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:49 amPublicus. You get the MVP for your monday morning quarterbacking skills. Everyone thought Iraq has WMDs before we invaded. Bush, Clinton, Kerry, almost everyone in Congress (R) and (D),the U.K, the U.N., etc. The U.N. wanted Saddam to give it access, but was unwilling to take any action. The U.S. (at that time) was very sensitive to the propect of another terror attack in light of 9/11. Under that scenerio, Bush acted to answer his charge to defend the country.
Comment by paul — January 21, 2007 @ 10:52 am
-The Congress based their rhetoric on fraudulent intelligence provided by the Bush administration. The UK believed the case was stretched. The U.N. position was that they did not know whether or not Saddam had any banned weapons and that’s why they wanted weapons inspectors in Iraq.
-The Neocons have wanted to go to Baghdad since Desert Storm. 9/11 was used as an excuse for a predetermined decision.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:54 amIraq Totals
3052 US Soldiers Killed
253 coalition Soldiers Killed
727 Civillian Contractors Killed
____
3932 Total killed ( The real Total)
22,834 American Soldier wounded BIG TIME
655,000 Iraqi Mostly Civilians killed
356,000 Iraqis Injured BIG TIME
0 WMD found
0 links to Al Queda
0 Threat to USA
1 Maniac Loose Canon President
January 21st, 2007 at 11:55 am85% of worlds population Hate Americans
I have read many of your posts. You seem very intelligent. Think about what you are saying. Planting WMDs in the desert would be very easy compared to engineering a domestically generated 9/11. The reason the Bush Admin didn’t plant WMD, is, it is not as corrupt, dishonest and evil as many here would like to believe.
Comment by paul — January 21, 2007 @ 11:22 am
I think they believed their delusion that they would be greeted as liberators and democracy would take hold in Iraq creating a domino effect in the Middle East. No one in the administration really cared that there was no WMDs because the “greeted as liberators†scenario would overshadow it. It was basically an “ends justify the means†mentality.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:05 pmThe amount of troops Bushit wants to send to Iraq is only replacement for those killed and maimed. He will need a lot more replacement before his plan is carried out.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pmI have read many of your posts. You seem very intelligent.
Thanks.
Think about what you are saying. Planting WMDs in the desert would be very easy compared to engineering a domestically generated 9/11.
I am opposed to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. It doesn’t make me very popular with some of my fellow Progressives. I actually agree with your posts on it. It isn’t a realistic alternative to the 9/11 Official Version, which has issues of its own.
However, I think Bush has a problem with not being able to admit that he is wrong. He does think his god guides him, therefore he is infallable. I agree with you that it wouldn’t be that hard to have faked this – since we were there. And I am surprised that someone in his Adminstration didn’t try. I’m thinking it’s because they were too arrogant to think they would need to try. It never crossed there minds to consider it. They thought they had a mandate… And that it would be enough when the WMDs didn’t show up.
The reason the Bush Admin didn’t plant WMD, is, it is not as corrupt, dishonest and evil as many here would like to believe.
Comment by paul — January 21, 2007 @ 11:22 am
I very rarely use the word evil, because in our Christian-Judeo society it means a conscious outside force that I do not believe exists.
That said – Dick Cheney is an evil person. Bush, just desperate to be popular, and therefore guilty by association. Everything done over the last 6 years has proven that to me. So much so that I switched teams and am now quite liberal – though I try to keep an open mind and not just jump on any liberal bandwagon because it is liberal.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pmIt was basically an “ends justify the means†mentality.
Comment by Nat — January 21, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
I agree. They didn’t consider any alternatives. And it is currently haunting them.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pmHaving read quite a few of Paul’s denial-laden comments, I think that Paul will just have to work it out for himself some day. Maybe he never will. There are still people who argue that we “won” the Vietnam war, or could have won it if we allowed the military to rampage even more than it did. So maybe Paul will never get it.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:45 pmObviously Paul isn’t a stupid person or a troll. Obviously Paul thinks Bush is making decisions and taking actions on the level. And therein lies Paul’s problem: he, like many well-meaning Bush supporters, is simply a terrible judge of character.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm“difficult decisions during a difficult time.” – paul
back here with that bullshite again…
January 21st, 2007 at 1:04 pmyou must be really thrilled to have so much attention also…
pathetic…
you must be really thrilled to have so much attention also…
pathetic…
Comment by katy — January 21, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Do you have some mental defect that prevents you from leaving me alone? Do you?
You are seriously insane.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:10 pmwow, Unbe, Post #51 seems to have NOTHING to do with you. Yet you get so defensive.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:16 pmwow, Unbe, Post #51 seems to have NOTHING to do with you. Yet you get so defensive.
Comment by hacker bob
Yeah, I don’t get that. Katy was responding to paul.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:22 pmThe reason the Bush Admin didn’t plant WMD, is, it is not as corrupt, dishonest and evil as many here would like to believe.
Comment by paul — January 21, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Nat’s answer, presently #45, is a good one, and I think there is some truth to it. But I also think they probably believed that sooner or later they would find at least something in the way of WMDs hidden somewhere. Just one small cache of usable WMDs would be plenty for them to run with. So they sent out teams to find these WMDs without bothering to rig the outcome. If they knew in advance that they would find absolutely NOTHING, then you can be they would have rigged the outcome. But it reached a point where it was too late to effectively do that. Just a theory. But I think Nat is mostly right.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:22 pmAnd when Pelosi accused Bush of sending troops into Iraq ahead of Congress’ resolution because he knows the Dems would not take $$ from the troops already on the ground, the White House said such comments were “poisonous.”
Yeah, it’s poisonous to them that the way they play the game is common knowledge.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pmYeah, I don’t get what is going on with comment #52. Was it a mistake? Was it really posted by unbelievable?
January 21st, 2007 at 1:29 pmtodays guest troll is………
good morning Rache.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm#50 verbalkint
January 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pmI think I agree with you on Paul. He is simply one who bought the Karl Rove package of Bush, who is idealistic to the point of naivete when it comes to seeing the truth behind the curtain over there in the Oz White House. He can’t believe that our president and his henchmen would be so deliberately deceitful and misleading, and so he clings to his faith in them.
All the rebuttals to his arguments here are a form of education for him and in time, he may finally see behind that curtain that the “wizard” is a phony.
Except I don’t think the wizard of OZ was malicious – and therein lies the difference.
Marie,
Paul is not without hope. Far from it. So I don’t come down so hard on him. In fact, his turning point could come at any time now. It will take the right event to peel the veil from his eyes and see the truth about Bush, but there is no telling when that might happen.
I have been pretty hard on Paul in the past, maybe too hard. He seems to have come here to engage in genuine conversation, obviously to share his views, and perhaps to convince himself of what he believes.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pmMarie and Verbalkint. I will accept the possibility that I am simply a poor judge of character. If it is possible that I am wrong with my assessment of Bush, is it also possible that you could be wrong with your assessment of Bush? Or is that an affliction that could only befall Republicans?
January 21st, 2007 at 1:49 pmwow, Unbe, Post #51 seems to have NOTHING to do with you. Yet you get so defensive.
Comment by hacker bob — January 21, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Then you aren’t very bright. It was typical passive-agressive katy.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pmThen you aren’t very bright. It was typical passive-agressive katy.
Comment by unbelievable
That’s not fair. Katy is clearly responding to paul in her comment. That’s why a few of us are so confused.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pmHaving been raised in a family that identified themselves as republicans, I can understand how paul has been brainwashed. It probably started in early childhood. Repeating republican rhetoric over and over just shows how brainwashed you are. Think about it. But at some point you have to admit your mistake and start thinking for yourself.
Paul, it won’t be that bad to admit that you’ve been brainwashed for six years, or how many years you’ve been brainwashed, because our screen names are anonymous. It’s not like everyone knows who you really are.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pmPaul,
Bush has been a difficult read for me. I didn’t hate Bush at first. I just thought he was an imbecile, a spoiled brat taken care of his whole life by Mommy and Daddy, and a chronic failure at everything he tried. I assumed that his terrible decisions were in part driven by bad advice from
January 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pmCheney, Rumsfeld, and the Neocons, who are simply bad people. But by the last year of his first term, I began to see that Bush was a pathological liar, and completely lacked empathy, clears signs of a sociopath. His performance in this regard since then has only cemented this view. The public record is now filled with conclusive evidence of his imperial, dictatorial, profoundly anti-democracy beliefs, as well as the extraordinary thuggery employed by his political henchmen. Bush has secret prisons by his own admission, and he employs torture. He says he is always right, never really admits a mistake, and thinks that God appointed him President. This is sociopathic behavior. Having spent years gathering data on Bush’s behavior, I am very confident in my judgment about Bush.
Paul,
One more time, so it sinks in: Iraq, Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq posed no threat to its neighbors, let alone the US (a third-world country, under years of sanctions, with decrepit and crumbling infrastructure a threat to the mightiest, biggest military power in the world? Really?)
If Iraq Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, why do you bring it up in conjunction with Pres Bush “doing his best to defend the US”? Or is any country that might possess WMD a threat so big to the US that they must be invaded, pre-emptively?
January 21st, 2007 at 2:11 pm“difficult decisions during a difficult time.†– paul
back here with that bullshite again…
you must be really thrilled to have so much attention also…
pathetic…
Comment by katy — January 21, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
see #18, @ 10:10 am, second whole sentence…
he pulled the same talking point last night…
and i was hoping the “attention” remark would make those who were arguing with him aware of his intentions…
January 21st, 2007 at 2:14 pmjust sayin’…
#66 paul
January 21st, 2007 at 2:19 pm“is it also possible that you could be wrong with your assessment of Bush?”
My assessment of Bush, unfortunately, is based on observation of the man and his deeds. I did not like him before 2000, but I resigned myself to the fact that he was president, and would give him the benefit of the doubt, with my fingers crossed. All my fears about him have not only been realized, he has been far, far worse than I could have imagined.
I am probably old enough to be your mother, and while that is not a particular qualification, it does give me the benefit of having been around to see a lot of history and observe people’s character.
As verbalkint has so eloquently described in post #70,
I, too, am confident that my assessment of GWB is accurate.
Keep participating here.
Gregor Samsa. I appreciate your posts. Here’s the link as I see it. After 9/11, many believed the world had changed and required a change in response. (if you have read ‘The World is Flat’ by Friedman, that about sums up the greater degree of interconnectedness we have with the world that is increasing exponentially). After 9/11, most believed that it was not an isolated incident; we believed that there was more to come. At the same time, Hussein (who was suspected of having WMD, by the whole world, and hatred for U.S.) was feared to be capable of passing WMD (nuclear, biological, chemical) to terrorists that would deploy them in the U.S. Again, in a changed world, many believed the stakes were too high to wait to be attacked (tens of thousands dead in a major U.S. city); Bush chose pre-emption. Whether it was a good choice is obviously up to debate, but he made the choice during post 9/11 fear and knowing that his duty as President was to protect and defend the U.S. and it’s citizens. There is a link. I will listen to people all day that disagree with the judgement of it, but I just don’t see the evidence that Bush wanted Iraq for oil, profit, payback for his father, or just because he is evil or crazy. By the way, I am open to the idea that my mind could be changed on this. Respectfully though, I just haven’t been convinced yet.
January 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm(if you have read ‘The World is Flat’ by Friedman, that about sums up the greater degree of interconnectedness we have with the world that is increasing exponentially).
-Most people on this site disagree with Friedman’s opinion.
At the same time, Hussein (who was suspected of having WMD, by the whole world, and hatred for U.S.) was feared to be capable of passing WMD (nuclear, biological, chemical) to terrorists that would deploy them in the U.S.
-That’s why the inspectors were in there.
-Saddam had no weapons to pass and if he did, why would he pass them off instead of keeping them.
Again, in a changed world, many believed the stakes were too high to wait to be attacked (tens of thousands dead in a major U.S. city); Bush chose pre-emption.
-You’re being paranoid
-Starting a preemptive war is stupid because you might be preempting a threat that does not exist as with the case in Iraq.
Whether it was a good choice is obviously up to debate, but he made the choice during post 9/11 fear and knowing that his duty as President was to protect and defend the U.S. and it’s citizens. There is a link.
-Saddam had no weapons or a military and therefore he was not a threat to his neighbors let alone the U.S. The decision to invade Iraq was made before 9/11 and it was had nothing to do with America’s security.
There is a link. I will listen to people all day that disagree with the judgement of it, but I just don’t see the evidence that Bush wanted Iraq for oil, profit, payback for his father, or just because he is evil or crazy. By the way, I am open to the idea that my mind could be changed on this. Respectfully though, I just haven’t been convinced yet.
-If you haven’t been convinced yet, you’re a lost cause.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pmThen you aren’t very bright. It was typical passive-agressive katy.
Comment by unbelievable
Either that or you are so self-absorbed that you think everything is about you.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pmNat. You are one of the fortunate ones to have the foresight that Iraq had no WMD. (Most in the Congress, including most Democrats, did not have that foresight). Your foresight has also helped you remain fearless after 9/11, when most of the country was convinced and afraid that more attacks would follow. My point is that Bush made his decisions in that environment, not as a monday morning quarterback with all the information we have available today. Sincerely, if you have that kind of foresight, it should probably be you running for President. Most of the Democratic frontrunners today, agreed with Bush at the time.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pmNat. for clarification I am talking about Thomas Friedmann of the NY Times (who actually supports troop withdrawl). I not sure, but there isn’t really any content of his book that people disagree with. It just shows examples of how the world’s national borders are less defined when it comes to culture (ie internet, television) and commerce (trade agreements and also internet and air travel).
January 21st, 2007 at 4:09 pm24 US troops killed in Iraq in 24 hours yesterday. Their deaths are directly related to Bush’s so-called surge, really an escalation, in Iraq!
January 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pm76 Americans killed by guns in the US yesterday.
Bush’s fault too?
January 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pmNat. You are one of the fortunate ones to have the foresight that Iraq had no WMD. (Most in the Congress, including most Democrats, did not have that foresight). Your foresight has also helped you remain fearless after 9/11, when most of the country was convinced and afraid that more attacks would follow.
-Again, the decision to invade Iraq was made years before 9/11. The Neocons couldn’t convince Clinton to invade but they got their chance with the appointed of Bush as president.
-I did not know whether or not Saddam had weapons but I thought inspections were the best route. Even if Saddam did by chance have weapons, there is no way in hell he would have or could have used them against us.
-Why are you people such cowards anyway? If terrorists invade, beat their brains in.
Most of the Democratic frontrunners today, agreed with Bush at the time.
-Again, their rhetoric was based on fraudulent intelligence provided by the Bush administration.
Nat. for clarification I am talking about Thomas Friedmann of the NY Times (who actually supports troop withdrawl).
-I knew who you were talking about. Freidman was a cheerleader and advocator of this war of aggression up until recently; I have no respect for him.
I not sure, but there isn’t really any content of his book that people disagree with. It just shows examples of how the world’s national borders are less defined when it comes to culture (ie internet, television) and commerce (trade agreements and also internet and air travel).
He argues that we should just accept free trade and I don’t agree with that.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pm76 Americans killed by guns in the US yesterday.
Bush’s fault too?
Comment by hacker bob — January 21, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Yes.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pmNat, *86
How?
January 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pmNat, *86
How?
Comment by hacker bob — January 21, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
You posed a ridiculous question so I gave you a ridiculous answer.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:56 pmNat,
This is equally rediculous:
24 US troops killed in Iraq in 24 hours yesterday. Their deaths are directly related to Bush’s so-called surge, really an escalation, in Iraq!
Comment by Jay Randal
The ONLY way this would be true is if the soldiers killed had only been “in country” since the escalation began. Show me the DIRECT RESULT.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:06 pmNat. Fair enough about Friedman. But this:
-Why are you people such cowards anyway? If terrorists invade, beat their brains in.-
Is obviously the problem. Nuclear proliferation (regardless of who you want to blame) is a real problem. The world has developed to a point were it is not that difficult to build nuclear weapons, that are transportable. There is also a black market for these weapons (as admitted by the godfather of Pakistan’s nuclear program). Even if you are not serious about your comment, I believe many on the left believe the sentiment (maybe, because they don’t believe that jihadists attacked the world trade center). It has become very plausible that terrorists could get there hands on a nuke and transport it into the U.S. Waiting for that to happen, I guess is a strategy, if you don’t mind losing a million innocent in the process. Another strategy is to pre-emptively seek out the weapons or source of weapons to stop them before they get here. (U.S.) Taking into account, that it is very difficult, I would rather bank on that strategy, then wait for yours.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:11 pmComment by paul — January 21, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
I was completely serious. You people are cowards and very paranoid. It is plausible that any country will attack us. We cannot go to war because you’re paranoid.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pmwow, Unbe, Post #51 seems to have NOTHING to do with you. Yet you get so defensive.
Comment by hacker bob — January 21, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Then you aren’t very bright. It was typical passive-agressive katy.
Comment by unbelievable — January 21, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
“difficult decisions during a difficult time.†– paul
back here with that bullshite again…
you must be really thrilled to have so much attention also…
pathetic…
Comment by katy — January 21, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
see #18, @ 10:10 am, second whole sentence…
he pulled the same talking point last night…
and i was hoping the “attention†remark would make those who were arguing with him aware of his intentions…
just sayin’…
Comment by katy — January 21, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
what!?… no apology to hacker bob, aka robert ? …
i understand it’s beneath you to apologize to ME, the wrongly accused – and i don’t expect it as that would mean admitting you made a mistake – but robert, as a member of the armed services, deserves your utmost respect… don’t you think?
your narcissism is not healthy… or attractive…
January 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm.
Then you aren’t very bright. It was typical passive-agressive katy.
Comment by unbelievable
Either that or you are so self-absorbed that you think everything is about you.
Comment by hacker bob — January 21, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
hey! i resemble that remark! … you KNOW it wasn’t ME!
January 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pmKaty,
I expect nothing; therefore I shall not be disappointed.
I always remember my place. I am a lowly servant. An uneducated dolt that can only function in the military. I am beneath the teacher/architect and not worthy of her respect.
Oh, did I forget the /sarcasm>?
January 21st, 2007 at 6:10 pm#82 – hacker bob,
January 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pmThats 76 Americans died a violent death out of a population of 300 million. On the same day 24 Americans sufered a violent death from a pool of 140 thousand. which pool do your want to invest your life in? The difference in odds is about 1 in 2140.
katy. I recognized that your post was directed to me. I didn’t think it was that bad. But while we are throwing apologies around, I just wanted to let you know that if I said something to make you upset, that I have nothing but love for you baby. (not Bill v. Monica type love, but real love, the kind that friends share. ;)
January 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pmWaltTheMan. Were any of these wars worth fighting?
American Revolution
Civil War
WWI
WWII
Cold War
Vietnam
Gulf War
People die in wars, some wars are worth it. I believe that sometimes you may not know if a war was worth it or not until well after it is fought.
January 21st, 2007 at 7:12 pmI have nothing but love for you baby. (not Bill v. Monica type love, but real love, the kind that friends share. ;)
Comment by paul
Heh. :P
January 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pmPeople die in wars, some wars are worth it. I believe that sometimes you may not know if a war was worth it or not until well after it is fought.
Comment by paul
The difference is that we knew this war was wrong BEFORE we began to fight it, and so did the people taking us into the war.
January 21st, 2007 at 7:18 pmZooey, we can disagree about war and still agree on love. (:P)(q:)
January 21st, 2007 at 7:34 pm#95 – paul,
January 21st, 2007 at 7:41 pmSome wars can be avoided by simply not starting them. Others are unavoidable because you have been attacked or oppressed. Of your list, the following wars were justified:
American Revolution
WWI
WWII
The following were not:
Vietnam
Gulf War
The following are iffy:
Civil War
Cold War
You left many others out, but W’s war was and is totally self serving and unnecessary.
Zooey, we can disagree about war and still agree on love. (:P)(q:)
Comment by paul
As long as it’s between you and katy*, I’m good.
*Sorry katy, there was a bus going by…
January 21st, 2007 at 7:47 pmAt the same time, Hussein (who was suspected of having WMD, by the whole world, and hatred for U.S.) was feared to be capable of passing WMD (nuclear, biological, chemical) to terrorists that would deploy them in the U.S.
Comment by paul — January 21, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
In other words, come up with an unpleasant scenario, give a role in it to a person you don’t like, and voila! Instant Casus Belli!
See what you are doing here? There was no evidence that Hussein was involved in any plot against the US. According to you the invasion relied on the probability that Hussein might have possessed WMD and might have shared that technology with people who might have used it to harm the US.
Iraq was invaded -according to you- for what Hussein might have done. Is that why people must be sent to kill and die?
Again, in a changed world, many believed the stakes were too high to wait to be attacked (tens of thousands dead in a major U.S. city); Bush chose pre-emption.
Except it was said at the time that the “mushroom cloud” scenario was a huge stretch, that Hussein was anything but stupid to be involved in an attack to the US, and the Bush administration’s case for war was crumbling as they were building it (remember the “yellow cake” from Niger? The alumninium tubes?)
Pres Bush’s preemptive strike doctrine not only goes against international law, it also means no country is safe: Any government can be accused of maybe plotting against the US, perhaps wanting to pass sensitive information/technology to groups that could want to harm the US, etc. Those countries will be invaded with no more evidence than the accusation itself.
Whether it was a good choice is obviously up to debate,
It is not a debate anymore, Paul. Unless you think things are going “swimmingly” in Iraq.
A sound decision does not lead to a disastrous situation.
but he made the choice during post 9/11 fear and knowing that his duty as President was to protect and defend the U.S. and it’s citizens.
Again, if his duty includes invading countries that pose no threat, no country in the world is safe in this “post 9/11 world”.
That, in turn, should answer the question “Why do they hate us?”.
I just don’t see the evidence that Bush wanted Iraq for oil, profit, payback for his father, or just because he is evil or crazy.
I don’t think Pres Bush is evil or crazy; I refrain from using the word “evil” -it’s too simplistic, paints the opponent’s position as absurd and illogical, thus making them all but impossible to analyse and understand.
Regarding the reasons for the invasion, a lot is explained in the document “Rebuilding America’s Defences” by the PNAC. Among other things, it clearly states that “The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity.”
In other words, the US must keep the status quo -by force if necessary- if it is to remain a prosperous country.
As for the “payback for his father”, it is listed as one of the reasons for war in in the Iraq War Resolution of 2002
Respectfully though, I just haven’t been convinced yet.
I believe it is because you don’t want to. Plenty has been written and all the evidence is out there. You just have got to keep your eyes open.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:44 pm“they are both cowards who never served in combat”
I served in the military and support this war but never served in combat. Am I a coward?
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:02 ammichael. no.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 am“We’re cowards for not admitting it was a mistake and that we were fools for being sold this war”
I happen to support this war! I wished it could have started 30 years ago! Being sold this war? You obviously don’t understand the stakes. Thank GOD you leftists don’t control the military!
“All of these *elitist* and silly *progs* warned us this would happen.
”
What happened?
“Tell me, you aren’t a fat lazy *con* are you?”
Well I can tell you I’m not fat and I’m not lazy, but I am a PROUD AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE WHO SUPPORTS THIS WAR AND OUR TROOPS! And you traitors DON’T!
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 amI_am_mighty_aphrodite_and_a_zionist_fool
Judd?
Can you do something about this posters name and content?
This is what bugs me the most besides the content…
zionist_fool
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 amI happen to support this war!
But not enough to enlist.
Well I can tell you I’m not fat and I’m not lazy, but I am a PROUD AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE WHO SUPPORTS THIS WAR AND OUR TROOPS!
Talk is cheap, when others are dying in a war you won’t fight; and you show your patriotism by posting on TP. Pathetic.
Being sold this war? You obviously don’t understand the stakes. Thank GOD you leftists don’t control the military!
Says the chickenhawk who won’t risk his own skin to fight in the war he supports.
Go polish your Reagan statue.
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 amIn a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 am-George Orwell
#99, Barfly
To michaels credit, he did say he had served in the military. He may now be too old or not qualified to serve. We have no way of knowing.
WaltTheMan,
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:37 amOne exception to your list. I think the Gulf War was justified. And remember, that was not just Poppy’s war.