Video: Reid defends Iraq, ‘liar’ statements.
By on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Video: Reid defends Iraq, ‘liar’ statements.
In a CNN interview today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) defended calling the war in Iraq “lost.” Watch it:
[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/04/reidiraq422.320.240.flv]
Reid also defended some of his other controversial past statements:
“I do what I think is right, and I think this war is headed in the wrong direction,” Reid said. “And I’m going to speak out as often and as regularly as I can.”
Reid has been an outspoken critic of the president, calling him a loser and a liar in the past.
“I don’t back off that at all,” he said. “So if you say something that is untrue to me and in the right circumstances, I will call you a liar. I have no regret having called him a liar, because he lied.”
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
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
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
YEAH!!!!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pmGive ‘em hell, Harry!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmReid sez:
Well said, Reid….next, let’s look at the words ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmGive em Hell Harry!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmHarry doesn’t want to give the Islamists Hell, that is the problem with him and the other members of the surrender lobby.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmYeah! Yeah! Get in Shrub’s mfing grill, Harry. Say it every stinking day that we donate more blood and treasure towards this lost cause.
It’s taken the Irish nearly 1000 to inch towards peace. In Iraq all sides are armed to the teeth, have no democratic traditions or institutions, and there’s black gold @ stake. What makes us think we can pacify this civil war.
Pay no mind to the putanes in the MSM.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmLet’s not forget “criminal”.
This is SO refreshing! A Democrat with cojones (sp?)!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pmDon’t back down Harry. I’m sick of dems caving in to these bastards. They don’t have a leg to stand on because everything you said is true. They attack because that’s all they’ve got, and unfortunately, it works.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pmTell it like it is…
…that way there can be no misunderstanding…
…the DUHmerikkans need to hear…
…the plain, unvarnished TRUTH…
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pmThe majority of Americans agree with Senator Reid. Good to see a politician who represents the will of the country.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pmHe needs to criticize the media for regurgitating those lies constantly as if they were half the story.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmI’m glad he stands behind his “We’ve lost the war” in Iraq statement.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm‘He sticks with it’, yet he was afraid to say again “The war is lost”. All his statement has done has emboldened our enemies. Reid should resign his seat immediately
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmAbout time!
I wish some of our brave beltway journalists would learn how to call someone who lies a “liar.”
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm“The night before the 9/11 Commission’s report was released more than three years ago, I met with Lee Hamilton in the Capitol. He told me something that night that I will never forget. He said that there are a finite number of terrorists who must be killed or captured. Nothing we can do will rehabilitate or deter them.”
Well said, Sen. Reid.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pmDale,
I’m curious, why is it emboldening our enemies for Senator Reidd to say what is true?
The only thing he got wrong was not to clarify that the war was in fact won. Now it’s just a mindless occupation of a nation that wants us out of the way so that they can get on with the business of settling their sectarian crap.
Even you must agree, that our troops no longer have any business there. They won. They took down the government and military of Iraq. Now it’s time to come home.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:28 pmI’m glad he stands behind his “We’ve lost the war†in Iraq statement.
Comment by Alfred
Me too, since it’s true. Jake.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:28 pmI’m sure george will get pissed and head out for some “hard work” chopping down brush at the “ranch.”
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:28 pmIsn’t the “surrender lobby” the foyer/reception area for the neocons who surrendered truth in the run up to the attack on Iraq, surrendered the law in getting court approval for wiretapping, surrendered truth in reporting on Iraq by paying for propoganda, surrendered American leadership against torture, and other surrendering of America’s great ideals and values?
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 pmWhy does Reid hate our freedom, hate America, hate our troops, embolden our enemies, coddle Osama bin Laden, aid the terrorists, and bring comfort to the insurgents?
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm“Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 4:26 pm”
Correct, but all that Bush did was create 1000 times the number of terrorists we had before 9/11…..
I would rather try to deter what we had than create more!!!
I guess you could care less???
Just think of how many kids are now angry at the US and have vowed to revenge their parents/siblings deaths????
Way to go…..
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pmI am no Democrat because God knows there are enough problems with this good cop bad cop kind of democracy we practice but people like Reid may convert me into a Democrat yet.
Finally, someone in government who will call a spade, a spade.
Go Democrats!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 pmDid anybody see Bush on TV giving away information to our enemies? How emboldening! Now the terrists know where all of our troops are! How traitorous to the nation! Aiding and abetting the terrists by giving away vital strategic knowledge!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm#19 – PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Yeah, that’s it. It’s decorated with bits of the Constitution stuck to the walls with the blood of our troops.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm#15….. Exley
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pmYour finite number of terrorists 3 years ago, how do you think that number has changed?
Up?
Down?
When the “truth” becomes your enemy, it is both prudent and advisable to rethink your position. Words to ponder Dale (jake) and Exley.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm#21
I believe that is Reid’s point.
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=272810
Moreover, when you write, “I would rather try to deter what we had,” I gather what you mean by “deter” is kill and capture…On that we agree.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 pmHard to say, Raven….Given the number we have captured and killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and then adding the numbers that may have been inspired to join Islamic extremist groups by the war in Iraq, it is probably close to being a wash.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm*
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 pmGO GO HARRY! GIVE ‘EM HELL!
.
Republicans got the country into a huge mess and expect the country/world to just put up with it forever!
How many chances are they supposed to get?! In their minds, when WOULD it be okay to say, “Damn, maybe we should leave because this doesn’t seem to be working”? Are we supposed to stand by and watch the carnage indefinitely? Now THAT would make us “wusses”!!!!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm“I gather what you mean by “deter†is kill and capture…On that we agree.
Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 4:39 pm”
Perhaps you should consider going back to HIGH SCHOOL?????
Definitions of deter on the Web:
* try to prevent; show opposition to; “We should discourage this practice among our youth”
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm* dissuade: turn away from by persuasion; “Negative campaigning will only dissuade people”
So, Ex, how does it feel losing a war against peasants just like in Vietnam?
You, war mongers, wont ever understand that there are no just wars, only people fighting for freedom and people who want profits. You defend the latter, due to a very sophisticated propaganda that brings out the best chauvinism out of you, but you wont see a penny out of Iraq´s oil. Far from it, you are just an average guy who will pay more for your gas while your government rips you out of the few social programs you still have. You keep that line of reasoning, but dont be afraid when you see americans taking the streets to change their government.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 pmGive ‘em Hell Harry! Give ‘em hell!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm#31, So you diagree with Reid and Hamilton when they say “there are a finite number of terrorists who must be killed or captured” and “nothing we can do will rehabilitate or deter them”
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pmlet him know – let ‘em ALL know:
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm800.828.0498
866.340.2981
866.220.0044
BAWAAAA! I can’t access the video.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pmThere is no such thing as a “terrorist”, only murderers, victims, and observers (which come in three categories; apathetic, opposing, and ignorant).
That is the truth. The labels being bandied about are just for message manipulation purposes.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmI have no problem when folks like Reid exercise their right to free speech even when he decides to use that right to call our troops losers. The only issue I have is that anyone in his position of power should back up that type of nasty comment with a plan for victory. It is ashame that he is such a coward. To simply call our troops losers and then not provide any plan that he feels will work is acting like a coward. Even his own party should demand he apoligize or provide a plan. This was a very weak statement from a very weak man. It is easy to talk down on our troops and not give your opinion about a workable solution. I would also like to know if he cares at all about the future of the Iraqi people. Does he even care if they have a democracy or freedom? Does he care if Iraq becomes a terrorist state like Iran? I can only assume he doesn’t care since he provides no plan for these folks. Every American should be ashamed when the leader of the Senate comes out and calls our troops losers IMO.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmD FOR DEFEATISM: Another call for Harry Reid to step down, from Investor’s Business Daily:
In aiding and comforting the enemy in wartime, Reid has betrayed the office he holds, shamed the Nevadans he represents and made the Democratic Party he leads synonymous with surrender. There is one way he can repair the damage he’s done to the nation: step down.
I don’t see Democrats jumping onboard with outrage here the way Republicans did over Trent Lott’s racial statements. But I suppose I could be wrong.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pmLet all who would defend the incompetent head bushie, get out there and do it now. His incredible incompetence, has emboldened our enemies, and neglect of our seriously wounded soldiers , has demoralized our troops. He is all swagger, bluster, photo-op, and pr ploy. His defenders undermine this great country. The showdown is coming.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm“Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 4:45 pm”
Why do you Repubs have a READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM?????
I said:
“I would rather try to deter what we had than create more!!!”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/23/video-reid-defends-iraq-liar-statements/#comment-3764884
Now I don’t know how to spell it out any clearer for you!!!!
Read the words, they actually spell and say something!!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm“only people fighting for freedom”
Juan, Are you are still defending and celebrating those who blow up car bombs in crowded marketplaces in Iraq, killing innocent men, women, and children????
Self-defense is what the Iraqi insurgency is doing…
Comment by Juan C — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
So, according to Juan, not only are those who blow up marketplaces and mosques engaging in “self-defense,” they are also fighting for freedom.
Juan, ask those innocent Iraqis who are afraid to go to the market or go to work or to a mosque foe fear of getting shot, kidnapped, or blown up by one of your insurgents how “free” they feel.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm“I have no regret having called him a liar, because he lied.â€
Finally! Finally a politician calling a spade a spade.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:55 pmAsk those same people in that are afraid to go to the market place was it better or worse with Saddam. Ask them if they are happy what the Amercians are doing. Ask them if they see stability just around the corner. Ask if the Americans knew what they were doing when the came rushing in.
So many questions to ask. So many fingers point right back to Bush.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pmI think the libs somehow equate those fighting to build a country that discriminates against women, kills anyone from another religon, and is ruled by one group of people with guns with those people throughout history fighting for democracy and freedom.
This is very flawed logic. On one side, people fighting for freedom and democracy are correct and the USA should assist them with assets and troops as every person in the world deserves freedom and democracy. On the other hand, people acting like terrorists trying to rule a country with a twisted view of women and anyone that isn’t just like them is wrong and the USA should fight them at all costs as we should never allow terrorists to deny Freedom and Democracy to the people of this world.
Big difference.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm“Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 4:52 pm”
Let me ask YOU Exley……
What would YOU do if another country….. Oh say China…… Decided that it was going to come to America and take over Oklahoma because it needed it to protect it’s interrests in America?????
What would YOU do????
Would YOU fight them????? Would YOU use car bombs against the agressors and the area???? Would YOU try to attack the invaders anyway you could???
Now let’s also say that half of the country welcomes China with open arms over the invassion….. Would YOU attack those that support China and not consider them enemies or would YOU just sit back and do nothing to protect YOUR country????
Would YOU consider yourself an “insurgent” or a “patriot” for the attacks?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm#28. Exley…
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:01 pmAlways the optimist, eh?
#44, HiB, We discussed this very topic last Friday. I’ll repost:
Hib,
“It was terrible planning by this president and his administration that has led to this.â€
I don’t disagree with that. I have soured on this war a long time ago. We never should have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan.
But let’s keep in mind that Iraq was hardly a paradise before the invasion. Saddam led a vicious totalitarian police state that ruled through terror and murder. They are still finding mass graves of Saddam’s victims in Iraq. Ot is estimated he killed up to 300,000 people, including children:
“Babies found in Iraqi mass grave
A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.
US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s. The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.â€
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
Iraq is a nightmare in which to live now and it was a nightmare during Saddam Hussein’s reign.
Comment by Exley — April 20, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pmHarry is on the right track here…. call it surrender if you like but wars like this are NEVER won through military means. Armies have never been able to successfully fight groups that easily blend into the general population. (Except in cases where you have a dictator that suspends all democratic rights and rules through intimidation and fear… and this is how Saddam held it together as a country)
In 1968 when the public and many in Congress were calling for withdrawal from Vietnam the argument for remaining there was “….if the US were to leave Vietnam would fall to the communist threat and all of Southeast Asia would fall into civil war and into the hands of China and Russia” It took eight more years for the US to pull out and had the same result in the end had we pulled out in 1968. Pulling out would have saved billions of dollars and millions of lives. In the end Vietnam found their own way and Southeast Asia did not fall to the Communists. The USA spent about 15 years there trying to keep peace and establish democracy but failed. (the French tried for the same amount of time but the typical ego of many in the US thought we would do better)
When the PLO, Syria, Israel and the US were all in Lebanon it was said that should the US not participate the whole Mid-east will fall into chaos and civil war… Well, we had the Marine barracks blown up in 1983 while participating as part of a multinational force. 241 US SERVICEMEN were killed and the president most loved by modern conservatives pulled all US troops out about four months later. The mid-east did not blow apart since his administration was wise enough to realize that the US could not “WIN” anything in a civil war. I don’t see the conservatives of this decade calling their hero Ronald Regan a defeatist because common sense prevailed.
History is filled with governments trying to mediate civil wars in far away countries by military means and I dare any of you calling Reid a “defeatist” or those using the term “surrender lobby” an instance in history where military intervention in a civil war worked.
Iraq is comprised of groups that have NEVER co-existed peacefully except by force and the sooner the US changes their mission to strictly training and force the countries many different tribes to compromise the better. And if they cannot find a compromise soon then stop ALL assistance and financing. This country is a black-hole for money and lives until they work out their own problems.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:05 pmMaybe that Iraq war could garner some support if it WERE presented as a war for OIL. I mean, I want to drive my GUZZLER, as many folk do. At least we could judge this fiasco on the merit of TRUTH. Then, IF we decide the war for OIL is worth the COST, let’s go at it FULL BORE and take over IRAQ and take their OIL.
Texas Juice
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm( A little tounge in cheek)
RemoveBush,
Here is the problem with your posting:
“Would YOU use car bombs against the agressors and the area???? Would YOU try to attack the invaders anyway you could???”
What you ignore is the fact that these car-bombings and suicide bombings are not directed against the U.S. military. They are directed at innocent Iraqis in marketplaces and mosques and other such places.
How are the ‘insurgents’ engaging in “self-defense†when they set car bombs off in marketplaces filled with Iraqi civilains (as they did this week and have done frequently over the past months)? How are the insurgents engaging in “self-defense†when they set off car-bombs at Mustansiriya University in Baghdad?
These bombings were directed at civilain Iraqi targets….Do you defend those violent acts directed at civilains as merely “self-defense.â€
These were not American military attacks on Iraqis. These were terrorist/â€insurgent†attacks on Iraqi civilains. Yet, you do not condemn the terrorists who actually carry out these atrocities….Why not?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm#41,
Before you let the liar Exley rattle you any further, let me provide Mr. Reids words in the full context:
The night before the 9/11 Commission’s report was released more than three years ago, I met with Lee Hamilton in the Capitol. He told me something that night that I will never forget.
He said that there are a finite number of terrorists who must be killed or captured. Nothing we can do will rehabilitate or deter them.
But beyond those few who must be hunted lies a large and growing population of millions — who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead.
We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over. That is the great challenge of our time.
If we fail — this so-called “war on terror” will become a multi-generational struggle.
The HuffingtonPost.com has the full speech. It is a worthwhile read. Shame on you Exley.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm#38,
Roger_Roger, you are either a liar or just ignorant. I will assume for your sake that your are just ignorant and will try to help cure that ailment by providing your a link to Mr. Reids COMPLETE speech which includes the detailed plan. Enjoy the truth, though I know that it scares you.
Link:
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:13 pmThe HuffingtonPost.com has the full speech. It is a worthwhile read. Shame on you Exley.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up!
Thank you for that, Fed the Fcuk Up!
Exley, you owe this board an apology.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pmExley, what would be the correct action then? Because the current path (surge) is not the answer. How does one go about gaining respect and control after both had been squandered years ago?
Don’t go barking up the wrong tree about nobody condemns the terrorists. That is sidetrack bullsh!t and is a flat out lie. No serious poster has been on the side of the terrorists in Iraq. The posters have been on the side of the soldiers.
The main reason there is even a resembalance of success in Iraq is the shadow forces that we are currently paying. The ones that are hired by the over 100 private contractors. Over 100,000 hired guns that don’t follow the same rules of engagement as our uniformed soldiers.
Ironically, it was the flaw of an earlier world power that relied on hired soldiers to do their work in a far off land that the locals were willing to die for.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm#54, Zooey, I supplied the link for the full speech at posting #27.
Posting #52 must have missed that. I accept his apology.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm#5 Huh?
Iraq was a SECULAR Gov. which was an enemy of al Qaeda before we invaded. Your “Islamist” schtick is not only comically simplistic nonsense, but factually inaccurate.
Reid and the entire Democratic caucus in both the Senate and the House are pissed about NOT going after the “Islamists” as you call them enough, you know, the ones who actually attacked the United States.
Leave to a mouth-breathing Fright-Wing troglodyte like yourself to be so spectacularly WRONG on the facts and reality. When reality is in total opposition to your bloviating misinformation, just vomit up the same tired, flawed, and pathologically false talking-points about Democrats being weak against the imagined brown islamic horde.
Grow a pair and stop wetting yourself over 9/11.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm“These were not American military attacks on Iraqis. These were terrorist/â€insurgent†attacks on Iraqi civilains. Yet, you do not condemn the terrorists who actually carry out these atrocities….Why not?
Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 5:07 pm”
Because it is a CIVIL WAR!!!
Read your HISTORY books…… The US did some prety bad things to it’s own citizens back in our time….. You think this is ANY DIFFERENT????
Sorry, but there is NOTHING a military force can do about a CIVIL WAR!
Even ours was won through DIPLOMACY!!!! In essense one gave up!
What your trying to change is that FACT!!!! You are looking through the peek hole and not the window!!!!
Nice try in flipping my example, but YOU completely failed.
Go back and RE-READ my example!!!! What would YOU do if part or half of America was allowing and helping China take Oklahoma???? Would you ignore them even though they were helping the INVADERS take over your country, even though they say that they are here to help????
Or would you attack them also as being an enemy also????
Now stop trying to twist the example, which is EXACLY like Iraq and answer the questions as I have put them to you.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm#28 Well according to the DoD, the number of terrorists have gone up as a result of our invading Iraq.
So in trying to smoke ‘em out and kill ‘em you actually create more new enemies than the old ones you kill. You will eventually lose.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:21 pmWell, so what, I call the criminal bast*rd a LIAR EVERY-FREAKING-DAY….do something about it and impeach them already.
Roger x2, Exlax, etc. are very ,very ignorant subhumans, and they do show us just why the repukes need to be marginalized in our society, they need to be driven back to their caves, where they can bang rocks together to entertain themselves.
Hating the Repuke Mafia daily….oh, and one last thing, BUSH YOU ARE A LIAR !!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pmBush is completely clueless about how to win this. Why? Because there is no winning….all we can do is decide the magnitude of our losses. Perhaps if he, Cheney, and the rest of the Republican neo-cons hadn’t avoided their call to service in Viet Nam, they’d have learned that war should be the last option not the 1st.
Make no mistake, this war was purely elective and promulgated by this administration to steal Iraq’s oil and further their domestic agenda of a unitary executive. They have betrayed this country in the worst of ways. The day is coming when they will have to answer for these war crimes.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm#54, Zooey, I supplied the link for the full speech at posting #27.
Posting #52 must have missed that. I accept his apology.
Comment by Exley
Next time provide the link WITH the out of context quote, since I’m not going to trust any quote you post from now on.
Your sorry attempt at #15 is intellectually dishonest.
I accept your apology.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm…”I have no regret having called him a liar, because he lied.â€
Lol! … can’t get any clearer than that! :)
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:26 pmChew on this David Broder. I love Harry – I disagree with Harry on many things, I was not optimistic when he became Senate Majority Leader – but over the past 3 months, Harry has kicked butt. And he should not back down – Bush et al. are in a corner – that goes for trolls, too – that’s why they are here instead of raving on Newsmax.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:26 pmRemoveBush,
Do you realize that your posting #158 is a defense of terrorists in Iraq who carry out acts such as this:
Breaking: 157 dead in Baghdad bombings. CBS News: “A parked car bomb detonated in a crowd of workers at a Shiite marketplace in Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 82 people, police and hospital officials said. The attack was one of four bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday afternoon, which killed at least 157 people in total, officials said.â€
There is no defense for such intentional slaughter of innocents in civilian targets.
You ask, “What would YOU do if part or half of America was allowing and helping China take Oklahoma????” Although I find such hypotheticals useless since none of us really know what we would do in any future situation, I can say that I am extremely confident I would never, EVER deliberatley set off a car bomb in an area that was populated by innocent men, women, and children in an area with absolutely no military value with the sole intent of slaughering as many innocent, unarmed individuals as possible.
Are you saying you would do such a thing or even condone it?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pmNo it isn’t and it is this kind of bullsh!t that America ain’t buying anymore. If you said this in front of my conservative republican neighbors or parents, they would laugh you out of town.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:30 pm#38 Moron.. he wasn’t calling the troops losers, he was calling the President’s war a losing war, because it was un-winnable at the outset.
Calling the person ordering the troops to roll 10 straight double sixes in a row on a pair of dice a loser does not mean you are calling the troops losers because they can’t do it. I know that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp, but please try at least to not be a pussy and hide (along with Bush) behind the troops for YOUR failures. Neither of you nor Bush are the troops, though you are both losers. You are however warmongering losers who pushed us into a war the troops couldn’t win.
Do you also call your kids losers because they can’t flap their arms and fly?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pmI disagree, Zooey. By my posting #15, I got the debate started. When I received a response that mirrored Reid’s analysis, I posted the link to Reid’s speech and carried on the discussion. It was a rhetorical tactic to spur debate. And it worked. Impressed????
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pmBush Crime Family:
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/bushtsbd.jpg
http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_world_class_criminal.html#fnB37
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pm#53 I read his “plan”, but it really isn’t a plan. How can you lay out a bunch of steps when step 2 is “good luck Iraqi’s but we are leaving”? Do you expect the terrorists to sit down and negotiate with us after we leave? Hell no, they will simply take the country over. They will stop the Iraqi children from the schooling they currently get and they will force the women of Iraq to hand over the freedoms they currently enjoy. In short, they will bring down the country. Reids plan is the SAME plan we are currently doing minus removing our military. So I ask again.
How would removing our troops somehow make our current plan better? Reid’s step by step plan is identical to the current plan. The only difference is our current plan backs up our efforts with fire power. Please show me how removing fire power will somehow make the rest of our current plan work better.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmJuan, ask those innocent Iraqis who are afraid to go to the market or go to work or to a mosque foe fear of getting shot, kidnapped, or blown up by one of your insurgents how “free†they feel.
Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Well, that didnt happen under Saddam, Ex. Nice job. Oh, But Saddam tortured people. Just Like Abu Ghraib…oh, but Saddam had WMDs, he didnt and you have them, oh, but Saddam was a mad man, your president says he talks with God, oh, but Saddam was a danger to the region, Hello, Ex, how are those 4 years going? oh, but Saddam, kill a lot of people, Just like Blackwater, and Clusterbombs…
US is the greatest terrorist state in the world and you are giving me lectures about what insurgency means to me? Nice attempt, Ex. You wouldnt recognize insurgency, anyway, but look it up in a dictionary and tell where it says that you have to drop bombs on children in order to be an insurgent.
You were wrong all along. Sad.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 pmBut beyond those few who must be hunted lies a large and growing population of millions — who sit precariously on the fence.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 pmRemember what Rumsfeld’s “take the gloves off” policy did at Abu Ghrab. Iraqi’s were rounded up , en mass, mixed with hard core terrorists, and humiliated…then released. What side of the fence do you think many of them ended up on after that???
If you want to censure Reid’s statement, then you better censure the Army’s recruiting statistics, and our national debt as well!
“Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 5:27 pm”
I am saying that I would defend my country with ANYTHING I have at my dispossal!!!!
If that meant wiring a gas tanker and blowing it up against my ENEMY, then YES!!!
If my fellow Americans were sidding on the side of the ENEMY, YES I will kill them as well…..
It’s called CIVIL WAR for a reason!
I see YOU have NEVER served in the military!!!!
I will do what is necessary to protect my country and fight those that assist the enemy!
Unfortunately, Iraq is slightly different in that they have been battling each other for religious reasons….. Regardless, this is still a CIVIL WAR!!!!
I don’t condon thier actions, I ACCEPT THEM for what they are! We have no BUSINESS in getting into thier business….. This is why we are so hated…. Yet you don’t want to get to the reason why they hate us so much!
Here is a clue……
It’s not that we have freedoms….. It’s because we try to tell everyone how to live!!!!
Try living like your party preaches and the world would be a better place. Until YOUR party can stay out of other peoples business then it will be like this.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:38 pmHiB,
There seems to be only one path forward. We should declare victory and leave (for the most part). And I don’t mean that facetiously. We have achieved some success in Iraq. We removed a monstrous dictator and gave the Iraqis, at the very least, the chance to create a stable, tolerant, democratic society. Obviously, we had hoped to do more by now and the current violence is a tragedy. But I don’t say how or why U.S. military personnel should be killed in a civil war between Sunni and Shia terrorists who have chosen to indulge in ancient ethnic and religious differences rather than helping to create a better future for Iraq.
Now, I say leave “for the most part” becuase I actually support Sen. Clinton’s idea of leaving some U.S. troops in Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda forces in Iraq. Remove U.S. troops from the cities of Iraq and stop using our troops as policemen and buffers between internal warring Iraqi factions, but keep some type of rapid deployment force inside Iraq away from the urban areas where civil war is being waged (Perhaps redeploy U.S. troops to the relatively quite Kurdish north where the U.S. is still celebrated as liberators) in orderto strike Al Qaeda targets.
That seems like the best (and perhaps only) step forward.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm#45 Huh?
The Ba’ath party was secular and more pro-woman than any of its neighbors. If you are trying to hang this war on the hat hook of “pro-woman” anti-theocracy, then you are truly insane. Al Qaeda had declared fatwas against Iraq when Saddam was in power because it was secular and not an Islamic theocracy. Iraq fought an 8 year war against the Islamic Revolutionary Iran.
You can rightly call Saddam and his Ba’athist regime, corrupt, brutal and he was a despotic asshole, but he was NOT pushing for islamic theocracy. Hell Tariq Aziz was a Christian you moron. Not that Iraq was headed for some Susan B. Anthony award anytime soon, but you really need to realize that our invasion fucked up Iraq far worse than anything Saddam ever did. For as much as your fevered “brown Islamic hordes” fears might be, Iraq was not looking to cut your head off because you were an infidel. I know reality and facts mean little to you, but please try and deal with planet earth and not the bizzaro-world of bed-wetting 9/11 induced stupidity which you and Bush apologists live in.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm“I have no problem when folks like Reid exercise their right to free speech even when he decides to use that right to call our troops losers”
roger..roger. Go to your local JC and sign up for a course in critical thinking. You badly need it. Nowhere has Reid ever said that our military lost the war. He has said that Bush lost the war (actually, he didn’t even say that, he said if we continue on this course the war will be lost). I disagree with Reid, though. There is no war to lose. We are not in a war, we are in an occupation and there is no way to “win” an occupation.
I weep for what we have become.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 pmGive ‘em hell, Harry. And as for dick cheney, go fu*k yourself.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmExley, you realize this is what Murtha has been pushing for awhile now. Bush’s adventure wasn’t planned out at all. There was no understanding of the complexities to rebuild. The main criteria was to be faithful to Bush and this is what we got.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm“How would removing our troops somehow make our current plan better? Reid’s step by step plan is identical to the current plan. The only difference is our current plan backs up our efforts with fire power. Please show me how removing fire power will somehow make the rest of our current plan work better.
Comment by Roger_Roger — April 23, 2007 @ 5:32 pm”
EASY!!!!
It gives the Iraqi’s control over thier country…. After all you Repubs like to spout about how they elected a government…..
It’s about time they stood up and took care of thier country.
Removing the force that is seen as an occupier would reduce the vilolence! NOT increase as the Repubs suggest!
It would provide a way for the country to come together to work out thier differences in order to move forward. Right now WE are dictating to them what to do and how to do it!!!!
That’s how and why Reids plan is better!
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:48 pm“tell where it says that you have to drop bombs on children in order to be an insurgent.”
Exactly, my point, Juan. It doesn’t…Yet the Iraqi “insurgents” do so, meaning it is not a true insurgency. It is a terrorist campaign aimed at innocent and unarmed men, women, and children.
A true insurgency, such as that fought by the freedom-fighters in Nicaragua in the 1980s against the communist Sandinistas, does not targent innocent men, women, and children. The contras limited their targets to communist government troops and legitimate military targets.
The contra freedom fighters of Nicaragua were true “insurgents,” heroes and patriots.
The so-called “insurgents” in Iraq targetting innocent, unarmed people for slaughter are terrorists. And you support them. Sad.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:49 pmGiven the number we have captured and killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and then adding the numbers that may have been inspired to join Islamic extremist groups by the war in Iraq, it is probably close to being a wash.
Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
So according to you we have the same number of terrorists out there and 3000+ fewer American troops. If that’s a wash I’d hate to see what you call a failure. Your defense of this embarassing administration is astounding.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:49 pm“Now, I say leave “for the most part†becuase I actually support Sen. Clinton’s idea of leaving some U.S. troops in Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda forces in Iraq. ”
Well, you and Senator Clinton are wrong. We don’t need to leave troops to fight Al Qaeda, the Iraqi’s will do that themselves once we are gone. They hate Al Qaeda and they hate the fact that the only reason why they are in Iraq is because we invaded their country.
We need to get out of Iraq and let them rebuild their country themselves. I think that morally we need to give them the money we have been giving to Blackwater, Halliburton and all the other contractors to Iraq so that they can rebuild their country using their own people (you know, employment and all that other necessary stuff to survive).
We won the war but we lost the occupation and will continue to lose the occupation.
To all you neocons, what would you do if someone invaded our country and five years later refused to leave, especially if you only had electricity 4 hours a day and no clean drinking water. Now, answer that question honestly. Then take a look at your current opinion on the Iraq debacle.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:49 pmWait, did I just read Exley saying something smart?
Okay, who high-jacked Exley’s name.
Hating the Repuke Mafia daily
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:50 pmThe Berks County Democratic Committee (this is in PA) unanamously passed a resolution to impeach both boy Bush and criminal Cheney this past Saturday.
Inching closer all the time.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pmIt will be okay to leave Iraq once the oil agreement is signed by the Iraqi Government.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pmWe see things not as they are but as we are. Hence the arguments here have nothing to do with reality or the truth per se. The arguments are based on our PERCEPTION of truth and reality. This is neither good nor bad. The value judgement takes place when one is compelled to reject the truth and reality because it conflicts with some preceding concepts of our false beliefs. It is a fact that Senator Reid called King George the Dumb a liar. Those of us that believe that the truth and reality is that KGtD will accept the Senator’s. Those of you whose preconceived notion is that KGtD can do no wrong by fiat and the fact he is a Republican can disagree with Senator Reid but it does not change the truth or reality: KGtD is a liar. The commenters here on the side of Senator Reid are not required to defend the Senator, they do so out of respect for the man and their own concept of the truth. You detractors, on the other hand, if you want to make a good argument instead of asses of yourselves, have an entirely different burden of proof if you choose to deride the good Senator. If you want us to accept your side of the argument then you must produce facts, and not preconceived idiotic notions. Until then we will continue to confuse you with the facts because we know that your substitute for a mind is made up.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:53 pmReid is staking out a position, not making policy. Unless Bush’s threatened Veto is over ridden, the Democrats are powerless to change things in Iraq. But after all Bush’s plans have failed, Reid will be able to say ” I told you so”.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:54 pm#77, HiB, “you realize this is what Murtha has been pushing for awhile now”
Well, not quite. When he was talking about redeploying, he actually mentioned Okinawa. That was just silly. There is no way a force in Okinawa could be dispatched in time to Iraq in response to intelligence about the location of some Al Qaeda target in Iraq.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pm#80 Kate Henry,
“We don’t need to leave troops to fight Al Qaeda, the Iraqi’s will do that themselves once we are gone. They hate Al Qaeda”
If we could be sure of that, that would be wonderful. But, we can’t be sure that things will unfold that way. The vast majority of people in Afghanistan hated the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but they people could not effectively fight back against them (the Northern Alliance notwithstanding) for a variety of reasons, economic and militarily.
Like Clinton, I think we need to keep some forces in Iraq (like I said, perhaps in the relatively safe Kurdish region) to attack rapidly (perhaps assisting when possible Iraqi troops) Al Qaeda targets.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm#81 Buck Fush,
No, it’s me. That actually has been my position on Iraq for a while now.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm“Harry doesn’t want to give the Islamists Hell, that is the problem with him and the other members of the surrender lobby.
Comment by Patrick1″
This is what’s known as a “non sequitur.”
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 pm#85 Badger,
The Democrats do not have to override a veto to have power over the outcome in Iraq. Should KGtD veto the bill the House should try for an override VOICE vote. If that vote fails they go on to something else. They are not required to submit another bill. The Pentagon will be forced to bring our troops home before the existing funds are used up. Democrats not supporting the troops? BS! They provided sufficient funds to the Pentagon to bring everyone of our troops home. It was KGtD and the Republicans that wanted them to stay there and get killed. Probably, had the troops been called home a year ago and given the benefits they have earned there would have been a few of them in college on the “GI Bill,” as I know it, who would have met the Neocon version of a hero and prevented the recent disaster. That argument is as good as Newts.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pmOkinawa was one of the several places. Kuwait/Saudi Arabia and even Afghanistan were others so not quite is not accurate. More like he thought this out a little more and a little better than you. But glad to see you understand now.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pmDoes Patrick channel Archie Bunker? “The problem with (fill in the blank).
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 pmFor those who want to see Mr. Reid’s full speech, in context and unedited by nefarious characters with dubious motives (Exley), it can be accessed at the HuffingtonPost.com in a posting BY Mr. Reid. I’ll try and post the link again but if it doesn’t work it is very easy to access if you go to that site.
One of the things that you will see is a step by step plan (somebody do R2 a favor and read it to him since he seems to have some shortcomings in that area) that very much incorporates what Mr. Murtha has been calling for.
This plan is real and needs our support. Don’t let the truth-challenged provacateurs (Exley, Roger_Roger, Patrick1) misguide you. Read it yourself, please.
Here’s another attempt at the link:
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 pmHiB,
The undeniable fact is he actually cited Okinawa as a viable site for placing a rapid-deployment force to be used in Iraq. That was an embarrassing suggestion on his part. Seems to me that Sen. Clinton gave the matter a little more thought than he did.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:16 pmFollow up to #93.
Sorry, but either I am not using the link tag correctly or TP doesn’t allow links to the HuffingtonPost. Either way, you can just go to the site directly and I apologize for not being able to save you some keystrokes.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm#93, Actually, I already provided the link to the full, unedited speech at waaaaay back in posting #27 at 4:39 pm.
You’re welcome.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 pm“I think the libs somehow equate those fighting to build a country that discriminates against women, kills anyone from another religon, and is ruled by one group of people with guns with those people throughout history fighting for democracy and freedom…
Comment by Roger_Roger”
This seems to be a common misconception among neocons, sort of an updated “white man’s burden” argument that it is incumbent on the US to bring western democracy to the great unwashed masses of the heathen.
It completely misses the point that the majority in this country now recognizes that the original justification for invading iraq (wmd) was a sham, and all the attempts to retcon the rationale for war to “saving the iraqis from saddam” ignore the fact that nobody in this country would have wanted American soldiers to go fight and die in iraq to make that country “democratic.”
That’s right, no matter how noble and “godly” it would be to save the iraqis from themselves, that alone would not represent a strong enough American interest to take over iraq–which is why the neocons had to put so much effort into lying to the American congress and public to get their invasion.
And now that it has blown up in their faces, all they can say is “sorry”, and have no expectations for culpability.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm#96,
Let’s speak in truthful terms. You provided a ripped out of context snippet in your posting #17 whereby you attempted to twist Mr. Reids words into saying something else entirely. And then you provided the link without reference in your post #27 while trying to inject murderous terminology into another person’s words.
That’s the truth. Fortunately, you are about the only one here who is shallow enough to fall for your deceit. Shame on you Exley.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:24 pm“…Sorry, but there is NOTHING a military force can do about a CIVIL WAR!
Even ours was won through DIPLOMACY!!!! In essense one gave up!…
Comment by RemoveBush”
Uhhh…not sure what you’re trying to say here, but it doesn’t really make sense:
1) Not sure why you think a military force can do “nothing” about a civil war; this would not be true in general, and certainly was not true with respect to the American Civil War.
2) The American Civil War was emphatically *not* won through diplomacy–it was won through total war against the civilian population by the Union armies, and the effective destruction of the CSA military as a coherent fighting force.
There was nothing diplomatic about the victory, it was only achieved and achievable by military force.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:27 pmThat’s the truth. Fortunately, you are about the only one here who is shallow enough to fall for your deceit. Shame on you Exley.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up!
Exley has difficulty when he’s called on his bullshit, and it’s impossible for him to take responsibility for his actions when called to do so.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 pmThat seems like the best (and perhaps only) step forward.
Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 pmThat is Murthas plan.
#98,
Actually, you are mistaken. My quote from Sen. Reid’s speech #15 was 100% accurate and shows that to some extent I agree with Sen. Reid on the need to kill and capture as many terrorists as possible. I left off the link (although it is readily available at an earlier thread posted today) so as to invite a response and a debate. As soon as I received a response that closely mirrored Sen. Reid’s comments, I posted the link to the full comments, along with a comment acknowledging that Reid has said essentially the same thing as the poster. Thus, I started an debate on this thread, which, although you mistakenly overlooked my posting that provided the link to Reid’s full comments, interested you enough to join the debate. In short, I accomplished my goal to start a debate on the best way to wage the war on terrorism and did so in a way that was 100% honest. Impressed? I know you are.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:37 pm#95, No need to apologize for not being able to provide the link. As we see, I already provided the link to Reid’s comments back on posting 27 more than two hours ago. No need to thank me.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:39 pm#99,
mongo, you are incorrect. If the war was won by military force, that would mean that the entire south would have been exterminated. I highly recommend that you study the texts of history from multiple sources (southern, northern, european) so as to come to the complete truth. It will take some time as it was a very complex situation, as all civil wars tend to be.
What I believe that RemoveBush was attempting to communicate was that diplomacy helped bring a more timely end to the war and served to save the lives of countless Union and Confederate soldiers and civilians. Because advanced intellects realize that in the end, you neither “win” nor have any pride if you are dead.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm“There was nothing diplomatic about the victory, it was only achieved and achievable by military force.
Comment by mongo — April 23, 2007 @ 6:27 pm”
Was it won by the Britans???
Was there not a agreement made between the two????
Of course there was fighting by military forces, but it was NOT won by a NON American force!!!!!
Just like the Iraqi CIVIL WAR, the US cannot win this war!!!!!
Care to dispute this????
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm#100,
And now Exley is attempting to recreate the deception (I guess for the late-comers) in his post #102. How horrible and dishonest.
Exley, you are a liar and a deviant. Shame on you very much!
For anyone getting misled by Exley, access one of the numerous sources available (I would not trust Exley’s link because Exley is not trustworthy) to read Mr. Reid’s speech in its entirety. I was able to access it at the HuffingtonPost and trust its accuracy because it was posted by Mr. Reid himself.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm#106,
Heh! Look, why don’t you just admit you missed the fact that I posted the link to the full speech back on posting #27 at 4:39 and that now you are embarassed that you were 100% wrong when you accused me at 5:09 of not providing the full speech…Admit it–You screwed up. Now, why don’t you just say, “I’m sorry, Exley. You’re right. You did post a link to the full speech. I missed that.”
On second thought, never mind. No need to apologize. Your embarassment at missing link at posting #27 is good enough for me.
As for not trusting the source of my link, you’ll not that it comes from the Senate Democrats’ own Web site: Democrat.senate.gov.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:57 pmWoops, looks like the numbering shifted again. My latest posting (6:57 pm) is directed at “Fed the Fcuk Up” (clever nickname, by the way); not “RemoveBush.” I apologize for the errror and confusion.
(Y’see, Fed, it’s not so tough to admit you made a mistake…So, you missed posting #27. Big deal! Relax and forget about it! We all make mistakes).
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:00 pmActually, you are mistaken. My quote from Sen. Reid’s speech #15 was 100% accurate and shows that to some extent I agree with Sen. Reid on the need to kill and capture as many terrorists as possible.
Comment by Exley
That’s a lie, Exley. That quote was not 100% accurate, as it was pulled out of context.
This is what you do when you’re caught in your dishonesty — backpedal, beckpedal, reframe, deny, and outright lie.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:03 pmZooey,
You are incorrect. Go back and look at posting #27. A mere 13 minutes after my original posting, I provided the link to the full statement at the Senate Democrats’ Web site in response to RemoveBush .
FTFU missed it and he refuses to admit his error, thereby compounding his embarassment.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm#105–
“Was it won by the Britans???
Was there not a agreement made between the two????”
No, there wasn’t an agreement between the north and south.
The confederate forces were beaten in battle and forced to surrender unconditionally at Appomattox. “Diplomacy” had nothing to do with it.
Jefferson Davis and the confederate government fled Richmond when Grant threatened to capture the city; the last meeting of the confederate cabinet took place in Washington, Georgia, where they dissolved the confederacy. Davis was subsequently captured, on the run, at Irwinville, Georgia.
“Of course there was fighting by military forces, but it was NOT won by a NON American force!!!!!”
Clearly; I never said anything about non American forces, and neither did you.
“Just like the Iraqi CIVIL WAR, the US cannot win this war!!!!!”
Not disagreeing with you there, just trying to clarify your argument.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 pmSorry, Broder, doesn’t sound like he’s making apologies every 6 weeks to me! Way to go, Harry!
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:26 pmGive it to ‘em Harry.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pmDon’t back down in the face of their criticism — they are hoping to bully you into submission. They have nothing – they have only their ability to strut and posture. Bush is the Potemkin president — the windshield cowboy — the guy is all hat, no cattle — he is a facade, a poser, indeed, the emperor with no clothes.
“Comment by mongo — April 23, 2007 @ 7:14 pm”
mongo…… Let me just try to state this so it’s clear…..
Yes there was a war. Yes one side won the war. However, there were negotiations that took place to get that surrender and to ensure that there was not further fighting……
Hense……. There was negotiations that took place! To say that there were never any negotiations is not factual….
Anytime there is a surrender, there are negotiations……. Otherwise there would be constant fighting! The side that surrenders would not see the need to keep the peace if it did not get something in return for the surrender…….
This is my point! It may not have been right then and there, but there were negotiations!
Do you not agree?????
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm#105– Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up!
“mongo, you are incorrect. If the war was won by military force, that would mean that the entire south would have been exterminated.”
That’s a ridiculous statement; the American Civil War *was* won by military force, and the resulting destruction ushered in the period known as Reconstruction.
Why do you feel that anything short of extermination is not victory by military force?
“I highly recommend that you study the texts of history from multiple sources (southern, northern, european) so as to come to the complete truth. It will take some time as it was a very complex situation, as all civil wars tend to be.”
Gee thanks, I’m well versed in this area of history.
“What I believe that RemoveBush was attempting to communicate was that diplomacy helped bring a more timely end to the war and served to save the lives of countless Union and Confederate soldiers and civilians. Because advanced intellects realize that in the end, you neither “win†nor have any pride if you are dead.”
I don’t care what RemoveBush was attempting to communicate, the notion that diplomacy brought about a more timely end to the Civil War simply shows an incorrect understanding of how the conflict ended. The United States was in fact extraordinarily careful to *avoid* the appearance of diplomacy with the CSA, since they wanted to avoid at all costs the possibility of britain or france giving diplomatic recognition to the rebels.
If you’d like, I can provide *you* with some recommended reading on the subject to bring you up to speed.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pmAttention Trolls:
George is trying to bankrupt the US and the terrorist are just waiting us out. Once we have expended everything they will come here and kill all of you. We will have no means to defend ourselves. No money, no soldiers, no way to protect your scared shittless asses. You will have GW to thank. Think about it…
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm#114–
Don’t confuse negotiations for surrender with diplomatic negotiations between diplomats, they’re not the same thing.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:30 pmWe won’t be dropping nukes on them here…and that is all we’ll have left. We are going broke quickly and if China calls in their markers we are toast. Thanks GW, what a dunce.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:33 pmZooey,
You are incorrect. Go back and look at posting #27. A mere 13 minutes after my original posting, I provided the link to the full statement at the Senate Democrats’ Web site in response to RemoveBush .
FTFU missed it and he refuses to admit his error, thereby compounding his embarassment.
Comment by Exley
No Exley, I am not incorrect. You posted that quote out of context, and only put up the link when challenged by RemoveBush.
As I said before, you can put up whatever crap you want to, but provide the link ON THE SAME COMMENT.
FTFU has nothing to be embarassed about for missing that link, since it should have been included on your original comment.
I am embarassed for you.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm“Don’t confuse negotiations for surrender with diplomatic negotiations between diplomats, they’re not the same thing.
Comment by mongo — April 23, 2007 @ 7:30 pm”
Where did “diplomatic negotiations between diplomats” come from?????
Where in any of my posts did I say or insinuate diplomats were involved????
My point with the US Civil War was/is that even for a “surrender” of fighting forces, there are negotiations that take place to ensure that the fighting does not begin again……
If you doubt that, then your not as educated as you indicate in the matter……
EVERY war has negotiations!!!! If you think that once a war is won, the winning side simply locks up ALL of the enemy fighters and never releases them then your clearly crazy. They ALL agree that in order to cease further fighting that each side agrees to do something.
This is something that cannot be denied!!!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:42 pm#120–
“Where did “diplomatic negotiations between diplomats†come from?????
Where in any of my posts did I say or insinuate diplomats were involved????”
In post #58, when you wrote:
“Even ours was won through DIPLOMACY!!!! ”
That’s what diplomats do; they engage in diplomacy.
And the Civil War was not won through it.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 pm“That’s what diplomats do; they engage in diplomacy.
And the Civil War was not won through it.
Comment by mongo — April 23, 2007 @ 7:46 pm”
It depends on how you want to look at it!!!!
I see it as being won through diplomacy….. Yes it was won initially through military force, but in order to MAINTAIN the peace it was done through diplomacy.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
Without BOTH sides agreeing to certain requirements, then there would not have been peace. There would have been “insurgents” continuing the fight.
So, even though the BATTLE was won militarily the over all war was won through diplomacy!!!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 pmHot damn!!!!! Finally, a Dem who has grown a pair and not afraid to call a spade a spade.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:09 pmFinally, a democrat has the stones to tell it like it is.
Has any flamethrowing, foamy mouthed, blathermeister from the rigth offered an argument as to why the war is not lost?
What say you Herr Broder?
Pour it on Harry! It’s a shame it took so long for this to be said and so few in your caucus have the guts to speak up and tell the truth about the momentary fact of things.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:54 pmZooey,
You are embarassed that I posted the link to the full statement a full half hour before FT
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pmZooey,
You are embarassed for me because I posted the link to the full statement by Reid a full half hour before FTFU erroneously stated that I had not provided the full statement?????
Wow…You are easily embarrassed.
Let this be a lesson to FTFU….He should be more careful in following the thread before making incorrect postings. That way he will spare himself similar humiliations in the future.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 pmZooey,
You are embarassed for me because I posted the link to the full statement by Reid a full half hour before FTFU erroneously stated that I had not provided the full statement?????
Wow…You are easily embarrassed.
Comment by Exley
This is your personality flaw at work, Exley. You did something totally asinine and passive/aggressive, and failed to post a link. You’re caught. That’s all there is to it.
I’m embarrassed for you because you can’t be a man and simply say, “Yes, I should have put the link on my original comment. In fact, I should have posted the entire quote, instead of taking a small piece of the quote out of context. I was wrong.”
No, of course not! That would take integrity! Instead, you to spend all this time trying to put it off on FTFU for having the audacity to miss the fact that you put up the link later. This has nothing to do with FTFU.
I used to think you were better than this, Exley. But you’re not.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 pmZooey,
Like FTFU, you have apparently failed to read the discussion between myself and “RemoveBush.”
You’ll see that in posting #21, RemoveBush says Reid’s comments, which I quoted approvingly were “correct” but also went on to say that Bush’s policies likely created more terrorists.
I responded to RemoveBush in posting #27 — a mere 6 minutes later — saying that that had indeed been Reid’s argument and I then, without being asked, posted the link to Reid’s full unedited statement.
FTFU missed that exchange (and apparently so have you) and erroneously claimed that I had not provided Reid’s full statement. That is demonstrably incorrect. I voluntarily provided the full statement a mere 13 minutes after my initial posting at #15 and a mere 6 minutes after RemoveBush responded to posting #15.
Face it, Zooey…You backed the wrong horse and FTFU f’d up.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 pmDid I arrive in time for Exlax’s lap of honor?
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 pmFace it, Zooey…You backed the wrong horse and FTFU f’d up.
Comment by Exley
This has nothing to do with RemoveBush or FTFU — just you. You and your passive/aggressive tactics. Grow up and be a man. You f*cked up on posting that comment at #15, and things went downhill from there.
No one else is to blame but you, Exley. No one.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:15 amZooey,
Look at posting #27.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:09 amMarine Corporal From A Bunker In Ramadi:
“I Got A Message For That Douche Harry Reidâ€
Reid the DOUCHE BAG!
April 24th, 2007 at 1:42 am“there is only a finite number of terrorists”.. this is probably the most illogical and stupid thing i’ve heard… there are only a finite amount of people..so what?… what I THINK people who make this statement are trying to assert is.. “there are no new terrorists being created so if we just kill all the ones here then there shouldnt be a problem.”
Exlaxley, explain somethings to me….
1) explain what phenomena created this “finite amount of terrorists” (bad parenting, genetics, political forces, etc)..
2) having done that now I want you to explain how this phenomena which created terrorists is no longer occuring.
3) also can you pinpoint a date at which the number of terrorists stopped increasing? (i.e. the date at which terrorists ceased to have the ability to reproduce)
4) And do you agree, that according to your logic, all terrorists will be dead in 100 years and there will never be any more terrorism in the world?
You think the pictures of dead iraqi women and children all over the news in about every country but the Us doesnt create more terrorists? Now your limbaugh talking points style is painfully predictable, so you’re probably going to say “well the majority of them were killed by insurgents, not america”.. well.. i hate to tell you , my deeply sheltered friend, that most of the world doesnt see it that way….or are you going to tell me that theres no one out there so angered by the pictures of dead women and children that they want to commit acts of violence against the us…???
even rumsfeld says “we have no way of knowing whether the number of terrorists is growing or decreasing”…… do you disagree with rumsfeld on this point genius?
April 24th, 2007 at 3:25 amlet me guess Flaccido, that marine is YOU, right?
or is he a “friend”.. hey dude.. ask him something for me.. ask him if he wants to stay there and die so that Iraqis can have the freedom to worship allah and hate israel and support terrorsts like hezbollah… is Iraq having a government run by Mullahs like Iran something he wants to die for?
if so, hes one dumb motherf@cker…
April 24th, 2007 at 3:30 amPatrick1, we won a long time ago, militarily, so keeping with the military only strategy only emboldens our enemies at this point. Even the Generals currently in the war stress that the rest of the war must be won politically. Hence, we cannot win someone else’s civil war.
The only ones talking of surrender all the time are Republicans. Just because we want to take a different, less provoking approach does not mean we want to give up.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:08 amOf course you people look up to him. He is Anti-American. A traitor and just a POS.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:10 amI really get a kick out of the bush defenders. They like their president are in complete and total denial. Anyone who disagrees with them once again is called a traitor and turn coat. The reason we find ourselves in this mess, is not because of Pelosi or Reid, or anyone else, the blame goes to Bush and Cheney and all others in that regime. They freaking lied from day one, and simply lived in the land of oz. The past four years the congress rubber stamped every thing he wanted for the war and still have made no progress. Bushie wants congress to withhold funds for the war so he can do what he always does, blame some one else for his own ineptness and failures. The man is a total failure, and always will befor the rest of his life. He failed as a business man, he failed as Governor, and he will fail as president. As some put it, he is the absolute worse president this country ever had.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:45 amYeah I have to agree with that. The war is lost, and it has been for a long while. why? think back to 2004 when all of a sudden there were letters appearing in local newspapers, supposedly from soldiers in Iraq, they said thanks for the support, We are making great progress, school are being built… Of course the plan unraveled when a GI from Idaho, happened to call his father, and the father of course praised his son for the letter, saying it put the nay sayers in their place, and the son said. “what letter is that dad?” and when the father told him, the son said, Dad I never wrote that letter. It turned out that it was a ploy from the pentagon to rally support for the war, and it was immediately ended. Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of the Bush Regime and its deception and lies. Rumsfailed said the insurgency is in its death throws, well I think just the opposite is true. Todd, you are right, this administration is in complete denial or shall we say divorced from reality, and that reason and that reason alone, is why we are in the predicament we are in now. What makes it worse is the brain dead president insists on cutting taxes and waging war, the only person in history to do that. But don’t worry we keep borrowing from China. With that in mind, and jobs going overseas. The next president be it a democrat or republican better get the country on the right path or else within 10 years it will end up like the former soviet union, broke, beaten and demoralized.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:05 amThe war has indeed been lost, and will continue to get worse.
HAS ANYONE HERE LIVED IN IRAQ ?
- Please read the comments of an Iraqi, this will make you cry.
Her blog starts in 2003. Everyone should understand the enormity of the horrors, through the eyes of an iraqi.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:52 pmNobody can say with a true heart that this war is for the benefit of the Iraqis after reading that blog.