ABC Hit Piece On Reid Embraced By Right Wing
ABC Hit Piece On Reid Embraced By Right Wing
During a press conference yesterday after President Bush’s briefing on Iraq progress, ABC’s Jake Tapper pressed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to speculate on post-withdrawal from Iraq.
Even though Reid responded and explained that the U.S. should withdraw because Iraqis feel more insecure right now, Tapper refused to back down. Later that night, he produced a segment for ABC’s World News Tonight attacking Reid. Watch it:
Tapper then wrote a piece for ABC News entitled “Benchmarks and Bickering: Where Are Dems on Iraqi Security?,” stuffed with right-wing rhetoric. He alleged that Reid “refused to discuss whether the United States had a moral obligation to secure the country for Iraqis or even answer questions as to whether withdrawing troops would make the country safer for the tens of millions of Iraqis.”
In fact, as the ABC segment showed, Reid did answer the question, telling Tapper: “It is clear that the Iraqi people don’t want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq, and it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe.”
Nevertheless, the Washington Times picked up on the exchange today and reinforced Tapper’s attacks in an editorial titled “They Still Have No Plan“:
Mr. Reid’s response to this very reasonable question was to dodge here, dodge there. … What they [war critics] lack is any compelling rationale for the precipice over which they seek to push Iraq. Congress, do not turn a bloody and difficult stalemate in Iraq into an even bloodier, still more dangerous strategic catastrophe.
These talking points have been refuted time and again. Numerous military and diplomatic analysts argue that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would in fact “prevent Iraq’s multiple sectarian conflicts from spreading beyond its borders and gives Iraq and its neighbors the right incentive to help resolve Iraq’s internal conflicts.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Of course it is….Reid is a pathetic, sour, embittered, defeatist who needs to be kicked hard in the pants.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pmWhy is asking an idiot like Reid to think about the consequences of surrender a “hit piece”?
July 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pmThere’s a good reason to never watch ABC again.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pmJust another corporate msm hack.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pmHere’s a plan.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pmGFO
ringo is a patheric, sour, embittered, defeatist troll who needs to stop sucking on the rethug kool aid.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:57 pmOf course it is….Reid is a pathetic, sour, embittered, defeatist who needs to be kicked hard in the pants.
Comment by Ringo — July 13, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
As I just pointed out on the Lieberman thread, here’s another wingnut whose default position is to threaten violence.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:58 pmCould Jake Tapper be “our” Jake?
July 13th, 2007 at 3:58 pmDid he mention Reid mentioning Bush’s failure to capture Osama and Zawahiri?
July 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pmMust be that liberal, left-wing media again!
July 13th, 2007 at 4:00 pmYou call that an attack on Reid? He was right – Reid didn’t answer the question he was asked. His reply was evasive. There is nothing wrong with Tapper demanding accountability from democrats – he does it with Repugs all the time, too. Let’s face it, the war is a disaster, we all know it, but Reid is hardly the poster boy for a bold new Democratic party.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:00 pmWhy is asking an idiot like Reid to think about the consequences of surrender a “hit piece�
Comment by Unvarnished Truth — July 13, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
If Tapper hadn’t misrepresented Reid’s remarks, it woudn’t have been a “hit piece”. But the right-wing media can’t help but reinforce the right-wing narrative whenever they get a chance.
Nice straw man, though. You almost got all of the straw tucked into the flannel shirt. There’s still a couple sttrands sticking out the fly, though — oh, was that deliberate? Is that “for later”?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:00 pm#
Why is asking an idiot like Reid to think about the consequences of surrender a “hit piece�
Comment by Unvarnished Truth — July 13, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
#
Just a quick question. If the military did decide that the best option for Occupation Iraqi Freedom would be to surrender, who would they surrender to?
Withdrawal is not surrender. We did everything that needed to be done 3 years ago. Since then our troops have been an occupying force without a clear mission in a hostile environment where their government continues to change who the enemy is.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pmReid may have been evasive, but the rest of the piece does just echo right wing talking points: “They don’t have a plan, either.”
I saw my neighbor banging his head against a brick wall the other day. It looked painful. I asked what he was doing. “I’m going to show this brick wall that I am superior to it and it will bend to my will.” Bang. Bang. Bang.
So, I said to the guy, “Ummmm… that’s not working. Why don’t you stop?”
“Stop and do what? If I don’t keep doing this, the wall will win.” Bang. Bang. Bang.
Then I poin out, “Hey, idiot. It’s a brick wall. What you are doing isn’t effective and will never work. Stop doing it.”
He ignored me, mumbled something about me being a ‘defeatist’ and ‘not having a plan, either.’ I left him there banging his head against the wall.
A few hours later, I looked outside… there he was, on the ground, unconscious, and the brick wall was still there.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:06 pmIn September they will announce a new plan. Perhaps “Iraqi Flush”. No one will be allowed to question the plan until the next plan is announced in December.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pmReid has a plan, surrender. And I would like to know what Reid thinks will happen when we run away to Okinawa?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:09 pmAnybody watching ABC is a tool after they couldn’t find any names on the DC Madam’s list. They were told to bury the story by Dick Cheney, so real news organizations are now finding what ABC couldn’t.
ABC is firmly seated in the conservative media.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pmBush supporters have a plan to laugh and joke at the high number of American deaths.
They don’t care about how many US troops are crippled and maimed as long as they can shop.
-GSD
July 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20070713/ ap_on_go_pr_wh/ bush_iraq
July 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pmReid is a weenie, I don’t care if he is a Dem. He’s a weenie sellout like most of the rest.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pmJake–let’s go with what we know. the burden of proof is on the Bush administration not the other way around.
when is Jakey-Boy planning his expose on the failures of the current policy regarding Iraq and the supposed benchmarks for progress in Iraq?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:15 pmI posted this on the previous thread but got no response:
So if the Democrats succeed at getting US troops to pull out of Iraq it is very likely that millions will be slaughtered in our wake and Iraq will become a failed state like Somalia with various regions run by warlords. Al-Qaeda and other likeminded Salafist groups would provide safe-haven to jihadi-terrorists in the Sunni areas and Iranian backed Hezbollah-style militias would controll the Shiite regions.
Are you people so short-sighted or blinded by hatred of Republicans that you would find this scenerio preferrable to having US troops remain for a few more years fighting them now?
If we pull out of Iraq now, we’ll be back eventually…and we won’t be doing any nation building.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:15 pm“There’s a good reason to never watch ABC again.”
Comment by Harmonika Savingsbonds
No, ‘The Path To 9/11′ was a good reason to never watch ABC again. This is just a reminder.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:16 pmI would like for ABC news to tell its viewers exactly who we would surrender to. Are we going to surrender to the Iraqi government? We can’t surrender to al Qaeda, since they aren’t a country or sovereign government of any kind. Would we surrender to Iran? We aren’t at war with them. How about the Taliban. Oh wait, they aren’t a country or sovereign either. How about Islamo-fascists? Are they from Islamo-facistan? Can somebody show me that on the map?
So, who the fu*k we gonna surrender to if we are going to surrender.
Simple question, should have a simple answer.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pmABC=Disney=Floridian neofascist Xian Dominionists
July 13th, 2007 at 4:21 pmThe left will surrender to anyone just pick one. We are at war with Iran but they are the only ones fighting. Like Clinton and Al Qaeda in the 1990s.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:21 pm“whether the United States had a moral obligation to secure the country for Iraqis”
We HAD a moral obligation. Since there was no planning for post-Saddam Iraq, that train has up and left years ago. We now have a moral obligation to get the hell out of there and end an occupation which is a uniting cause for terror elements throughout the middle east. All this carping about how people will die if we leave… hello?! You mean even MORE people than have already died as a result of our occupation? It would be hard to beat the death record we’ve help bring about through our own actions.
With the current amount of death and terror they’re experiencing now (in the presence of our occupation forces in THEIR country) things are completely screwed and nothing short of a half a million or more troops is going to fix it.
We need to cut our losses and learn a lesson from this shite-stain on the underwear of American history.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pmReid is an easy target for the right-wing when anti-war sentiment comes boiling to the surface as it has so many times in the past. So ABC gets another no-name attack hack like Jake Tapper who editorializes rather than lays out the facts. Nobody heard of Jake Tapper before until today.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:23 pmSo let me see if i got this straight; We illegally invade a nation with”shock and awe”, we dismantel their army after the “victory” and the banking system and the utilities and the employment, and then the CIA constructs a campaign of bomb attacks on mosques to inflame sectarian violence, 100,000 or way more dead civilians; and 14 bases and 5 oild companies setting up perminate sites in Iraq….
July 13th, 2007 at 4:23 pmand they don’t want us to leave becasue it would be bad for the Iraqis?
Yes. Remember how vigorously the Republic majority party pursued AL Qaeda in the 90’s! Remember?
Neither do I.
If Osama Bin Laden had been a Bill Clinton semen stain on a dress he’d have been captured long ago.
Besides Bush is now negotiating with Libya and North Korea like a weasel.
-GSD
July 13th, 2007 at 4:24 pmSo, who the fu*k we gonna surrender to if we are going to surrender.
Simple question, should have a simple answer.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — July 13, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Foley & Haggard like to play Surrender games!
July 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pmAHHHHHHh ah aha ha ha ah haha ha hah h ah ah hah ah.
That is true if you don’t pay any attention to the fact that we are running black ops special forces missions in Iran right this very minute.
Idiot.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pmIf Bin Laden had been a fat intern who needed a cigar shoved up her then Clinton might have done something about terrorism.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pmIt is, I think, a peculiarly American type of hubris that says if we relinquish “control” in Iraq or anywhere else in the world that things will all fall apart.
Would there be bloodshed? Yes, likely, but probably less than the bloodshed we’ve been helping provoke for the past four years- hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died under our watch.
Would there be civil war? Probably, since there is one now. But there would also likely be movement toward an end state driven by Iraqis, not a clueless administration in Washington.
The American people want us to leave. The Iraqi people want us to leave. It’s their country; I’ll bet that they can take care of it better than we have.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pmwe are running black ops special forces missions in Iran right this very minute.
Idiot.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
————————————————-
I would hope so….but I doubt it.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pmReid is my senator and an honest man. Bush and his right-wing thugs are sociopathic liars and white collar criminals who should be arrested for treason. The breathtakingly long list of their serial criminality and unconstitutional behavior, which is now being documented by numerous senate and congressional investigations, will ultimately prove that Bush/Cheney, et al, are truly enemies of the United States of America. I hope it does not come too late.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pm“Unleash genocide against Innocent Iraqis?” Isn’t that happening now?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pmYou mean like how he tracked down and imprisoned the people who planned and carried out the first WTC bombing? Or do you mean like how he gathered the intelligence on Osama bin Laden and passed it on to Bush, which culminated in the August 6th PDB entitled “bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the US”?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pmWe are. Period. No question. Sit back and pay attention. We have been right about everything so far and you guys have been wrong. You bastards will get your fucking war with Iran. It has begun in secret and will continue until more Americans are killed. I hope you are happy with Americans dying for oil.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pmI mean like the four attacks on the United States by Bin Laden and the only response was to blow up a tent and an aspirin factory. I mean like the offer of Bin Laden from Sudan and Saudi Arabia to the United States and Clinton didn’t think he should because he had committed no crime.
That reprobate got 3,000 Americans killed because of his corruption and inaction, are you happy?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:31 pmThere is a serious misunderstanding. I did not pay $20 to suck some guy’s dick.
I would never go to a public restroom to solicit sex! I’m co-chair of John Mcains campaign in Florida. When I want to suck a hot throbbing cock stick, I get a young male intern to come into office, and then into my mouth – just the way god intended it! I use threats and power to get what I want not money! When I take the butt cherry off a new boy I don’t ever pay him. I get him a job as special assistant to someone useless so he can spend all day texting on a blackberry and having coffee and meetings! People need to know the truth! And the truth is that I don’t pay to give blow jobs. When I want to give a blow job, I just threatens someones job or future and then I pull down their pants and gobble their dolphin!
July 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmSounds like Jake Tapper’s nose is a little out of joint because Reid wouldn’t allow him to turn the news conference into a pointless debate over what is, essentially, an unanswerable question. Reid gave him what information we have now — that Iraqis aren’t secure WITH us there. And outlined the dismal lack of progress we have made to ensure their security since the beginning of our occupation, as well as the negatives resulting from our presence (more American military dead, more Iraqi dead, more terrorism, etc.).
Reid can’t say with certainty what will happen to the Iraqi people when we withdraw our military. Nobody can. That doesn’t stop the right from spouting off with their dire predictions, though. Since most of their predictions concerning our occupation and our surge haven’t come true (we’ll be greeted as liberators, we’re turning the corner, we’re seeing the last throes, Baghdad will be safe, etc.), Americans don’t have much faith in what they say anymore.
Tapper obviously went there with an agenda, and wrote his piece to fit that agenda.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmunvarnishedcrap: “Al Queda prepared to strike within U.S.” PDB August, 2001.
Heckofajob bushie.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:33 pmThere is a serious misunderstanding. I did not pay $20 to suck some guy’s dick.
I paid $25 dollars. Get your facts straight MSM!
July 13th, 2007 at 4:34 pmWhat we should be saying is very simple: We DO have an obligation to the Iraqi people for decades of using them as pawns in our international games. And there is a way to solve this crisis somewhere between staythestupidcourse and getthehellout.
But the problem is—Bushco CANNOT DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE so our only option is withdrawl. Dems like me feel we owe the Iraqis, but the current command can’t do anything else so we have to get out. so sad
July 13th, 2007 at 4:34 pmWhen it comes to Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism, there’s no need to invent fictional scenarios to show how ineffective he was; the truth is bad enough. A few months after 9/11, Byron York went through the record — including the former president’s habit of taking polls to see how he should respond to terrorist attacks — and came up with this report, from the December 17, 2001 issue of National Review:
June 25, 1996, a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured. When news reached Washington, Presi dent Bill Clinton vowed to bring the killers to justice. “The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished,†he said angrily. “Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished.†The next day, leaving the White House to attend an economic summit in France, Clinton had more tough words for the attackers. “Let me be very clear: We will not resist†— the president corrected himself — “we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them.â€
As Clinton spoke, his top political strategist, Dick Morris, was hard at work conducting polls to gauge the public’s reaction to the bombing. “Whenever there was a crisis, I ordered an immediate poll,†Morris recalls. “I was concerned about how Clinton looked in the face of [the attack] and whether people blamed him.†The bombing happened in the midst of the president’s re-election campaign, and even though Clinton enjoyed a substantial lead over Republican Bob Dole, Morris worried that public dissatisfaction with Clinton on the terrorism issue might benefit Dole.
Indeed, Morris’s first poll showed less support for Clinton than he had hoped. But by the time Morris presented his findings to the president and top staffers at a political-strategy meeting a few days later, public approval of Clinton’s response had climbed — something Morris noted in his written agenda for the session:
SAUDI BOMBING — recovered from Friday and looking great
Approve Clinton handling 73-20
Big gain from 63-20 on Friday
Security was adequate 52-40
It’s not Clinton’s fault 76-18
The numbers were a relief for the re-election team. But soon there was another crisis when, on July 17, TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its way from New York to Paris. There was widespread suspicion that the crash was the result of terrorism (it was later ruled to be an accident), and Morris’s polling found the public growing uneasy not only about air safety but also about Clinton’s performance in the Khobar investigation. Morris found that the number of people who believed Clinton was “doing all he can to investigate the Saudi bombing and punish those responsible†was just 54 percent, while 32 percent believed he could do more. Morris feared that White House inaction would allow Dole to portray Clinton as soft on national security.
“We tested two alternative defenses to this attack: Peace maker or Toughness,†Morris wrote in a memo for the president. In the “Peacemaker†defense, Morris asked voters to respond to the statement, “Clinton is peacemaker. Brought together Arabs and Israelis. Ireland. Bosnia cease fire. Uses strength to bring about peace.†The other defense, “Tough ness,†asked voters to respond to “Clinton tough. Stands up for American interests. Against foreign companies doing business in Cuba. Sanctions against Iran. Anti-terrorist legislation held up by Republicans. Prosecuted World Trade Center bombers.†Morris found that the public greatly preferred “Toughness.â€
So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:35 pmunvarnishedcrap: “Like an attack on American soil by mostly Saudis and we attack the wrong country, then screw up the war.”
July 13th, 2007 at 4:35 pmheckofajob bushie.
Interesting…..Every time I post a comment about the consequences of an Iraq withdrawl my comment id deleted.
Not only three times today, but everytime.
Cowards!
July 13th, 2007 at 4:36 pm44. Quit you’re copy and pasting. Think for yourself you frickin’ parrot.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pmRingo, you’ve never said a word that was worth reading anyway. Not to mention you’re full of it when you say your posts have been deleted. Posts with vulgar language haven’t even been getting deleted lately.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:39 pmGod damn! We could have a full-fledged withdraw simply based on the fact that every previous hypothetical HAS BEEN WRONG.
It can be dubbed Operation George Kastanza
July 13th, 2007 at 4:40 pmHa Ha Ringo. LOL
July 13th, 2007 at 4:40 pmYou are calling a piece of software a coward? That is really odd, since TP has no moderators. They only run filtering software. You are using a word that is getting your post deleted. It isn’t a person. It is why I have to insert exclamation points in my posts when I call you a piec of sh!t or an asterisk when a say you are a fu*king moron.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pmBush & Cheney were so preoccupied with there own oil fortunes to the extreme extent that precluded them from giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pmringo: Got Ego?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pmStop deleting ringo, you mean old computer. You are hurting his feelings. Ok, ringo, now go out and play nice – be sure to take your teddy and your sippy cup. Now be a good trollie-boy. Oh yeah, be sure to check under your bed for those bad old islamo-fascists.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI guess TP agrees with the 19% of Americans who approve of the job Harry Reid is doing.
The new AP poll shows that Americans are sick of the infighting in Congress. Approval for the Democratic lead Congress stands at 24%. Bush’s is at 33%.
Has to be tough to be a Democrat. There spineless cowards that are united on one issue – their HATRED for George W. Bush. Hate doesn’t win presidential elections. Please get a positive agenda.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:44 pmABC = Disney They’re Reich Wingnuts who tried to stop F911 from being shown.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:45 pmWhy is asking an idiot like Reid to think about the consequences of surrender a “hit piece�
Because it presupposes certain facts not in evidence – like a surrender or consequences, halfwit.
I mean like the offer of Bin Laden from Sudan and Saudi Arabia to the United States
This would be another example of baseless allegations not supported by evidence. Hence, a hit piece.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:45 pm#40 is right. I’m old enough to remember the dire predictions regarding leaving Vietnam: total bloodbath, all of South Asia would fall to the Communists (”Domino Theory”), etc., ad nauseum. NONE of it came to pass. We cannot predict the future, but the present situation of death and destruction visited on innocent Iraqis and the death and maiming of our own brave soldiers in this mindless and immoral war has got to stop! And, by the way #44, quoting anything from the National Review has zero credibility. What a joke!
July 13th, 2007 at 4:45 pmHas to be tough to be a Democrat. There spineless cowards that are united on one issue – their HATRED for George W. Bush. Hate doesn’t win presidential elections. Please get a positive agenda.
That is quite rational. What color is the sky in your world?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:46 pmIf the Dems are successful in getting our troops to retreat from Iraq the consequence will very likely be more than a million slaughtered and the country falling into the hands of warlords similar to Somalia. The Sunni regions will fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and other Salafist groups who will provide safe-haven to jihadi-terrorists while the Shiite areas will fall under the control of Iranian backed Hezbollah-style militias….both of which will spread terrorism throughout the region, against Israel and against the U.S.
Are you people so short-sighted or blinded by your hatred of Republicans that you would prefer this scenario to the continued presence of US forces for a few more years to fight them now?
If we retreat from Iraq it will be seen as militant Islam’s greatest victory since 9/11…and we will eventually have to go back again but next time there won’t be any nation building.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:50 pm“…inaction, are you happy?
Comment by Unvarnished Truth — July 13, 2007″
“A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.
The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.”
July 13th, 2007 at 4:50 pmwhy does Bush break the law?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:51 pmWhy can’t Reid answer a simple question?
Because you couldn’t get the answer. You’d got nuts screaming about how you’ve been betrayed and how the “traitors must be brought to public justice and first humiliated and then sentenced to death”.
Fukcing fringe left. You drive the rest of us dems mad.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:51 pm“There spineless cowards that are united on one issue – their HATRED for George W. Bush. Hate doesn’t win presidential elections. Please get a positive agenda.”
You’re tossing about the words ’spineless cowards’ in defense of a person who is a far more spineless coward than all the Dems in Congress put together. You are right on one point…hate doesn’t win presidential elections. Hate AND FEAR win presidential elections…assuming that is the Bush actually won either election. Save your projection, people on here see right through your BS.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:51 pmIf the Dems are successful in getting our troops to retreat from Iraq the consequence will very likely be more than a million slaughtered and the country falling into the hands of warlords similar to Somalia. The Sunni regions will fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and other Salafist groups who will provide safe-haven to jihadi-terrorists while the Shiite areas will fall under the control of Iranian backed Hezbollah-style militias….both of which will spread terrorism through out the region, against Israel and against the U.S.
Are you people so short-sighted or blinded by your hatred of Republicans that you would prefer this scenario to the continued presence of US forces for a few more years to fight them now?
If we retreat from Iraq it will be seen as militant Islam’s greatest victory since 9/11…and we will eventually have to go back again but next time there won’t be any nation building.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:52 pm#64 – not true. Bush won a positive agenda in 2000. It was the Dems who were negative and lost. AND admittedly, 2004 was different. But, Democrats were by far more HATEFUL. Yeah, Kerry got swiftboated, but he so had it coming. He slandered our troops and it needed to be pointed out.
As for 2008 – anything goes. The leading Dims have a lock on nothing. Given, the GOP in total shambles. But leave to the Dims to f*ck this one up. Nominate Hillary.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:55 pmWhere was Tapper when the immorality of invasion was on the board? None of the MSM asked administration officials or members of congress the tough questions that could have served to make the country think twice before ever supporting this pre-doomed farce in Iraq.
As to the question Tapper so desperately needs answered (because he seems to have no common sense of his own): There may very well be a bloodbath when US troops pull out, whenever that is. To believe anything else would happen after the removal of an absolute dictator who played groups off each other would be naive and deeply ignorant of history, as Tapper clearly is.
Sadly, I think he believes this is hard-hitting journalism.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:55 pmAs Clinton spoke, his top political strategist, Dick Morris, was hard at work conducting polls to gauge the public’s reaction to the bombing. “Whenever there was a crisis, I ordered an immediate poll,†Morris recalls. “Blah, blah, blah.
Comment by Unvarnished Truth
In reality, as Clinton spoke, Dick Morris let the prostitute who sucked his toes listen in to the conversation. You really picked a credible source, buddy
July 13th, 2007 at 4:56 pmSorry Repugs, this is your war You started it and you need to end it. Stop deflecting and equivocating and start coming up with the solution to bring our soldiers home where they belong. Your error does not need to confound their lives in perpetuity. Boy how immature to blame others for your diasters.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pm“Bush won a positive agenda in 2000. It was the Dems who were negative and lost. AND admittedly, 2004 was different. But, Democrats were by far more HATEFUL. Yeah, Kerry got swiftboated, but he so had it coming. He slandered our troops and it needed to be pointed out.”
Comment by God Help Us
Disingenuous at best. Bush has BY FAR done more slandering of the troops with his policies, and only uses the troops as a shield to hide behind to deflect criticism, spineless coward that he is. Sounds like you listen to too much of that propagandist Hannity.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:00 pmAh. Excellent. Beer and tonight’s classic: Bridget the Midget vol. 1.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:00 pm“Bush won a positive agenda in 2000.”
and we all know how well he did with the popular vote
July 13th, 2007 at 5:00 pm#49 nails it.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:01 pmCostanza taught bush a great deal about how to get away w/ lying.
“Impeachment procedural motions have gone into effect as of today.”
The latest poll shows approval of the Democratically controlled congress to be at 98.9% (amongst Democratic voters). A new polling record.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:01 pm——————–
Not really, but this is exactly what would happen if motions toward impeachment were taken.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Jake Tapper,
Laura and I cordially extend an invitation to you to spend a little down-time at our ranch in Texas., We would graciously consent to interviews with such a fine journalist as yourself.
By all means, please bring an ABC television camera crew, preferrably Charlie Gibson’s ABC television camera crew. Laura and I have such fond memories when Charlie visited our ranch. Bless him!
Laura and I always watch ABC News. Always! Of course the NewsHour with Jim Lehr has the weekly nasty habit of showing pictures of fallen soldiers. That’s bad journalism, and we really don’t waste our time with such trivial matters.
Jake, keep up the good work of distorting the real facts, Jake. if you should perhaps cross paths with Senator John Kerry, give him a tough interview, too, like Charlie Gibson did while interviewing him on Good Morning America in the fall of 2004.
If you should see Charlie, tell him he is in our prayers. You are in our prayers as well, Jake. Laura and I feel as if you are part of our extended family. God bless you! You are a true hero.
Sincerely,
July 13th, 2007 at 5:01 pmPresident George. W. Bush
Hey, ringo, can you give me some contacts? I’d love to get paid to comment!
July 13th, 2007 at 5:02 pmDems have a positive agenda. repigs have a negative agenda. Repigs hate freedom and democracy, and wiill filibuster any bill that doesn’t support their hatred of America. Today’s trolls are still drowning in the envy that Clinton was an amazingly successful president who accomplished what the people needed, while Bush is an abject, immoral failure who can’t get any of his wars won, because of his own incompetence and his foloowers’ stupidity. Reid was wise not to fall for Tapper’s BS; Tapper has his own antiAmerican agenda. Wingnuts will never get over the fact that they are incapable of governing and that Democratic presidents routinely do the job, while Republican presidents routinely steal from the treasury and weaken the military, all the while trying to limit the freedoms in the Constitution. the best that will come of all this is that Bush has, finally, destroyed the Republican party, just before they were successful in destroying american with their hatred and ignorance. the worst president in US history is his legacy, and the loss of respect for our flag and country will haunt his name forever. Good job, traitors and other rightwing cowards.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:02 pmSen. Reid must learn to stand-up, and fight back, or GOPers will crush him.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:04 pm“Wingnuts will never get over the fact that they are incapable of governing and that Democratic presidents routinely do the job…”
For the most part I agree with your post, except that I hope you’re not throwing Carter in with that. Otherwise Clinton has been the only Dem since 1969. We’ve been instead stuck with either criminals or those who surround themselves with criminals. Quite sad actually.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:05 pmThe GOPers couldn’t crush grapes. look at how well they’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Except for them sneaking up behind you at rest stops, they’re nothing to be afraid of. Chickenhawks, draft-dodgers and deserters, with rare exception.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:08 pmCarter was a fine president, stuck with a previous GOP failure and hobbled by treason from Republicans secretly negotiating with Iran. You don’t think Reagan had a chance of winning a fair fight, do you? No more than Bush did, and we know how he stole two elections.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pmComment by ronjazz — July 13, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
What ronjazz said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pmNo answer to #68 eh?….Same question that Rid couldn’t answer.
Pathetic.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:11 pmShould say: No answer to #68 eh?…Same question that Reid couldn’t answer.
Pathetic.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:12 pmin the Nixon days, ABC was known as the Administration Broadcasting Company. I guess things have not changed.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pm“and we all know the popular vote is irrelvent in the United States.
Comment by yep — July 13, 2007″
you should run for office on a ‘the popular is irrelvent’ platform.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pm@ 8, cull through all the comment post time stamps for “our” Jake, and all the timestamps that Mr. Tapper has been on live, and see if there is overlap. If none, then you have your man.
@55 Greenwald addressed that a day or 2 ago.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pmLuckily nobody in America pays attention to this kind of stuff, so it won’t matter. I don’t care if Reid said it or not, he’s right: The War in Iraq is going to cost the Republican party dearly. Not because of some fault in the Democrat’s strategy to get us out of there, but because they forced the country to go war on a lie, executed the war in a disgustingly incompetent way, shed the more “quaint” aspects of the Geneva convention, and make the world less safe for Americans. I dare say ANY political party that can manage to do ALL of that in just 6+ years could bank of losing plenty of congressman. Why, you 26% who still believe George W. Bush, ask? Because that does not represent the will of the people who elect government officials to represent them. I swear, we just need to re-teach our country the basics of our political process. Starting with the Vice President’s place in our government….
July 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pm“Should say: No answer to #68 eh?…Same question that Reid couldn’t answer.
Pathetic.
Comment by Ringo — July 13, 2007″
Should say: Comment by Ringo — Pathetic.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pmDon’t ever forget that conservatives have been against every freedom granted since the founding of the nation, except those for rich white males. Against Civil Rights, against Suffrage, against freedom of choice, against education for all, against health care for all. America can never achieve the ideals it was founded on as long as conservatives have any power. conservatives are stupid, mean fools whose own weaknesses make them sick with hate of those who are smarter and more accomplished. Until we wipe out the repubican party, we can never truly be free.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:15 pmhow dare the media ask a democrat a hard question
July 13th, 2007 at 5:15 pmWho owns ABC?
July 13th, 2007 at 5:15 pm92, they sure do avoid asking your idiot president any hard questions. He even f*cks up the easy ones. Tapper’s question wasn’t hard, it was stupid, irrelevant and should have been completely ignored, as there was no factual basis for it.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:17 pmABC News and it’s reporters are buckling under to pressure to the right and Fox News. The are so afraid they will be called names by Fox they go out of the way to try to present the rightwing view of things. This is yellow journalism at it’s worst. This guy Jake Tapper is a coward who refuses to see reality for what it is. If he’s so intent on staying in Iraq, why doesn’t he join the Army, get a rifle and fight? Oh, yeah, that’s right, he’s afraid too. I hate it when COWARDS like Jake Tapper stand behind a mic and try to influence what voters think. Only he and the administration live in a bubble. The rest of us have enough brains to figure it out. This is Viet Nam all over again. You’ve got a President who refuses to acknowledge the truth, a Congress with no guts and a Press who is too busy cheerleading.
Mr. Bush keeps saying history will tell who was right. Apparently he forgot how history has looked at the Viet Nam war. Even Sectetary McNamara finally came and admitted he was wrong and cost thousands of American soldiers their lives. It’s easy to stand in Washington and talk B.S. If these fouls are so brave let’s see them fight. I’ll hold their coats for them.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:23 pmSo will the Iraqis be safer if we leave now?
July 13th, 2007 at 5:24 pmMaybe ABC should ask Bush why he is defying the will of 70% of the American people and how his gutting of our defenses for this useless war helps AMERICAN people. Oh, and dont accept his BS “Al Quaeda 9/11″ nonanswers.
Wait, that never happens. That only works when you are questioning why a Democrat wants to actually do what Americans ask for in large numbers.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pmRingo, #1 Yes, and #2 Go crawl back up Cheney’s bunker.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:27 pmRingo, since you are clearly an Iraqi citizen, let me be the first to say it is time for you to start providing your own safety. Five years after we have played global policeman, it is now your turn.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:29 pmABC News and it’s reporters are buckling under to pressure to the right and Fox News. The are so afraid they will be called names by Fox they go out of the way to try to present the rightwing view of things. This is yellow journalism at it’s worst.
Ladies & Gentlemen we have a winner.
MSCM is so worried about balance that they tip over to the right all the time.
It’s stupid. No matter how far to the right they go they will still be called “liberal” by the likes of the Moonie Times and Faux News.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:39 pmthis is the same clown that worked with the moonie times and drudge to push the air pelosi story.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:42 pmFirst, I’m a huge liberal. Figured I should get this out of the way, because TP posters seem not to like people questioning these pieces.
Anyway, as much as this piece does flatter the Republican argument, it is unfortunately correct. We as Democrats need to have an answer to the question “what happens to the Iraqis when we leave?”
Reid dodged that question, and the reporter was right to point it out. He didn’t answer what he was asked. We need to get out. We also need to propose a way of doing it that doesn’t precipitate a massacre and civil war. There’s an answer to this, so let’s find it instead of freaking out when we get called on it.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:45 pmYES! YES! THE IRAQIS WILL BE SAFER THE SOONER WE LEAVE! YES! THEY WILL! YES!
They won’t be kidnapped by death squads for helping American soldiers. They won’t depend on those very same death squads to keep them from being killed by foreign fighters, only in the country because of our US troops. They won’t be victims caught in cross-fire between US troops, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. They will force their own government to provide the protection from law enforcement and their own military that we are, clearly, unable to provide right now.
YES! THEY IRAQI PEOPLE WILL BE SAFE WHEN WE LEAVE!
The sooner, the better.
And since when do you guys give two SHITS about innocent Iraqis? Where was your sympathy during “shock and awe”? Or when George W. Bush, when asked how many Iraqis he supposed were killed, took a stab in the dark and said “30,000, more or less.”
This sort of blatant, politically motivated bullcrap makes me sick to my stomach.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:45 pmSo will the Iraqis be safer if we leave now?
What kind of question is that anyway?? They aren’t safe now. They haven’t been safe yet. They won’t be safe if we leave. They won’t be safe if we stay. Can you guarantee they will be ’safer’ if we stay with Bush’s plan? He doesn’t HAVE a plan. He has NEVER HAD a plan. He doesn’t care about those Iraqis or their quality of life. He doesn’t care that they don’t have clean water, or medical care, or electricity, or gas for their cars, or anything that gives them any sense of stability and secruity. If he did he would have sent enough troops in the first place to actually do the job and then had us leave. He would have actually HAD a plan for what happens after we broke their country into smithereens. I believe the plan was NEVER to leave. That WAS the plan. The plan was to stay, take control of the oil, and build all those permanent bases along where the oil lies. War is also big business. A lot of people are making an AWFUL lot of money (our taxpayer money) by us staying at war. Have you read “Imperial Life in the Emerald City”? Read it and then we can talk about Bush’s ‘plan’ for the Iraqis.
If America cares about our soldiers and saving this country from being driven over a cliff by this President, then we will impeach Bush and CHeney NOW and bring our troops home before it is too late and they take us into phase 2 – Iran. Iraq was just the beginning.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pmAlotta Bullshit Constantly should hear just one thing, the click of changing stations. Maybe Ditsney and company will get the message then. They and their ilk are as Fux Nooze is, and they and their viewers spend alot of time
July 13th, 2007 at 5:50 pmin never never land, and “TINKLE BELLE” is their grand POOP..AHHHH.
There is a place for Jake at his natural home, Fox News. Maybe as Brit’s co-hack??
July 13th, 2007 at 5:52 pmWhat will happen if we pull out? The same thing that will happen if we stay; Sunni-Shia civil war, Turkey poised to invade Kurdish regions, Iraqi economy in shambles, completely inept government, no security, etc.
The only difference is our troops will not be in the middle. The Iraqi government and security forces will eventually not just be seen as US puppets, which will help them earn the respect of their people. Most likely though, the country will end up dividing into several different regions. The ethnic cleansing and movement of populations is already going on at a massive scale. We have no current strategy to prevent that.
Iraq has turned into a diplomatic situation that has no military solution. By that, I mean the ONLY possible way to prevent the groups from killing each other is to bring in neighboring countries. That means Jordanian, Turkish, Iranian, Syrian and Saudi forces all have to step in to restore security. Right now, those countries are mostly inflaming the sectarian violence. We cannot stop Shiite militias without the help of Iran. We cannot stop Sunni militias without help from the Saudis. We can’t secure the Kurdish north without the help of the Turks. We have to face that reality and ask for their help.
We need to basically admit the complete blunder we have made, and call on the world to help the Iraqi people. Not for our sake, but purely for the Iraqi people. That could mean turning over the entire operation to the UN, and treating it like a humanitarian crisis. Call on peace-keepers from all countries under UN, not US control. Hand over all of Iraqis resources to the Iraqi people. Once all the peace-keepers and neighboring countries can bring some sense of security, the new Iraqi government can start to bring in foreign investment and create jobs for their people. More jobs will mean less and less insurgents/militiamen.
Then you redeploy US forces, and leave only small-scale special op units whose only goal is to target Al Qaeda camps/operatives and hunt down Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda leadership. We will have our victory against terror when we find them and bring them to justice, not from “staying the course” on Iraq.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:53 pmNothing illustrates the effect of corporate money and its power to co-op journalists better than the example of Jake Tapper. If I’m not mistaken, he used to be the editor of Salon and was an outspoken and eloquent critic of the way Republicans stole the 2000 election for Bush.
Now that he’s been given the huge money that corporate television media offers its shills, he’s nothing more than a shrill propagandist. He speaks FOR power now, not TO it. And, that’s where the big money is. He follows in the foot steps of other fallen “journalists” like Russert and Matthews. It’s like a disease which has almost completely broken what was once called the “Fourth Estate,” and Tapper is a sick, fallen propagandist with blood dripping off of his hands.
imorgan82, for a “huge liberal,” you have a disturbing lack of understanding about what progressives have been saying for years now: our presence in Iraq CREATES violence. If we pull back, there will be no more need for al Qaeda there, no incentive for terrorists to go there and therefore, less violence. Whether we stay or not, there will be sectarian violence since a strong dictator was always what prevented that from happening anyway. And, I’ve got news for you — our leaving won’t “precipitate” a civil war because there is already a civil war happening. Our presence and the removal of Saddam Hussein precipitated a civil war. That train has left the station. Bush has already created a Shiite arc across the middle east and much more terrorism than existed before. 100 years from now, history books will have chapters titled “Bush’s Folly.”
July 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pm“Path to 9/11″ was a good reason to never watch ABC again, the renewal of “According to Jim” may be the greatest reason of all
July 13th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pmLEAHY, CONYERS, REID, AND PELOSI HAVE TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#108 Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — July 13, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
imorgan82, for a “huge liberal,†you have a disturbing lack of understanding about what progressives have been saying for years now: our presence in Iraq CREATES violence.
Spot on Col. Jack.
As always, I appreciate your in depth understanding of the events of our time.
I suspect, as your “quotes” imply, that imorgan82 is nothing more than a sneaky troll, attempting to lull me to sleep while making neocon talking points seem benign. However, garbage is garbage, no matter how sweet it smells.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pmIsn’t this the guy who played a gay guy in ‘Three’s Company’? Oops, thats Jack Tripper, never mind, it must be our Jake. To review his history, see this:
Let us review Jake’s career:
He worked as a crash dummy for the NASA Rocket Sled program.
After each time he crashed into a 16 meter granite barrier at orbital speeds, they would scrape his brains off of the base of the sled into a bucket, turn him upside down, put a funnel into each nostril and pour them back in.
He sloshed when he nodded or shoke his head. The kind of sound that you hear when you shake up a container of orange juice or paint thinner, no more.
Every once in a while, in the past, the air relief valve at the back of Jake’s head malfunctioned and a little grey matter dripped out. That has not reoccurred since November, 2006.
Jake’s golden retriever has entered some posts when he (Jake, not the dog) passed out. On those occasions, the posts seem more rational, hence the apparent schizoid behavior.
Jake had a brain scan in December, 2006 – they found nothing.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pmThanks a lot, Merlin. I appreciate that.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:38 pmThis suggestion generally falls on deaf ears, but I’ll make it again:
July 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pmTurn off your Televisions!
I have a television, but it is not hooked up for cable or even local networks. I just use it to watch DVD’s. No network or cable news, no mindless reality shows, no stupid sitcoms, no crime scene investigation programs, etc. I get my news from internet sites. I couldn’t be happier. I read more, started writing again and have more time for other projects.
100 years from now, history books will have chapters titled “Bush’s Folly.â€
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — July 13, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Not according to Joe! :D
July 13th, 2007 at 6:47 pmIn Washington yesterday, George W. Bush encountered what might be deemed the “reverse Chicken Little moment” of his presidency. That is, Americans have simply stopped believing his perpetual claims of sunny skies to come in Iraq.
As the President delivered the interim progress report on his Iraq surge, he was greeted with dropped jaws and incredulous stares across the political spectrum. It wasn’t just anti-war stalwart Jack Murtha calling Bush “delusional.” On Friday, Bill O’Reilly told his former Fox News colleague Tony Snow “you can’t win” in Iraq. And long-time GOP speechwriter and conservative cheerleader Peggy Noonan labeled Bush’s performance “weird” and “strange.”
For the four year history of Bush’s favorite Iraq talking point, see:
July 13th, 2007 at 6:58 pm“‘We’re Making Progress’ – Bush’s History of Iraq.”
Bush Corporate Inc. refused International involvement at the onset because, I guess, they wanted the oil for themselves, or because the UN said there were no WMNs.
Did it ever occur to anyone that if the US leaves Iraq that the UN might fill the breech, except I hope for trying to steal Iraq oil?
PS: I watch PBS and BBC and CSPAN. I only have “the basic” cable connections so get to miss most of the crap. I only wish I could get the Daly Show and Democracy Now!
July 13th, 2007 at 7:14 pmHEY EVERGREEN! YOU CAN GET DEMOCRACY NOW! Go online and get it through your computer streaming. We recently lost their signal out of Los Angeles, we are about 100 miles from their transmitter at KPFK Los Angeles and a Mexican classical music station started overpowering their signal until we just couldn’t hear it anymore! So now I listen on the computer! It remains the ONLY truly progressive voice on the ENTIRE FM bandwidth in Riverside county!
July 13th, 2007 at 7:27 pmPROGRESSIVES DO NOT STAND A CHANCE AS LONG AS THIS ABC STORY IS THE KIND OF MEDIA COVERAGE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN NEANDERTHAL IS SEEING AND HEARING.
Who makes the editorial decisions on these guys? Who benefits?
PROGRESSIVES DO NOT STAND A CHANCE AS LONG AS THIS ABC STORY IS THE KIND OF MEDIA COVERAGE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN NEANDERTHAL IS SEEING AND HEARING.
Who makes the editorial decisions on these guys? Who benefits?
Comment by Shirley
———————————————————–
Are you saying that the media shouldn’t ask Harry Reid any tough questions?
Why couldn’t he answer it?
July 13th, 2007 at 7:31 pmBush Corporate Inc. refused International involvement at the onset because, I guess, they wanted the oil for themselves, or because the UN said there were no WMNs.
Did it ever occur to anyone that if the US leaves Iraq that the UN might fill the breech, except I hope for trying to steal Iraq oil?
PS: I watch PBS and BBC and CSPAN. I only have “the basic†cable connections so get to miss most of the crap. I only wish I could get the Daly Show and Democracy Now!
Comment by evergreen
BushCo wanted this to de-escalate into a bloody civil war in order to justify our soldiers having to remain there.
What is the argument now? That if we leave it will be chaos and blood shed. Therefore we have to stay.
It’s not incompetance, it’s design.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:33 pmHey RINGO? Why ask REID the tough questions? He and his party were lied to and are NOT the reason for a million dead Iraqis, and TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DEAD AND MAIMED AMERICANS!
July 13th, 2007 at 7:47 pmWhy aren’t the MSM propagandists grilling the bastards who got us into this foul pit? As Michael Moore laid Blitzer out a few nights ago, WHY WEREn’t the reporters at CNN DOING THEIR JOBS FOUR YEARS AGO?!?! Our alternative is to stay in Iraq and do the killing ourselves (and being killed) or to leave and let the CIVIL WAR takes its course.
Seems to me the answer is pretty clear. ANYONE SUPPORTING THE CURRENT STATUS QUO IS AN ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER. And that might include you, Ringo.
h… hi there… !DON’T HURT ME!!!…
I’m WHIMPY Harry “I might as well be in a coma” Reid…
… sorry, sorry, I’m so sorry… did I say that too loud? sorry.
Ooooo… that mean old President Bush… he… well… he is just…
ooooo… he is a Loser… there, I said it. Loser… with a capital “L”
Oh, Mr. Bush, I am so sorry. Please don’t hurt me, please!!!!
HELP!!! HELP!!! My Muslim Masters will come save me! HELP!!!
Bush, you are so stupid… I SURRENDERED to the TERRORISTS
and they will help me! HELP!!! OSAMA!!! HELP!!! HABEEBS!!!
HELP!!!
Defeatistly yours,
July 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pmWHIMPY Harry “I might as well be in a coma” Reid
(aka #1 SurrenderMONKEY)
Ringo: “Are you saying that the media shouldn’t ask Harry Reid any tough questions?”
I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that they shouldn’t. I think the frustration arises from the fact that people like Tapper refuse to ask the administration tough questions. Why didn’t anyone ask Bush why he told his people not to cooperate with congress? Why didn’t anyone ask him why he never followed through with his promise to fire anyone involved in leaking Plames name to the media? Why didn’t anyone challenge his assertion, completely opposite of current intelligence reports, that al Qaeda hasn’t gotten back to pre-9-11 strength. When was the last time you heard Jake Tapper speak TO power?
July 13th, 2007 at 7:53 pmTo be fair, I’m sure that Tapper is soon going to do an expose on George Bush revealing the fact that he NEVER answers a question posed to him. He either rambles on about nothing or he changes the subject.
But, I don’t expect ABC to be fair. They are about as “fair and balanced” as Faux Noise.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:18 pmAnother thread completely taken over by the Trolls. FOLKS, PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS. WE WILL NEVER GET RID OF THEM AS LONG AS YOU KEEP FEEDING THEM.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:19 pmWashington Times: “What they [war critics] lack is any compelling rationale for the precipice over which they seek to push Iraq.”
This is a correct statement!
Neither simply leaving Iraq nor staying the course is a satisfactory solution. We need an intelligent detailed multifaceted solution. Those at the top, on both sides, need to demonstrate that they have thorough knowledge of the situation and a detailed intelligent solution.
The same simplistic garbage that got us into this mess, will not get us out. We caused deaths by simplistically going into Iraq, and we will allow deaths if we simplistically leave Iraq. We have to be more responsible than that, given the high stakes.
Democrat supporters and anti-war people shouldn’t fall for the same simple dualistic thinking that got us into this mess.
Reid did not have an answer, which shows that he is not worthy of office, just like most politicians. Incompetent pro-war leaders and obnoxious media people challenge us to rise higher than them.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm“whether the United States had a moral obligation to secure the country for Iraqisâ€
FOR the Iraqis, FOR the Iraqis, FOR the Iraqis . . .
Listen pal – if you’re so concerned about the Iraqis, and if Iraq is, as Bush likes to claim, a sovereign country, and if most of the people in that country want us to leave (which they do, according to literally every poll that’s ever been conducted there in the past 2 years), then there is only one moral thing to do, and that is to leave.
And as far as “securing the country for Iraqis” – this may come as news to you, but most of the people we’re fighting are Iraqis, so that doesn’t even make sense on its face.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pmDems rightfully claim Bush had no realistic plan for Iraq after the invasion, only a bunch of unsupported, ideologically-driven, rosy scenarios. As a result, the US dove head first into situation that carried a high probability of disaster. Now we’re in that disaster and there are no good exits.
To my mind, that does not excuse anyone who’s promoting a plan from providing a full and realistic assessment of what will happen if their plans are enacted. Dems have not yet done that; Repubs won’t even realistically assess the present. So it seems we’ve learned nothing.
I never wanted us to go into Iraq. Once we did, I hoped against my own better judgment that things would work out. They didn’t, and once it became apparent there was no way to salvage our investment, I favored withdrawing. But not before we understand the implications of what that means.
It is not inconceivable that the current Iraqi government could fall once some percentage of US troops are withdrawn or redeployed. Would the remaining, drawn down US forces re-engage? Would they hasten their withdrawal, like the US Embassy in Saigon times 1,000? Would they be trapped?
These are questions all of us who favor withdrawal should ask — and Dems in Congress must answer. Otherwise, the plan to bring our troops home is no less resolved than the plan to invade in the first place.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:01 pmThis was the most stupid post i have ever seen, fair question, whats your plan
July 13th, 2007 at 9:02 pmCAN ANYONE EXPLAIN WHAT VICTORY IN IRAQ actually means at this point?
1. It was an illegal invasion based upon misinformation at best, lies at worst.
2. The apparent aim of the Bush Invasion is to implement PSA (profit “sharing” agreements) on the oil reserves which are actually means by which the major oil companies PRIVATIZE the oil revenues.
3. Any serious anti-terror motives would have focussed on hunting down and prosecuting the actual perpetrators of terror actions, just as the Clinton Administration succeeded in doing with the 1993 WTC terrorists!
So if the above is true, and many educated persons seem to think it is, then “victory” for the bush Administration is simply a euphemism for murder and theft.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:04 pmUm, correction to 128 last sentence: Otherwise, the plan to bring our troops home is no MORE resolved than the plan to invade in the first place.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pmFrom the article:
” Reid “refused to discuss whether the United States had a moral obligation to secure the country for Iraqis or even answer questions as to whether withdrawing troops would make the country safer for the tens of millions of Iraqis.â€
The real points regarding our presence in Iraq are these:
1. We had no RIGHT to invade the soverign nation of Iraq.
2. We have no RIGHT to occupy Iraq now.
3. We have no RIGHT to build more than 100 military bases in their country with at least 4 designed as permanent bases.
4. We have no right to remain in Iraq, in any capacity at all, without the people of Iraq invitivg us there. And for that request to be real and not coerced, we must be out of the country completely.
5. We have no RIGHT to demand that Iraq follow our bidding regarding their choice of leadership. It is none of our business what form of government they choose to be governed by.
6. We had no RIGHT to create the Paul Bremmer “100 edicts” and force the Iraqis to live by them.
That is the reality, folks. All this discussion on whether we stay, for how long and in what capacity is beside the point. The belief that if BushCo wasn’t incompetent everything would be fine is morally bankrupt at best.
The Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us out of their country, and we morally, ethically, and historically have no choice but to leave immediately (safely, of course.)
Begin the withdrawal immediately! Any other course is simply not valid. Period.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:11 pm#128 Comment by beep52 — July 13, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
These are questions all of us who favor withdrawal should ask — and Dems in Congress must answer. Otherwise, the plan to bring our troops home is no less resolved than the plan to invade in the first place.
I disagree. See my post #132. The removal of our troops safely is a function of our military leaders. It is already understood on the basis of history, and no big deal, to create and perform a safe workable plan for withdrawal. The problem is that the neocons want to stay, not go.
Your concern about the consequences of our withdrawal is nonsense. We simply have no right to be there at all and all your philosophizing about the possible scenarios that might occur is tantamount to fiddling while Rome burns.
Once we are out of Iraq is the time to make amends by offering our help to rebuild THEIR country that we continue to destroy daily. That is, if they ask us to do that. (And we should rebuild Iraq as they want it, not as we see fit to do it.)
Your post shows either a lack of moral and ethical thought or the understanding and guts to do what is undeniably right.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:31 pmto end this war, the liberal demosocialists need only to cut off the funding. its that easy, yet they refuse. the demosocialts defy their base and continue to fund this war they claim to be morally wrong. why? because they care only about their own political gains, not the troops, not the iraqis, not our nations security. election victories, house and senate seats, the white house, these are the only things that drive the demosocialists. if i am wrong, then they would cut the funds and end the war, but we all know they won’t, they can’t, this war is their campaign. every american death, in their eyes, is just another chunk of votes coming their way. the demosocialists, the liberals, are the most destructive faction in the history on this nation.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:46 pmComment by Merlin — July 13, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
I agree wholeheartedly. We should pull out and provide the Iraqis the wherewithal to set their nation straight. If they can not do it with our support, let them sink. about 12 billion over 12 months is about he right seed. That’s about 10% of the current feed and with Cheney’s cronies out of the trougth, they could be bought.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:50 pmReid is a joke, and the fever-swamp denizens twittering at ABC for daring to ask the corrupt, brain-dead fraud from Nevada to answer its questions are as clueless as Dingy Harry himself.
He makes Pelosi look clever and smart, and that takes some doing. Why can’t smart Dems like Cong. Harman represent the Dem viewpoints instead of airheads like Pelosi and total leftardo losers like Reid?
July 13th, 2007 at 9:53 pmUNTruth:
Hmm seems to me Dick and GW tend to cower in bunkers when AlQaeda attacks.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:58 pmReid might be a dottering invertebrate impotent feckless dolt, but he’s OUR dottering invertebrate impotent feckless dolt.
Hands off, Tapper! Your pet chimpanzee ain’t exactly got a plan either, does he?
DRAFT THE TAPPER FAMILY.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:59 pmPS — I’m with Merlin.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:00 pmAs an observer of US politics for a long time I have always been amazed at the lack of analytical thinking of issues and policies. Bush, Cheney, and company went into Iraq with no plan, except maybe to secure oil reserves and ‘get Saddam’. Now the right wing fanatics and extremists blame the Democrats for not having a plan, and it appears that many of the general population are buying this idea, that this is not Bush’s responsibility. The US is in a corner: can’t leave because an anti-US Islamic government will be installed (after the inevitable blood bath); ’stay the course’ and watch the US military machine slowly bleed out. You guys should have stuck with what you do best: sponsor a civil war and install a right wing megalomaniac controlled from Washington, providing the Corporations with unfettered access to whatever resources precipitated the US involvement in the first place.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:08 pmOk, lets see, pull out, bloodbath, u yellow bastards are gonna cry.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:08 pmHere’s what a real President did against terrorism:
# PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:20 pm# Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
# Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
# Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
# Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.
# Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
# Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
# Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
# Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
# Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
# Of Clinton’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: “Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”.
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”.
I agree with imorgen82
Reid did not answer the question. Those of you getting all pissy should go back and watch the video.
I am in total favor of immediate withdrawal, but Reid did not answer the question as to what happens when we do. It’s a question we have to be prepared to answer, even if the answer is, “We don’t care.”
July 13th, 2007 at 10:21 pmStarting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, “threat meetings” were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it “The enemy of our generation.”
Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.
In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton’s dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous “wag the dog” tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie “Wag The Dog” to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.
The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden’s Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden’s villa in Khartoum. The book “Age of Sacred Terror” quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: “The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat.”
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton’s bill on this matter and called it “totalitarian.” In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled “Banking on Secrecy” published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, “Without the world’s financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world’s financial system of dirty money was short-circuited.”
This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr’s office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.
Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton’s anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.
The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, “I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face.”
Indeed.
Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:23 pmhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml
The “real president” did what? u might want to look over your fantisy list.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:24 pmi didnt know i signed into disney land, a “real president” get real
July 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pmhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml
admit it, a political prostitute
July 13th, 2007 at 10:29 pmMerlin wrote: “It is none of our business what form of government they choose to be governed by.”
The problem is that they cannot currently choose – it’s chaos there. It’s an emergency, with no real government.
You mention rights, but what about responsibility? We cannot let people slaughter each other. And if we did, then the most violent person would reach the top, rather than the wisest person. I agree that we had no right to originally attack, but now we have a responsibility to minimise the violence and suffering.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:32 pmTruth is a funny word: means something different depending on context. Perry Logan claims the US bombing of the Sudanese Pharmaceutical factory was a strike against the ‘terrorists’ because the CIA found VX nerve agent in the rubble. Is this the same CIA that found clear evidence that Saddam had WMD?? I remember Bush’s puppet Blair claiming that Iraq was just 45 minutes from going thermo-nuclear and I thought “why don’t they just invest 3/4 of hour of labour to complete the job and be ready to go immediately?”
July 13th, 2007 at 10:35 pm#141 Comment by Atlantajan — July 13, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
I am in total favor of immediate withdrawal, but Reid did not answer the question as to what happens when we do. It’s a question we have to be prepared to answer, even if the answer is, “We don’t care.â€
Ah, another brilliant philosopher who wants to smoke his pipe and “talk” about what is going to happen. Are you afraid to stand up and take responsibility for the situation we are in? Do you believe we have a RIGHT to be there? Or not? You are pussyfooting around the absolute moral facts of our responsibility. See my post #132.
Or are you another troll lying through his teeth about being “in total favor of immediate withdrawal.” You tell me! I have no interest in feeding trolls.
PS- The highlighted word but above means that the reader should know that you don’t mean anything stated before the word but. It is a psychological thing most people don’t know!
July 13th, 2007 at 10:38 pmSo, I guess you really aren’t in “favor of immediate withdrawal” are you?
Merlin is right: the Coalition of the Willing fronted by the Septic Tanks have a moral responsibility in Iraq to fix a situation which has gone Septic. And surely everyone knows that Septic Tanks are full of shit.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:51 pmWho got to Jake Tapper? He was one of my favorite commentators 4-5 years ago when he was a moderate. Is he with Fox yet?
July 13th, 2007 at 10:53 pmOk, lets see, pull out, bloodbath, u yellow bastards are gonna cry.
Comment by umbra
“you yellow bastrds”?? Whate are you talking about, you idiot? Your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:01 pmYou people steal away your credibility so easily. ABC has the audacity not to hammer Bush (for a change) and you turn on them in a nano-second. You are no different than the Sean Hannity Kool Aid drinkers.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:04 pmComment by Martin Gifford — July 13, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
… but now we have a responsibility to minimise the violence and suffering.
And that is exactly why we have to get out now! This IS our responsibility.
Go back and read Ret. Col. Jack Ripper at #108 answering imorgan82. We are creating far more trouble by staying than going. Yes there will be a difficult adjustment time, but it will be better, not worse, without us there. That does not relieve us of our moral obligation to leave. Powell’s “pottery barn” rule is nonsense. We don’t own anything there. We owe reparations and help, if they want it, ask for it, and decide those things without our coersion. If we stay, we continue to meddle in their affairs.
I believe it is simply arrogance to believe that only the US has the answers to how a people or country should live. Dictatorship or Democracy. It is their choice, not ours.
Arrogance, that is, or, in my view, criminal intent, to take over another countries resourses, (like energy, for its own use.)
Bush is pursuing a crusade of Good vs Evil, and intends the battle to last forever. The neocons, who represent and are driven by the major corporations are using this dry drunk, megalomaniac to push their agenda of energy control of the ME. (Read some Machiavelli or Leo Strauss for insight.)
All this “What do we do now?” (whine, whine) handwringing, is neocon diversion and nothing more than “talking points” to confuse the morally challenged.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:06 pmABC has the audacity not to hammer Bush (for a change) and you turn on them in a nano-second. You are no different than the Sean Hannity Kool Aid drinkers.
Comment by Glen
EXCUSE ME??? “not to hammer Bush”??? The MSM has been giving Herr Brusch a free ride all along.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:09 pmAgain, who owns ABC?
July 13th, 2007 at 11:18 pm#151 Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 13, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
Ok, lets see, pull out, bloodbath, u yellow bastards are gonna cry.
Comment by umbra
“you yellow bastrds�? Whate are you talking about, you idiot? Your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
#151 Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 13, 2007
So, I guess we are all people of yellow skin, born of unmarried partners. Doesn’t sound so bad to me. I gotta say this troll can’t even denigrate well.
Psssst, umbra… look up that big word if you are vocabulary challenged. Gee, maybe there are so many big words here, you don’t know which one I mean. Oh well, I guess you have your homework assignment (that means look them ALL up) for the rest of the evening.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:20 pmhttp://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php
Okay, its Disney. So, who owns or is the head of Disney?
July 13th, 2007 at 11:24 pmUh, Merlin… are you taking a whack at me? Just asking… I don’t think so. I find umbra’s comment both inane and meaningless.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:27 pmWatch “Orwell Rolls In His Grave” and you’ll understand – better yet it will reinforce what you already know about the media. We are being so manipulated by Corporate America/Big Brother that it is scary and changing our world forever.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:27 pm“Nevertheless, the Washington Times picked up on the exchange today and reinforced Tapper’s attacks in an editorial titled “They Still Have No Plan“:
Mr. Reid’s response to this very reasonable question was to dodge here, dodge there. … What they [war critics] lack is any compelling rationale for the precipice over which they seek to push Iraq.”
I’d like Mr. Tapper to ask the Bush administration what their plan is, besides sinking into the quagmire. Reid’s plan is to get out, right? Kinda simple. Too bad no one was asking about plans for the occupation and and rationales for pushing Iraq over the precipice five years ago.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pmToo bad no one was asking about plans for the occupation and and rationales for pushing Iraq over the precipice five years ago.
Comment by jussumbody — July 13, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
Fair dinkum, spot on analysis.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pma good talking point for democrats when asked “what is your plan for post occupation iraq”:
say something like “you might want to ask the people who planned the pre-war intelligence bamboozle, the people who planned the build up for war, the people who panned the invasion, the people who planned the occupation. i’m sure they had a plan for post-war iraq too.”
it’s just so silly to blame democrats for this problem. it’s like walking into china shop that has just been decimated by a bull and asking the cashier why he didn’t stop the bull.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:35 pmt’s just so silly to blame democrats for this problem. it’s like walking into china shop that has just been decimated by a bull and asking the cashier why he didn’t stop the bull.
Comment by tockeyhockey
100% on the money, tockeyhockey. These God awful creeps wreck everything in sight over the last 7 yrs and then have the gall to turn around and criticize the rest of us for not having the Perfect Fixit Plan ready and waiting. Just another cheap rhetorical trick from these F-ing liars.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:01 am#158 Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 13, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
“Uh, Merlin… are you taking a whack at me? Just asking… I don’t think so. I find umbra’s comment both inane and meaningless.”
Absolutely not! I agree that it is inane and utterly stupid. My post was directed at umbra. It can’t even do its job of inciting us to anger like any self respecting troll (now there is aoxymoron for you) will try and do. He calls us a name that inflicts nothing. How stupid is that?
I either ignore trolls or I tease them in ways that they have no answer for. I usually get no response from them although I rip them apart psychologically. They simply have nothing to say.
Trust me on this. We are on the same side. You will not find me “whacking” you. In fact I will be backing you in all cases.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:03 amTrust me on this. We are on the same side. You will not find me “whacking†you. In fact I will be backing you in all cases.
Comment by Merlin
Thanks for the clarification. Things have been kinda weird here today, if ya know what I mean.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:17 amCAN ANYONE EXPLAIN WHAT VICTORY IN IRAQ actually means at this point?
Comment by Shirley — July 13, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
———————————————————————
Rebuilding the Iraqi economic infrastructure, and securing (at least) a few selected areas of relative non-violence.
Once this is done the Iraqis can slowly become more involved with the politics of the country, and we can reduce our military presence.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:36 amRebuilding the Iraqi economic infrastructure, and securing (at least) a few selected areas of relative non-violence.
Once this is done the Iraqis can slowly become more involved with the politics of the country, and we can reduce our military presence.
Comment by Mr. President
And you claim we’re living in a fantasyland.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:39 am“Numerous military and diplomatic analysts argue that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would in fact “prevent Iraq’s multiple sectarian conflicts from spreading beyond its borders and gives Iraq and its neighbors the right incentive to help resolve Iraq’s internal conflicts.”
Oh yes Iran will immediately stop interfering with Iraqi politics as soon as the U.S. retreats. Iraq will turn into another Lebeanon if the U.S. pulls out completely.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:45 am# 164 Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 14, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Thanks for the clarification. Things have been kinda weird here today, if ya know what I mean.
Yeah, some days are like that. I really enjoyed your conversation with wayne regarding the martial arts. My brief foray consisted of a year of Judo at which I did not excel. A weak brown belt was all I accomplished. That was in the late 50s back in NYC. I did learn how to fall well and that, even today, has been a saving grace. I have no fear of falling.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:03 amI really enjoyed your conversation with wayne regarding the martial arts. My brief foray consisted of a year of Judo at which I did not excel. A weak brown belt was all I accomplished. That was in the late 50s back in NYC. I did learn how to fall well and that, even today, has been a saving grace. I have no fear of falling.
Comment by Merlin
Huh… damn… it never occured to me that people were just reading that w/ out announcing their presence in some way. I forget what the Internet is really like. Wayne sounds like a tough son of a gun. After a while you can just tell when the other party ain’t BSing. Hope to talk w/
July 14th, 2007 at 1:12 amhim again some time. Oh, BTW, how yu doing tonight? Strange day here at TP…
A tell all guide to troll-spoting
http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#top
pass it on.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:49 am“it’s just so silly to blame democrats for this problem.”
When did asking an important life or death question become “blame”?
The Iraq situation is complex and it requires a complex solution. The Democrats seem to be thinking in the same simplistic terms that got us into this war – “attack vs do nothing” has become “stay vs go”.
Instead of “Should we stay or should we go?” the question should be, “What is our best multifaceted strategy for helping Iraq, since Iraq is in an emergency and has not strong central government to organise law and order.”
It would be appalling to see us going in on simplistic reasoning and causing mayhem, then leaving on simplistic reasoning and letting the mayhem continue.
Regarding the argument about intelligence organisations saying that things would be better in Iraq without us in there, is that the same intelligence that got us into Iraq?
We need to think of thorough solutions. We need to use our brains. Currently, the Democrat politicians seem to be poll driven rather than management driven.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:08 amDon’t ever forget that conservatives have been against every freedom granted since the founding of the nation, except those for rich white males. Against Civil Rights, against Suffrage, against freedom of choice, against education for all, against health care for all. America can never achieve the ideals it was founded on as long as conservatives have any power. conservatives are stupid, mean fools whose own weaknesses make them sick with hate of those who are smarter and more accomplished. Until we wipe out the repubican party, we can never truly be free.
Comment by ronjazz — July 13, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
The Republican Party was founded to oppose slavery, which was favored by Dems. Dems instituted Jim Crow laws, Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by a greater percentage than Dems. ;)
July 14th, 2007 at 2:42 amThe Republican Party was founded to oppose slavery, which was favored by Dems. Dems instituted Jim Crow laws, Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by a greater percentage than Dems. ;)
Comment by upright left — July 14, 2007 @ 2:42 am
Yes, but your bit of history ends in 1964. It was Nixon’s Southern strategy in 1968 that brought the Dixiecrats, who for the most part voted against the Civil Rights Act, into the Republican Party, where they have remained ever since.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:19 amLora you are corrrect, and this is why Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican. Strom wasn’t exactly a civil rights oriented thinker. Having been a Democrat all his life, he suddenly then switches to the Republican party to join ranks with the likes of Senator Trent Lott, who according to his own statements believes we’d be better off a segregated Nation. The GOP is now the party of deceipt, greed, bigotry, and war profiteering.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:42 amABC has figured out that to win the network ratings war you have to be the new Fox. Whether or not they believe in their coverage is another matter. In the end, it’s all about profits.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:43 am“We cannot let people slaughter each other.” No, we must do that for them. By the hundreds of thousands — rivalling Saddam Hussein himself. A heckuva job.
But we’re doing that in Jesus’ name so that makes everything OK.
Funny how multiple times the number of people who died on 9/11 die every year form lack of health care, but George Bush isn’t waging an armed struggle against the health insurance industry.
GET US OUT OF IRAQ NOW — THE MILITARY MISSION IS ACCOMPLISHED.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:34 amHe alleged that Reid “refused to discuss whether the United States had a moral obligation to secure the country for Iraqis
Which as you go on to explain isn’t a fair allegation….
In fact, as the ABC segment showed, Reid did answer the question, telling Tapper: “It is clear that the Iraqi people don’t want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq, and it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe.â€
So that answer would be a solid “NO” then.
Nevertheless, the Washington Times picked up on the exchange today and reinforced Tapper’s attacks in an editorial titled “They Still Have No Plan“:
What do you mean “nevertheless” ? He just said there is no plan. That’s an accurate assessment.
Or is it just as wrong to suggest Rumsfeld went into Iraq with no post-invasion plan, because he also stated that not having one was the plan ?
Do you think anyone has noticed that amongst your 7482 articles promoting withdrawal from Iraq regardless of the consequences, that nowhere do you seek alternate security arrangements, nor once dare mention what this may result in for anyone not wearing a US uniform ?
And now what ? You’re pissy because someone’s called you on this ? Well aren’t you gonna be disappointed with the next 30 years.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:15 amYes, but your bit of history ends in 1964. It was Nixon’s Southern strategy in 1968 that brought the Dixiecrats, who for the most part voted against the Civil Rights Act, into the Republican Party, where they have remained ever since.
Comment by Lora — July 14, 2007 @ 3:19 am
My post was in response to this incorrect statement:
“Don’t ever forget that conservatives have been against every freedom granted since the founding of the nation, except those for rich white males….Until we wipe out the repubican party, we can never truly be free.”
Comment by ronjazz — July 13, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Now, whether the era of Democratic entitlement programs helped minorities or kept them in a cycle of poverty is another issue. They certainly seem to be doing much better now that the programs have been limited. ;)
July 14th, 2007 at 10:29 amfor the trolls:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19760628/
July 14th, 2007 at 10:38 amDems on Iraqi security: let’s not destroy it by ruining their country which threatens no one and serves as a bulwark to contain Iranian Shiite radicalism.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:19 pmOk liberals. Answer a simple question. If we pull our troops out of Iraq will the country, and its oil fields, be taken over by radical muslims?
July 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pmThis is the same Jake Tapper that called one of our presidential candidates “Barrack Hussein Obama” over and over again. He, like Lieberman, is a Jew that is worried about Israel when the US finally ends this immoral occupation. Don’t be surprised if Tapper starts ranting for war with Iran.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pmThis is ABC. Does anyone expect them to have news that doesn’t serve at the pleasure of the GOP? They put on a 2-day propaganda piece called ‘Path to 9/11′ that would have made Hitler blush. When it comes to news coverage, ABC is second only to FOX in fair and balanced coverage.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:33 pmConservatives have no business talking about moral obligations considering Bush’s policies have brought us to where we are with this civil war. His justifications on the now failed surge were based on his failed policy in Iraq. Our presence has made Iraq less secure. Our presence has plunged Iraq into a civil war between the Shiias and Sunnis. Most Iraqis don’t want us there. Withdrawing troops will make Iraqis more safe. Our presence in Iraq is used as a recruiting tool by insurgents who want us out of Iraq. How long will our troops fight the Iraqis’ battles for them? When will they take charge of their own nation? We can’t have an indefinite presence in Iraq. Removing troops is now our only option in Iraq. We can’t win this civil war. Leaving will reduce the bloodshed.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:12 amOK class, I want you to think about why the MSM would suddenly turn on Harry “Who’s My Daddy” Reid. Ask yourself the general question – on what path is/was the Democratic party that would motivate the MSM to disrupt that progress. Who was most helped by that progress, and who will be most hurt when the progress stops. Who was being hurt by the progress, and who will be most helped when the progress stops. We all know the MSM wouldn’t help the Republicans, so which non-Republican would the MSM want to help?
Good luck, children.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:01 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler — July 15, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Back to slandering Harry Reid with insinuations about his parentage again, eh, Jason “I went to Stanford, an Ivy League university” Hendler? Good luck in proving that Stanford is an Ivy League university, mama’s boy. Otherwise, your post isn’t even worthy of a reply.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:57 pm