remember people always want to save face when backtracking – hat’s one reason for dropping original aims by supporters.

Well, no doubt the main protagonists of this illegal war wanted to ’stay’ in Iraq – but what does that mean, military occupation? I don’t think so, except under conditions of perpetual civil war. That’s clearly untenable, because no decent people will have that: so then they want to have a puppet government, also untenable in Iraq, as sectarian opposition suggests, there is a power struggle. Then there is the armed sunni and shi’ite freedom fighters, who wait in the wings, and may unite, but are all against American occupation.

The desired stay in Iraq, is for control of oil and revenues, and more, their banking system, and government, to weaken Islamic culture etc. The reason a speedy withdrawal is not wanted by them, is because they do not want to lose a grip on these, and it seems they will right now. Yet, all the indications are that their presence cannot help by any benchmarks: they are not wanted or needed – never were.

Bush’s ego matters. The troops don’t.”

Bush’s original goal was to steal Iraq’s oil. Now that he sees the handwriting on the wall, instead of doing the sensible and human thing (bringing our troops home), he instead is looking for a way to extend his occupation (therefore insuring more deaths), until he can dump it in the lap of the next president.

I can’t, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to be our next President. They will have to spend the first four years in office digging all the shit out of our government and then maybe in the next four years they may be able to put us back on the right path.

Sorry Dermot, you are not special. It happens to all of us, except maybe the particularly objectionable trolls. They seem to have an easy time of it here.

You see little troll. This is again an example of how your critical thinking skills fail you. You said “Umm… he has!!!” That is not what the article you linked to says. Here is what it says:

“Newly uncovered “rules of engagement” show the U.S. military gave elite units broad authority more than three years ago to pursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the Pakistanis in advance.”

So tell me pinhead, where does that say that Bush has gone into Pakistan to get OBL?

Also, what this article says that Bush has authorized is exactly what you Rethug talking heads and trolls criticized Obama for saying. Sometimes your hypocracy is breathtaking.

“ooga booga”

Am I mistaken?

-

Your words are hollow. You stand behind a fool.

Comment by J — August 24, 2007 @ 4:36 pm

What is the meaning of life?

Don’t forget from an M-16 approximately 10 yards away. Wouldn’t want to ask how that could happen..
Wouldn’t want to ask why they immediately burned all his clothing and his diary.. Why the story kept changing..

Makarios, who on earth are you trying to kid? Don’t try and BS anyone that Bush has waged any kind of successful anti-terror campaign.