Bush DoD nominee gives Iraqi government an ‘F.’
By on Dec 18th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Bush DoD nominee gives Iraqi government an ‘F.’
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, President Bush’s nominee to be assistant secretary of Defense for international security affairs, Mary Beth Long, criticized the Iraqi government’s failure to meet key legislative benchmarks. “At this time, I would give the Maliki government an ‘F’,” said Long. She added that Maliki’s government has not acted in an “exemplary manner” towards passing legislation. According to CongressDailyPM, Long’s statements “echoed findings in a GAO report released this fall that concluded that the Iraqi government had met only one of its eight legislative benchmarks.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“At this time, I would give the Maliki government an ‘F’,†said Long. (Sub. Req.) Long added that Maliki’s government has not acted in an “exemplary manner†towards passing legislation.
And what is this legislation the Bushies so badly want the Iraqi government to pass? Could it be the legislation to give away their oil profits to US oil companies? Nah… we’ve got to be bigger and better than that. We couldn’t possibly be staying long past our welcome just to try to steal Iraq’s oil? Could we???
December 18th, 2007 at 7:32 pmUh-Oh! This doesn’t bode well for the Bush Cabal. One of eight benchmarks – appalling! But, according to Bush Jr. and Bush Sr., our foreign policy is just hunkey-dorey! Two deluded fools.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pmHi Bilbo: No doubt it has to do with stealing their oil. What else would you expect from this group of criminal minds?
December 18th, 2007 at 7:34 pmSaving face is an issue as well. Not that it’s possible, but that’s how delusional Bushco is; they actually think they arent going to be compared with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao in the history books.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:37 pmIraqi government’s failure to meet key legislative benchmarks.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pmcode for Iraq’s refusal to sign the oil contracts giving big oil 70 – 80% and Iraq the rest.
Some surge you got going there, Georgie boy.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:42 pmIt’s the Iraqi’s fault. Sure, their country has been turned into a trash heap. Yeah, they’ve got no infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of them have been blown away. And, yes, significant portions of their population have been murdered by other portions of their population. And, a flourishing christian community is all gone. But it’s their fault. IT IS NEVER, EVER, EVER BUSH’S FAULT!
December 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pmWhat we have done to their country is unforgiveable AND unconscionable – particularly since it was based on lies and bogus information to begin with. We had absolutely no business whatsoever invading and occupying THEIR country. Everyone here knew it was always about stealing their oil – not democracy nor deposing a dictator. It was and is about the oil – and american greed for that oil.
Bush and his cabal of criminals will go down in history all right – as not only the worst and most dishonest administration EVER in this history of this country but the Stalin/Hitler comparisons will stick to Bush like glue through the future fabric of this country’s history.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pmPNAC and Bush hatched the invasion plan for Iraq’s oil well in advance of 911. This fact is referenced in the book “The New Pearl Harbor” where Bush laughingly chortled that in order for the people to trade their freedoms for the illusion of “security”, it would, in fact, take another pearl harbor-type attack….ergo 911.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:49 pmThe only “surge” which is effective in Bush’s world is the surge of his bowels when he looses them standing before the Hague War Crimes Tribunal.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pm“I would give the Maliki government an ‘F’ “
- – Looks like Bush’s No Puppet Left Behind Program is a failure too.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:56 pmHey bu$h is just adhering to free market policies.
You hand over your oil resources to the petrol robber barons at no cost or we beat you in the head with a baseball bat until you do.
No free lunch – then it is shock and awe for breakfast, lunch and supper.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pmI guess it’s about time to overthrow them again. Fire up the F-117’s, where’s Bumsfelt and Wolfnowits?
December 18th, 2007 at 7:58 pmI have a Moped a Huffy and a mule and thats all I need.
Comment by Billy Hill
” After shooting my truck, I moped around the yard until my mule arrived with the huff, and now I feel better.”
December 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pmonly hilly billy wold be screwed up enough to enjoy $3.50 a gallon gas. what a retard.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:14 pmPresident Bush’s nominee to be assistant secretary of Defense for international security affairs, Mary Beth Long, criticized the Iraqi government’s failure to meet key legislative benchmarks.
Translation:
“I stole your car…trashed the engine…smashed it to bits…then set it on fire and left it a smoldering hulk after shooting the firemen who tried putting it out…
Now, WHAT’S YOUR PLAN FOR FIXING MY MESS? To hell with what I did, “that’s in the past,” what is your plan for fixing your car? (which is now “OUR” car since I sprained my ankle kicking wood onto the flames…) When can I expect to drive it again?”
USA…USA…USA…
December 18th, 2007 at 8:17 pmonly hilly billy wold be screwed up enough to enjoy $3.50 a gallon gas. what a retard.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 18, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
No. What he’s doing is defending the U.S. occupation of Iraq & the resulting casualties (on both sides) because he needs to fill his tank with gas. The fact that the gas flows better if the U.S. would withdraw is beyond his comprehension. He believes it’s ok for the U.S. to just take what they want regardless of who owns it. Might makes right. As weak as the U.S. army is after this clusterphuck that concept may bite him the a$$ if China & Russia decide it’s the way to go.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:18 pmHow can Al-Maliki government ‘act in an exemplary manner’ while hiding inside the Green Zone,in a small area in Baghdad? !!
Al-Maliki controls neither the streets of Iraqi cities & towns, nor his borders.
Al-Maliki controls neither the north nor the south of Iraq.
He controls nothing in the Iraqi Parliament, if members are not on vacation.
English troops left lately south of Iraq and Al-Maliki government officials took over in a big ceremony…but the Shiate militias in the south have the real power in cities and over communities in Southern Iraq.
Of course it is easier for Mary Beth to blame Al Maliki,whose government will be dependent on US protection and support for years to come.
Turkey is attacking north of Iraq..and Al-Maliki paralyzed government has no power to say or do anything to defend its borders.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:33 pm“I would give the Maliki government an ‘F’ ” LOL! Long is really spreading it real thin to kiss butt for the job. Oh yeah, for the past six years, it’s never Bush’s fault. It’s Bill Clinton’s fault.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:34 pmSince we’re handing out letter grades and the “student” isn’t doing so well, maybe the teacher should take another approach or find a new job altogether. I hear that Real Estate firms are hiring.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pmI don’t get it. It seems like only a few months ago that the WH was proclaiming how well the surge was working and that Iraq had made substantial progress towards a large number of benchmarks.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:53 pmI would give both the Bush and Maliki governments an F.
As in fail.
As in failure.
Wasn’t the purpose of the Surge to give these assclowns the “time to get it together”, in terms of passing unifying legislation?
Then the surge is a failure, like Bush. At least he’s consistently failing, everything he says and does.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:11 pmOops – the DOD says the Maliki government gets an F. Remember back in Sept. 2007 when Sen. Lindsay Graham blew off a question about the US role in Iraq, by saying that the Maliki govt had 90 days to prove it could hold the country together. If no progress was made in 90 days, Graham said, the Iraq Govt would be proven a failure, a dead end proposition. This is what Graham said n late September.
Guess what, Graham? You’re 90 Days are up and what do you have to show for it? Absolutely Nothing.
I’m now waiting for Graham to speak in the Senate and say that Bush’s Iraq policy is a total utter failure. Oh wait, he will ask for another 90 Days, and another 90, and another 90, 90, 90….
December 18th, 2007 at 9:16 pmI give Bush a C for being a brain-rotted Coke-head who thinks Jesus talks to him.
-GSD
December 18th, 2007 at 9:54 pmLet’s remind Lindsay Graham about his 90 day plan. Now let’s see what this Bush sycophant has to say for himself and the surge’s lack of any progress.
Prepare for General Betray-us to make an appearance tomorrow! No doubt Camp Bush is already greasing him up for another photo op/press conference to try to stave off the obvious black eye the WH now has.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:59 pmNothing succeeds like abject, bone-crushing failure for the con’tards.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:35 pmDidn’t someone tell her she is not supposed to dis the puppet government?
December 18th, 2007 at 10:37 pmthis is ot but i just saw this headline:
Jamie Lynn Spears Says She’s Pregnant
Dec. 18, 2007, 8:29 PM EST
The Associated Press
Another Spears baby is reportedly on the way — and it’s not Britney’s.
Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16-year-old “Zoey 101″ star and sister of Britney, tells OK! magazine that she’s pregnant and that the father is her longtime boyfriend, Casey Aldridge.
“It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected,” she says. “I was in complete and total shock and so was he.”
What message does she want to send to other teens about premarital sex?
“I definitely don’t think it’s something you should do; it’s better to wait,” she says. “But I can’t be judgmental because it’s a position I put myself in.”
(so much for “abstinence only” sex education.)
December 18th, 2007 at 10:57 pm“It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected,†she says. “I was in complete and total shock and so was he.â€
“I mean, like, um, who would of ever thought that, like, um, well, you know, um, well, um, you know, like, um………”
December 18th, 2007 at 11:00 pmComment by Nevar — December 18, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
check out the picture of the young, intelligent republican kids. they’ll make great parents, eh?
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=289216&mpc=2
December 18th, 2007 at 11:13 pmWell,I hope Billy Hill meant what he posted, perhaps so, many conservatives democratic and otherwise have begun to see.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:21 pmOf course they get an “F” what can anyone expect after the CPA wasted, or stole $20 some Billion in Iraqi money.
As I wrote in another post:
Check out the report here.
We need someone asking questions, but instead, we get misdirection, misconception and lies from all levels of government. When will the American people say enough is enough and get rid of all the rascals? What will it take to save our beloved country from the hands of the greedy?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pmGood news:
Senate Approves $70 Billion for Wars
Wednesday December 19, 2007 2:16 AM
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate voted Tuesday to provide $70 billion for U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, handing a victory to President Bush and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill.
The 70-25 roll call paved the way for the Senate to pass a $555 billion omnibus appropriations bill combining the war funding with the budgets for 14 Cabinet agencies.
Bush was ready to sign the bill, assuming the war funding clears the House on Wednesday. Democrats again failed to win votes to force removal of U.S. troops or set a nonbinding target to remove most troops by the end of next year.
tA roop-withdrawal amendment, offered by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), failed on a 24 to 71 vote. None of the four Democrats running for president — Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) — returned from the campaign trail for the vote, which failed for the third time this year to clear a 60-vote hurdle imposed by Republicans.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:52 pmComment by Exley — December 18, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
funny how you reigs crow when your leaders pick your pockets to continue their murderous ways. you have no moral center, exley, you’re like a jackal, or an Al Qaeda member.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:03 amthe Stalin/Hitler comparisons will stick to Bush like glue through the future fabric of this country’s history.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:07 amI’m with you!!!!
How is stealing 70 billion of your tax dollars for the unmanageable welfare state of Iraq a good thing Exley?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:11 amPrecisely! Paul B. should be facing an international court over that! Where is the Iraq money? Where is accountability? Where is the rule of law in the USA???! IMPEACH, INDICT AND IMPRISON THE WAR CRIMINALS GEORGE WC. BUSH, CHNENNEY AND THEIR JUNTA! HAGUE 2009!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:14 ambtw Exley, the Republicans did not impose a 60 vote hurdle, thats not how it works.
Bush said he has a fiscally sound budget yet he refuses to put the war costs into the budget and is financing this operation thru emergency supplementals. Its Enron accounting.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:14 amI think the Bush administration abandon the surge around Labor Day when they started arming whatever militia agreed to provide security in their region. Our former enemies now became our ally and the efforts to train a national police force somewhat curtailed. At about that same time Bush scaled back the benchmarks from 18 to 3 as they now prepare to declare the surge a success. But the surge has been a failure and rather than turning security over to the al Maliki government they are turning it over to local militias that are outside of government control. This is also what the British are doing in Basra. Down there things are not going that well because once security is established those militias are going into homes and rounding up women, Taliban fashion, that they deem have not followed Islamic law with horrible acts including beheadings. What is not clear yet is the extent to which turning security over to these militias will create another flood of refugees. It won’t be pretty folks!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:16 amExley still does not realize that him and every living American citizen already owes US$20.000 of borrowed money from China! Hail Bush! HAGUE 2009!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:17 amXisithrus,
“Stealing?” How is it stealing? It is representative government in action…The president I (and a majority of American voters) voted for in 2004 has convinced a majority of the US Senate to fund the battles in the War on Terror being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:19 amComment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 12:19 am
exlax, where ya been?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:20 amXisithrus,
“Stealing?†How is it stealing?
Thats what the conservatives called welfare. Is Iraq not a welfare state?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:21 amComment by sacopenapa — December 19, 2007 @ 12:17 am
exlax doesn’t like to think about things he doesn’t like to think about. too painful.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:22 amThats what the conservatives called welfare. Is Iraq not a welfare state?
Comment by Xisithrus — December 19, 2007 @ 12:21 am
exlax, “welfare for me, but not for thee”
eh?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:23 amt is representative government in action -Exley
No, its not. This was a US/UN resolution to enforce certain violations.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:24 amComment by republicans hate facts — December 19, 2007 @ 12:22 am
have you noticed that exlax has put some corn in his neo-con crap?
i have.
exlax, your thoughts?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:24 amexlax?
yoo hoo, exlax?
poor girl gets a little chicken now and then.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:25 amCmon Exley. lets up the intellectual debate here. This is about the US economy, and Bush mucked it up.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:27 amCmon Exley. lets up the intellectual debate here. This is about the US economy, and Bush mucked it up.
Comment by Xisithrus — December 19, 2007 @ 12:27 am
ooh, exlax hates that kind of talk. get ‘em mad. right exlax?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:28 amooh, exlax hates that kind of talk
IPerhaps, but he better get used to it in the information age.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:30 am#54
I don’t primarily view this as a matter of the US economy…. Pursuing and fighting Al Qaeda is a matter of national security. Protecting lives is not a matter of dollars and cents.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:31 amI don’t primarily view this as a matter of the US economy…. Pursuing and fighting Al Qaeda is a matter of national security. Protecting lives is not a matter of dollars and cents.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
that so exlax, that so?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:32 amexlax, this time don’t run away and cry like a little republican girl, ok?
btw, gonna be sunny tomorrow but don’t be scared. it’s only your shadow.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:34 amwho cares! congress just gave asshat bush another blank check.
thanks a fu8king lot congress… no wonder your approval is in the shitter!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:34 amI don’t primarily view this as a matter of the US economy. -Exley
Yet it is.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:35 amMore on Bush’s victory this evening:
Iraq Funds Approved In Senate Budget Bill
Antiwar Democrats Rebuffed in 70-25 Vote
By Paul Kane and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 19, 2007; A01
The Senate last night approved a $555 billion omnibus spending bill to fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year, shortly after bowing to President Bush’s demand for $70 billion in unrestricted funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democrats had vowed only weeks ago to withhold any Iraq-specific money unless strict timelines for troop withdrawal were established, but they instead chose, on a 70 to 25 vote, to remove what appeared to be the final obstacle to sending the spending bill to the White House, where Bush has indicated he will sign it. Senators then passed the omnibus bill, 76 to 17.
The House must still approve the revised spending bill, with the unrestricted war funds, but Democrats there concede the measure is likely to pass behind strong Republican support.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:36 amwho cares! congress just gave asshat bush another blank check
During times of war the mints print money, which debases the dollar, inflation, to pay off war costs. They gave Bush permission to print more dollars and create more inflation.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:37 amMore on Bush’s victory this evening:
Hyperinflation is not a victory exley.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:38 am#61
Xisithrus,
Well, if you are saying that successfully protecting the U.S. homeland from attack is helpful to economy, I agree….But economics is secondary to protecting innocent lives.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:38 amThe reason Bush uses emergency supplementals is to give the illusion of victory and to keep these costs out of the budget, which is a disaster.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:39 amWell, if you are saying that successfully protecting the U.S. homeland from attack is helpful to economy,
We were attacked during Bush’s watch. The terrorists didnt sneak in thru the borders, they flew in with student visas.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:40 amExley, your ‘dear leader’ is a WAR CRIMINAL. “War on terror” is like “war on drugs” or “War on hunger”… they are “slogans”. The US is in Afeganistan and Iraq for oil and oil only. Besides, what did Iraq had with terror? There was no conection with Al-queida and your “Dear Leader” was lying about WMD, and aluminium tubes from Nigeria… obscene lies! If the main product of Iraq was letuce, I very much doubt that the US would be interested in “Democracy promotion”, “Freedom and Democracy”, or what ever uncle sam had to sell. It is nearly 4000 american soldiers dead. Over two million of Iraqui civilians are dead! Another Two million displaced!!! Their country destroyed. Their love ones dead!!! For a bunch of lies! Lies! The rule of law in the USA has been crumbling since your “Dear Leader” and their cronies STOLE an election! He didn’t even permited a just and democratic re-count. You AG refuses to say that Waterboarding is torture, The CIA destroyed evidence of an International Crime! Congress is arguing about immunity to a bunch of criminal companies that trampled all over your constitution. A document venerated around the globe! A true beacom of Equality, Fraternity and above all, JUSTICE! Your “Dear Leader”, that repugnant scum, has commited one crime after another, including TREASON. Once more trampling all over the rule of law, distorting it ad libidum, to pardom a criminal that helped save his ugly, stinky hairy crimnal ass! Wake up! The World is made of people of good will! Humans! Justice and accountability. That is the recepie for the United States of America to restore some of its International credibility. When WC. Bush speak, everyone knows he is lying. If that was my president, or I would be surrounding comgress and demanding the rule of law, accountability and Impeachment. Otherwise I would be wearing a paper bag to cover my face in shame…
December 19th, 2007 at 12:41 amWell, if you are saying that successfully protecting the U.S. homeland from attack is helpful to economy, I agree….But economics is secondary to protecting innocent lives.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 12:38 am
what attack is imminent, exley? what air force, or navy? Iraq? afghanistan? how ridiculous you spineless cowards are. you have weakened America by this ridiculous chase after ghosts, in the meantime racking up war crimes to rival the 3rd Reich. what a pussy you are.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:45 amXisithrus,
Oh, I agree that the 9/11 terrorists were able to exploit America’s too lenient visa policy. Hopefully, those gaps in US security have been fixed. But simply throwing a defensive fence around America is not sufficient to protect the U.S. We need to go after the terrorists where they emerge, gather and train. That is why I am so pleased the Senate tonight voted to provide our military the funds to pursue and fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:46 amBush needs to print lots of cash to bribe the former Saddamists, err, let’s call ‘em tribal sheiks.
You know, 70,000 former insurgents being paid $300.00 a month each.
George W. not only negotiates with terrorists, he pays ‘em bribes.
Hooray for victory!
-GSD
December 19th, 2007 at 12:46 amCmon Exley, I know you are intelligent, look at the inflation and the value of the dollar today and tell me that alot of that is not caused by war.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:47 amBut economics is secondary to protecting innocent lives.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 12:38 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22053644/
Bush Proposes Dramatic Cuts In Homeland Security Funding
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration intends to slash counter terrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments nation-wide by more than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press.
Hmmm… tap… tap…
December 19th, 2007 at 12:48 amBut simply throwing a defensive fence around America is not sufficient to protect the U.S. We need to go after the terrorists where they emerge, gather and train. -Exley
Of course a fence wont work. Neither will invading soverign countries in what is a assymetrical warfare, and on this point I agree with Rumsfeld, the war on terror will be won much like the cold war was.
The war on terror will be won thru covert means. Not thru high tech smart bombs and nation building.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:50 am“you have weakened America by this ridiculous chase after ghosts,”
Yes, those were “ghosts” who brought down the World Trade Center, United Flight 93 and killed 125 people at the Pentagon.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:51 amBut economics is secondary to protecting innocent lives.
Comment by Exley
Economic security is national security.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:52 amYes, those were “ghosts†who brought down the World Trade Center, United Flight 93 and killed 125 people at the Pentagon.
Comment by Exley
They were Saudis.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:53 am“The war on terror will be won thru covert means. Not thru high tech smart bombs and nation building.”
It will be won through both…as well as economic and law-enforcement means. It will also require political reform in the Middle East and Islamic world.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:53 amHmmm… tap… tap…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 19, 2007 @ 12:48 am
exlax is… larry edwin craig?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:54 am“you have weakened America by this ridiculous chase after ghosts,â€
Yes, those were “ghosts†who brought down the World Trade Center, United Flight 93 and killed 125 people at the Pentagon.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 12:51 am
get a map. saudi arabia is not iraq.
exlax, really!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:55 amIt will be won through both -Exley
Five years on high tech has not defeated the dirt poor Iraqis. Its a failed ideology to occupy whole countries to defeat a small group of extremists with no country to call their own
December 19th, 2007 at 12:56 amWar on Terror being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 12:19 am
There were NO terrorists in Iraq before we invaded and opened up the country to them, gave them a tremendous recruiting tool, base of operations, and training ground.
The terrorists in Afghanistan were strongly supported by Reagan, GHW Bush, the CIA, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Not Democrats, Iraq, or Iran!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:56 am“They were Saudis.
Comment by Xisithrus”
Yes, Xisithrus, Saudis recruited, funded and trained by a terrorist organization based in Afghanistan (with the protection of the then-government of that country (The Taliban)) and which is still putting up a fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:57 amExley, Ask you “Dear Leader” what a 747 E4B was doing fyling over Wahshington on 9/11. And when you are at it, ask him to show us the footage of a 757 hitting the Pentagon. Afetr he does that, I would like to go back to Phisics, and I would love to hear from your “Dear Leader” an explanation on how the “official lie” fits the 10 secs total collapse, WTC1, WTC2 and speacially WTC7. That is just some of many questions that your dear leader should unswer.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:57 amThat is just some of many questions that your dear leader should unswer.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:00 amBEHIND BARRS!
and which is still putting up a fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq. -Exley
They have grown stronger not weaker because the occupation of those countries weakened the governments and their ability to control/
December 19th, 2007 at 1:00 am“More on Bush’s victory this evening:”
“Iraq Funds Approved In Senate Budget Bill
Antiwar Democrats Rebuffed in 70-25 Vote”
Yes, a victory for Bush is a victory for,……
I forget, who’s loaning us all this money again?
“Bush DoD nominee gives Iraqi government an ‘F.’”
You know what kind of swift kick in the pants Maliki needs to get a government operational?
Pulling out US troops.
Just pretend he’s an unemployed single black mom with three kids in America, then you’d see Republicans cutting off the welfare to Iraq real quick.
“We need to go after the terrorists where they emerge, gather and train. That is why I am so pleased the Senate tonight voted to provide our military the funds to pursue and fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Afghanistan, yes,
but Iraq, ehh, not so much.
Plus, you left out Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:01 amThe occupation of Iraq did not make the government stronger it made it weaker and unable to govern and keep insurgents at bay.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:01 amComment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 12:57 am
saudis, exlax are not iraqis.
Saudis recruited, funded and trained by a terrorist organization based in Afghanistan (with the protection of the then-government of that country (The Taliban)) and which is still putting up a fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
and your proof is…?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:02 am“There were NO terrorists in Iraq before we invaded ..”
Keith, That is false. For example, Abu Nidal and Achille Lauro mastermind Abu Abbas enjoyed sanctuary in Iraq. Indeed, Abbas was captured in Iraq by US troops in April 2003 .
December 19th, 2007 at 1:04 amFrom NYTimes:
“Two withdrawal plans were defeated. One requiring that most troops be redeployed in nine months was rejected, 71 to 24. A second, less-binding plan calling for the transition of combat troops to more limited missions by the end of next year was defeated, 50 to 45; it required 60 votes for approval.”
From International Herald Tribune:
“Bush has stood firm on many issues the Democrats had championed, relying on the Senate rules, which require support from 60 of the 100 senators to bring a bill to the floor. to rein in the Democrats.”
December 19th, 2007 at 1:06 amWOW, if you cared so much about INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS, you’d think you wingnuts would CARE ABOUT CAPTURING OSAMA!!! ROTFL!!!
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 19, 2007 @ 1:06 am
another exlax gotcha.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:07 am“They have grown stronger not weaker because the occupation of those countries weakened the governments and their ability to control/
Comment by Xisithrus”
That is just not so, Xisithrus. Bin Laden’s last message in October saw him essentially trying to regroup and regain the ground Al Qaeda had lost in Iraq because of their brutal tactics. As we all know, Sunnis are turning decidedly against Al Qaeda in Iraq and working with the US to defeat AQI.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:08 amYes, those were “ghosts†who brought down the World Trade Center, United Flight 93 and killed 125 people at the Pentagon.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 12:51 am
well, given that Bushand Rice were in charge, it couild have been 19 escapees from Bellevue. Still, no Iraqis, and the two terrorists hiding out in Kurdistan weren’t involved in those attacks. Nice diversion, but nobody’s buying your cowardly crap. And you ahve no proof whateve of training in Afghanistan, just more of your ass-facts. No wonder we’re losing, with morons like you around.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:08 amOK.
There were 2 terrorists in Iraq!
-GSD
December 19th, 2007 at 1:09 amSo, Esley, do you think the next 70 billion will find Osama?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:09 amThat is just not so, Xisithrus. Bin Laden’s last message in October saw him essentially trying to regroup and regain the ground Al Qaeda had lost in Iraq because of their brutal tactics. -exley
So now we dont need 70 billion to fight AQI????
December 19th, 2007 at 1:10 am#104.
We all certainly hope so.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:12 amEx,
What do you think about the US policy of arming and paying former Sunni terrorists?
I mean,Bush said that we don’t negotiate or reward terrorists. But that is what he’s doing in Iraq.
It is also what he’s done with Ghaddaffy.
-GSD
December 19th, 2007 at 1:12 am500 billion+ invading twpo countries and no Osama, even after Bush promised his capture almost 7 years ago?
Exley, occupying whole countries to capture even one man has beocme a huge failure. Bush’s 70 billion dollar victory to you is a failure to me. A very expensive failure that has produced few results.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:13 amBTW, your beloved Democratic Congress has once again enabled the Emperor …
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/18/budget.battle/index.html
December 19th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Whats netx Exley, occupy Pakistan to find Osama? India? Syria? Where does the goose chase end?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:14 amPursuing and fighting Al Qaeda is a matter of national security. Protecting lives is not a matter of dollars and cents.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Then why doesn’t Bush listen to Special Forces, Rangers especially who are telling Bush we need to withdraw from Iraq and beef up Afghanistan, before we lose it.
You know, where the Real Al Qaeda is.
Sheesh.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:14 ami think it’s time for exlax to confess his real agenda.
permanent on party rule by the republicans.
not very american.
but jack abramhoff and the neo-cons were caught.
more are being caught all the time. ted stevens, jerry lewis, et al.
so he keeps floundering in his own lies.
exlax, you thoughts?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:15 amGSD,
If paying some Sunni insurgents a few bucks to turn against Al Qaeda in Iraq helps save the lives of US soldiers and Iraqi civilains and ultimately helps a stable, democratic government emerge in Iraq, I have no problem with it.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:15 amComment by Wayne — December 19, 2007 @ 1:14 am
don’t bother. wayne. exlax is stephen hadley, “the f**king dumbest man on the planet.”
December 19th, 2007 at 1:18 am- general tommy franks
Pursuing and fighting Al Qaeda is a matter of national security. Protecting lives is not a matter of dollars and cents.
Comment by Exley
But you called the dollars and cents Bush won a victory?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:18 amIf paying some Sunni insurgents a few bucks to turn against Al Qaeda in Iraq helps save the lives of US soldiers and Iraqi civilains and ultimately helps a stable, democratic government emerge in Iraq, I have no problem with it.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:15 am
“if”? real soldiers die every day for your “if”.
(not that you care)
December 19th, 2007 at 1:19 amExley,
Okay there was ONE terrorist (who did something decades ago) in Iraq before our invasion. How many terrorists are in Iraq now after this fiasco that has cost us 4,000 troops and $2 Trillion, created 4.5 million refugees, killed 1.2 milliom civilians violently and many more through destruction of clean water and healthcare, made Iraq the #2 failed state in the world, and made us less safe (according to the sixteen intelligence agencies of the USA)?
Saddam was the sworn enemy of al Qaeda. Bin Laden was mad that the US would not let them fight against Saddam in Gulf War I.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:19 amComment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:15 am
It makes for a very corrupt democracy, as we have already seen the Iraq govt is strife with corruption.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:20 amComment by republicans hate fact
LOL
December 19th, 2007 at 1:20 amHope without results, while bleeding the money dry, and DOING THE OPPOSITE of what’s need to reach the goal – yep, that’s a REPUBLICAN for you! ROTFL!!
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 19, 2007 @ 1:18 am
watch “dr. strangelove”.
exlax is the crazy guy in the wheel chair.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:20 am#110. Xisithrus,
The pursuit of Osama and Al Qaeda does not uniformly require large scale military intervention in every nation where Al Qaeda lurks…Covert operations in Pakistan, military advisers in the Philippines, sUS naval trikes in Ethiopia are all part of the same war on terror that is taking place in the more traditional theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan
December 19th, 2007 at 1:21 amIf paying some Sunni insurgents a few bucks to turn against Al Qaeda in Iraq helps save the lives of US soldiers -Exley
By that logic we should just pay off Osama?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:21 amSaudi Arabia safeguarded Idi Amin up to his death, and paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, so why don’t we regime change them for supporting terrorists?
Libya supported terrorist groups for years, yet now for Khaddafi all is forgiven.
What made Saddam different from these others?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:22 amThe pursuit of Osama and Al Qaeda does not uniformly require large scale military intervention in every nation where Al Qaeda lurks -Exley
But thats the exact logic used by the Bush Admin to occupy two countries
December 19th, 2007 at 1:22 amThe pursuit of Osama and Al Qaeda does not uniformly require large scale military intervention in every nation where Al Qaeda lurks -Exley
Now you have come full circle to what I said earlier, the war on terror cannot be won thru large scale military intervention.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:25 amExley, currently 54% of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban and Al Qaeda
Explain Bush’s grand plan on getting Osama again?
Tell us again how Iraq is all about Al Qaeda?
You must think we are fscking stupid, if you think we are going to believe that crap.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:25 amAsymmetric warfare cannot be defeated with large scale incursions, thats what I have been getting at Exley and that means spending another 70 billion is NOT a victory!
December 19th, 2007 at 1:26 amThe pursuit of Osama and Al Qaeda does not uniformly require large scale military intervention in every nation where Al Qaeda lurks…Covert operations in Pakistan, military advisers in the Philippines, sUS naval trikes in Ethiopia are all part of the same war on terror that is taking place in the more traditional theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:21 am
poor, deluded swallower of bullshit. you should be ashamed of yourself, the way you will twist yourself into knots to defend this losing, immoral, criminal policy. You’ll throw away all american law and ideals to achieve what, exactly? Worldwide scorn and derision? well, we have that. Ownership of the USA by China? Just about there. Theocratic, one-party rule? Over my dead body, but give it a try. I’m ready.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:27 am#128, Xisithrus,
Sometimes large scale military operations will be required to win the war on Al Qaeda (e.g, Iraq and Afghanistan) —sometimes smaller, more limited operations will suffice. As we have seen since 9/11, the administration has successfully employed both where necessary.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:27 amWhat made Saddam different from these others?
Comment by RickS — December 19, 2007 @ 1:22 am
Uhhhh, He was sitting on the second-largest oil reserves in the world?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:27 amOkay there was ONE terrorist (who did something decades ago) in Iraq before our invasion.
Comment by Keith — December 19, 2007 @ 1:19 am
Plus, Exley is moving the goalposts yet again: The Bush administration never even hinted that the invasion was to chase the terrorists that masterminded the Achille Lauro takeover.
Iraq was invaded was to prevent the Hussein regime from handing over those terrible WMD supposedly in his possession to terrorist organizations that had harmed the US before (cue 9/11 reference here) and that would do it again with even deadlier results (cue the mushroom cloud reference here).
Or have you forgotten already, Exley?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:29 amSometimes large scale military operations will be required to win the war on Al Qaeda (e.g, Iraq and Afghanistan)
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am
So what exactly did Iraq have to do with al Qaeda before we invaded?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:29 amSometimes large scale military operations will be required to win the war on Al Qaeda -Exley
Now your just waffling Exley. I stick by my origianl point large scale military assaults, as in vietnam, are not successful in asymmetric warfare.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:30 amSo what exactly did Iraq have to do with al Qaeda before we invaded?
Comment by bob lahblah — December 19, 2007 @ 1:29 am
They were sworn enemies!
December 19th, 2007 at 1:32 amAs we have seen since 9/11, the administration has successfully employed both where necessary.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am
what we’ve seen, since the massive security failure of 9/11, is 5 years of failure piled on failure. We defeated the Axis powers in less time. This is a net loss for the USA, and can never be a win. there is no definition of a win, Bush just wants to dump this on the next administration, as he’s done all his life. He has hired incompetents, and fired the top strategists. He has nothing but a string of failures: Osama free, Afghanistan under Taliban control, Iraq no closer to democracy than on “Mission Accomplished” day (what an embarrassment for you!), Iran thumbing its nose at us, N. korea openly scornful, China and Russia taking whatever they want. Good job, Bushies. Osama couldn’t have wished for more than the leadership of Bushco, making the defeat of America unnecessary.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:32 amSometimes large scale military operations will be required to win the war on Al Qaeda (e.g, Iraq and Afghanistan)
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am
If the invasion of Iraq was REQUIRED to win the war against al Qaeda, why don’t we just invade Iceland? Aren’t there just as many al Qaeda operatives there as there were in Iraq?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:32 amAs we have seen since 9/11, the administration has successfully employed both where necessary.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am
How was the invasion of Iraq necessary in pursuing Osama Bin Laden, with whom the Hussein regime had no “collaborative relationship”?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:33 amComment by republicans hate facts — December 19, 2007 @ 1:32 am
My Bad *sniff sniff* =P
December 19th, 2007 at 1:34 amSometimes large scale military operations will be required to win the war on Al Qaeda (e.g, Iraq and Afghanistan) —sometimes smaller, more limited operations will suffice. As we have seen since 9/11, the administration has successfully employed both where necessary.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am
We were taking out terrorist with small, “under the radar” operations back in the 80s. It worked then, it would work now.
But Iraq was never about Al Qaeda. It was never really about the WMDs they lied about either
Meanwhile, we have lost controll of 54% of Afghanistan..
Since you (think you) know ao much about military operations, why won’t you debate me on them?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:35 am#138, Xisithrus,
Not at all…I have been quite consistent (as has President Bush if you review his September 21, 2001 address to the nation). The War on Terror will require a variety of strategies, tactics, and tools on the military, intelligence, law-enforcement, political and financial field.
“We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.
Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest”
December 19th, 2007 at 1:36 amPlease. let us not delve into name calling folks, we need to repair the divide our politicians have created for their agenda.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:38 amIslamic radicals were not in control of Afghanistan in 1979 before we began strongly supporting them in order to draw the Soviet Union into a war.
Afghanistan was beginning to be a progressive country in the late 70’s.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:38 amWe will starve terrorists of funding, [...]
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:36 am
And the strategy is working oh so well in Afghanistan where the Taliban is not in control of about half of the country and where the poppy crop is not at an all time high (no pun intended) making Afghanistan the world’s largest supplier.
Yeah, starved of funding indeed…
December 19th, 2007 at 1:40 amevery means of diplomacy.. -Exley
What diplomacy?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:40 amWe will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no restâ€
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:36 am
Give me a fscking break.
Remember Afghanistan, Einstein?
Afghanistan Opium Crop Sets Record
If is isn’t Bush raking in the profits, it’s Al Qaeda……
December 19th, 2007 at 1:40 amI hope it’s not needed, but just in case:
I missed the “/sarc off” tag in my previous comment…
December 19th, 2007 at 1:41 amSometimes large scale military operations will be required to win the war on Al Qaeda (e.g, Iraq and Afghanistan)
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Seriously, if you wingnuts keep pulling this al Qaeda-Iraq BS you can dig your way to China. Jacka$$es.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am#148,
No name-calling on my part, Xisithrus. I enjoyed our discussion. It is, however, late here on the East Coast and it is time to turn in. I am sure this will be picked up again tomorrow — especially when TP reports the news of the Senate’s vote to approve the funding for the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Have a good evening.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:43 amKeith,
Ah, I get it now.
Thanks.
“Sometimes large scale military operations will be required to win the war on Al Qaeda (e.g, Iraq and Afghanistan) —sometimes smaller, more limited operations will suffice. As we have seen since 9/11, the administration has successfully employed both where necessary.”
Comment by Exley
Problem with that is the “large scale military operations” eat into the resources needed for the limited operations.
That’s what happened in Afghanistan in 2002-03. The Iraq invasion buildup took away assets such as intel gathering, surveillance systems, priority for NRO and DARO information, and the personnel trained for the operations that were underway.
And now US commanders in Afghanistan are wanting to redeploy forces from Iraq to that country, with the administration balking.
Whack-a-Mole
December 19th, 2007 at 1:43 amNo name-calling on my part, Xisithrus. I enjoyed our discussion. -Exley
As I Exley. GN
December 19th, 2007 at 1:44 am…the administration has successfully employed both where necessary.
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am
“success”? oh yes, that’s why the candidates can’t stop talking about bush during the debates. they strive to be identified with bush.
exlax, really. next you’ll be saying smoking cigarettes is good for your health…
December 19th, 2007 at 1:46 amComment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:43 am
exlax,
“quitters never win, and winners never quit”
- dick cheney
December 19th, 2007 at 1:48 amAnd now US commanders in Afghanistan are wanting to redeploy forces from Iraq to that country, with the administration balking.
Comment by RickS — December 19, 2007 @ 1:43 am
Exley won’t debate outside his pre-conceived talking points.
He will post his drivel about military ops and never really debate someone with military experience.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:50 amExley gets an “F”.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:57 am“Sometimes large scale military operations will be required to win the war on Al Qaeda (e.g, Iraq and Afghanistan)
Comment by Exley — December 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am”
What are you talking about Exley? You know Iraq was a huge f-up that was uneccessary and Afghanistan was just an excuse (it isn’t like the righty bastards have actually supported THAT war sufficiently).
December 19th, 2007 at 2:06 amAnd yeah, I know unnecessary was spelled wring.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:20 amAfghanistan was just an excuse (it isn’t like the righty bastards have actually supported THAT war sufficiently).
Comment by Sabyen91 — December 19, 2007 @ 2:06 am
Bin Lauden and Al Qaeda was behind the Cole bombing as well as the Embassy Bombings.
Even if he didn’t do 9/11 as the “9/11truth” guys claim, he still needs taken down or taken alive and tried.
That is a maddog we helped create when we trained them in guerrilla warfare (CIA and Mercs working for US Gov contract), improvised explosives then supplied them with weapons, explosives and ammunition to fight the Russians.
Viet Nam Veteran Colonel Robert K Brown, Special Forces (retired) was one of the front men, getting donations from Right Wing groups to fund Nicaraguan Contras and the Afghan Mujahideen, on record for the fund raising was for “non-lethal” aid. Yeah, right….
Brown’s operations included training Mujahideen guerrillas in Afghanistan in the 1980s. He hired the someof the mercs.
It was a Reagan backed initiative totally.
We set it loose and “it bit the hand” like every other time the US has meddled like that.
We need to take Al Qaeda down, because its a monster we helped create. IMHO.
But that could have been done with international police efforts and well planned strikes with special forces, while finishing finding Bin Lauden in Afghanistan. That was before Bush totally fscked everything up. Iraq accomplished nothing more than become a recruiting commercial for AlQaeda.
Dropping Willy Pete on civilians and melting the skin off babies.does not endear a civilian population under occupation.
Neither does torture like what happened in Abu-Grabass.
Personally, if that sh!t ever happened here with a foreign force occupying the US?
I would be cleaning the carbon from my rifle barrel every night.
Bush has totally fscked up everything. This is a mess that may never ever go away. And it is because of meddling where we shouldn’t, an ill planned war for the gain of Corporations ( Big Oil, Halliburton, etc) and stuffing the wallets of crooked politicians.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:13 amSorry about such along rant =)
December 19th, 2007 at 3:18 amSeriously, are you able to process any information at a level above and beyond sorting stories into their talking-point category ?
Comment by Kilo — December 19, 2007 @ 8:26 am
pot, meet kettle. Aren’t you just ridiculous.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:04 amIt is wrong to spend taxpayer money that is not in the approved budget. Where did this style of accounting obtain approval from Congress?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amYes, those were “ghosts†who brought down the World Trade Center, United Flight 93 and killed 125 people at the Pentagon.
Comment by Exley
December 19th, 2007 at 12:20 pmYOUR GHOSTS, THE ONE THAT ATTACKED THE US ON 9/11 ARE DESTROYING EVIDENCE, DELAYING OR BLOCKING INVESTIGATION, OUTING CIA AGENTS, AND LYING. THEY ARE SITTING IN THE OVAL OFFICE!