Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

goMac · Dec 20, 2006, 10:46 AM

So today, George Bush, in the face of every piece of advice he's been given (even from Rummy), announced he wants to increase troop levels in Iraq:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/...ain/index.html

Why do we even pay for advisors for Bush? He doesn't listen to any of them...

tie · Dec 20, 2006, 11:30 AM

From the Washington Post earlier:

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

Who are the officials "aggressively promoting the concept"? The article doesn't say. It sounds like everyone who knows anything thinks it is a bad idea, but the same suspects who brought us to the current state of the Iraq war are determined to dig us deeper. "Stay the course, but more so." Perhaps God has been talking to Bush again.

BRussell · Dec 20, 2006, 11:50 AM

I don't think he said he wants to increase troop levels in Iraq. He wants to increase the size of the total armed forces. Right now, people are being called back for more tours and it's putting stress on the system. This would relieve some of that stress on the current armed forces.

BTW, Kerry called for exactly this during the 2004 election, and Bush rejected it as unnecessary.

On Iraq, I never thought they would send more troops to Iraq, and I'll be very surprised if they do. It's all just a political gambit: McCain calls for more troops in Iraq now, and then when he runs for president he can say "if we had done it my way, we would have succeeded." The whole strategy rests on the premise that it not be done. If it is done, it of course won't improve things, and McCain will just look that much worse for supporting it.

goMac · Dec 20, 2006, 01:08 PM

The problem is back in 2004 it could have made a difference. Now? It's too late. No matter how many troops we have in Iraq it won't be stable.

Bush is always a few years behind the curve...

peacegirl · Dec 20, 2006, 01:17 PM

It all sounds very suspicious to me. Someone please explain how he will "permanently" increase the size of the U.S. Army and Marines without reinstating the draft. And when the real possibility of that happens, you'll see how fast this war will end and the US will withdraw because none of our law makers want their kids going to Iraq--that's for darn sure. CNN reported yesterday that the US Government expects to spend something like $110 BILLION dollars in Iraq in 2007. Is it worth it?

tie · 01:57 PM

goMac, BRussell is right; Bush did not announce he wanted more troops in Iraq (although the CNN article you linked to is more confusing than most). I think that Bush will eventually end up sending more troops to Iraq, though, despite opposition in the military. Of course it is too late for them to do any good, but Bush needs some concrete policy change and anything else seems to be unacceptable to him.

Plus, it should be politically easy; after all, even Kerry supports it. (Well, he supported it two years ago anyway, and he'd be flip-flopping if he opposed it today. The difficulty in changing political positions based on current circumstances is one reason why wars planned and run by politicians aren't so successful.)

peacegirl, as long we secure Iraq's WMD stockpiles (which are still buried in the desert only Rumsfeld knows where) and as long as we transform the Middle East, sweeping democracy across the region -- I don't see how it could not be worth it. You aren't suggesting we cut and run, are you? By the way, welcome to forum!

marden · Dec 20, 2006, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all sounds very suspicious to me. Someone please explain how he will "permanently" increase the size of the U.S. Army and Marines without reinstating the draft. And when the real possibility of that happens, you'll see how fast this war will end and the US will withdraw because none of our law makers want their kids going to Iraq--that's for darn sure. CNN reported yesterday that the US Government expects to spend something like $110 BILLION dollars in Iraq in 2007. Is it worth it?

Welcome to MacNN and the Political Lounge (P.L.).

Yes, it's worth it. If the Iranian agents aren't fomenting discord in Iraq where would they be and what would they be doing?

If the terrorists from throughout the world as well as the homegrown variety aren't there in Iraq killing Americans where do you think they would be and what do you think they'd be doing?

Here's a clue:

Author sees Islam's 20-year plan for U.S.
Arab-American author outlines secret
20-year strategy to undermine country

http://www.focusing-on-islam.com/

ironknee · Dec 20, 2006, 05:06 PM

it's so sad.

hail mary comes to mind...wait...that's catholic

so sad, but great to watch him implode in the next 2 years...how much lower can he get??

i love it

peacegirl · Dec 20, 2006, 07:55 PM

Bush has been backpeddling since the infamous "Mission Accomplished." He, too, is finally admitting "we are not winning in Iraq." Where are we going to get additional troops without a draft? The phrase "cut and run" was invented by the spinners who want us to believe that if you are against this war, you are not patriotic. I was never for this war--although almost everyone I know was. Even those people eventually realized this war is wrong and started under false pretenses. The entire world hates America. There are people starving in this country, living in poverty, and Katrina victims are still homeless. And do you know what Bush is worrying about now? His presidential library! We can't get rid of this guy fast enough. Hello. Does anyone remember Vietnam? We need to get out of Iraq now. And BTW, the Middle East will NEVER be transformed. It is what it is.

peacegirl · Dec 20, 2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

So today, George Bush, in the face of every piece of advice he's been given (even from Rummy), announced he wants to increase troop levels in Iraq:

Bush:�More troops needed�for 'long struggle' - CNN.com

Why do we even pay for advisors for Bush? He doesn't listen to any of them...

The "advisors" are a ruse meant to mislead the public into thinking he is a rational human being who might actually consider other options and opinions. The bottom line is he won't listen to advisors because he is too busy still listening to Cheney. He meant it when he said that he wouldn't change his mind about this war even if the "first dog and the first lady" were the only ones who still believed in it.

Spliffdaddy · Dec 20, 2006, 08:23 PM

and your solution to victory in Iraq is ?

Chuckit · Dec 20, 2006, 08:42 PM

Nuke and pave. Works in SimCity.

Kevin · Dec 20, 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bush has been backpeddling since the infamous "Mission Accomplished."

Another person that has no clue what that meant.

BRussell · Dec 20, 2006, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Another person that has no clue what that meant.

Right, she might have thought Bush said that we had prevailed in the battle of Iraq, that major combat operations were over, and that Iraq was now free. But of course Bush never said that. She might have thought that we were going to take out the regime and then leave, but of course Rumsfeld never said that, and encouraged military planners to focus on the post-war period. Sheesh, how clueless.

Kevin · Dec 20, 2006, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

Right, she might have thought Bush said that we had prevailed in the battle of Iraq, that major combat operations were over, and that Iraq was now free. But of course Bush never said that. She might have thought that we were going to take out the regime and then leave, but of course Rumsfeld never said that, and encouraged military planners to focus on the post-war period. Sheesh, how clueless.

The comment was about the overthrow of the government. Not the whole ordeal. We have went over this before. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

In the SAME SPEACH Bush said that, as I pointed out many times, he claimed it was not DONE. That there was STILL more work to be done. More hard times.

But the anti-Bush zealots keep forgetting this. On purpose it seems.

BRussell · Dec 20, 2006, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

The comment was about the overthrow of the government. Not the whole ordeal. We have went over this before. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

In the SAME SPEACH Bush said that, as I pointed out many times, he claimed it was not DONE. That there was STILL more work to be done. More hard times.

But the anti-Bush zealots keep forgetting this. On purpose it seems.

He didn't say anything about any more fighting. He said they needed to hunt for WMDs and rebuild the country. He said Iraq was free.

Kevin, Rumsfeld not only believed we would get out after the initial invasion, he not only didn't plan for the post-war period, according to one of the generals in my link above, Rumsfeld said he'd fire anyone who did any post-war planning. These bozos thought the military phase was over, and look where we are now. There are only a few of you left Kevin, who still think these guys knew what they were doing. It's painfully obvious to everyone else they were utterly incompetent and overconfident, and that stupid sign is merely a symbol of those deeper problems. I'm sorry, but you don't have to be a zealot to understand that, you have to be a zealot to still side with them and their plans.

Kevin · Dec 20, 2006, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

He didn't say anything about any more fighting. He said they needed to hunt for WMDs and rebuild the country. He said Iraq was free.

I blocked out all the rumsfield crap cause it has nothing to do with my statement.

In the same "Mission Accomplished" speach

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland — and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.

The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.

Doesn't sound like he said it was all done to me Brussell.

Again, he was talking about the over-throwing of the Iraqi government. Not ALL of Iraq, or ALL of terrorism.

To say so otherwise is dishonest.

marden · Dec 20, 2006, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bush has been backpeddling since the infamous "Mission Accomplished." He, too, is finally admitting "we are not winning in Iraq." Where are we going to get additional troops without a draft? The phrase "cut and run" was invented by the spinners who want us to believe that if you are against this war, you are not patriotic. I was never for this war--although almost everyone I know was. Even those people eventually realized this war is wrong and started under false pretenses. The entire world hates America. There are people starving in this country, living in poverty, and Katrina victims are still homeless. And do you know what Bush is worrying about now? His presidential library! We can't get rid of this guy fast enough. Hello. Does anyone remember Vietnam? We need to get out of Iraq now. And BTW, the Middle East will NEVER be transformed. It is what it is.

peacegirl, we are in for the fight of our lives. The next 10 - 20 years is going to be non-stop warfare and IF we are lucky it will only be in Iraq. However, it's likely that Iraq is just the second front to be opened up.

You are incorrectly using a VietNam model for assessing the war in Iraq. If it were that simple do you REALLY think the Islamists would use that model? If they did then any simpleton would be able to recognize their plan and thwart it. Do you think about the enemy at all, or are you only able to see what we are doing wrong or aren't doing right?

Have you ever seen or heard of the Islamist's 20 Step Plan to take America?

Truth In Crisis - Focusing On Islam

Author sees Islam's 20-year plan for U.S.

Arab-American author outlines secret 20-year strategy to undermine country

A refugee from the Muslim Middle East thinks he has discovered Islam's 20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020 – a plan revealed in the latest issue of Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Anis Shorrosh, author of ''Islam Revealed'' and ''The True Furqan,'' is a Christian Arab-American who emigrated from Arab-controlled Jerusalem in January 1967.

''The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020,'' Shorrosh says. ''Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?''

Do you know that the Navy and the Air Force met their recruitment quotas this past month and the Army and Marine Corps exceeded their quotas? The time is coming when circumstances will smack the American public up side the head and then you will PLEAD for a draft. The fact is that if you are a cut and runner you MAY be unpatriotic but you may also be simply misunderestimating the threat and the stated intent of the Islamofascists.

They want to dominate the world in the name of Allah and they will do it in any way necessary. Peacefully or violently. There are millions of Muslims who support the violent form of jihad around the world.

Please stop thinking about Iraq as a separate war and instead think of it as a delaying action for people who want to kill you. And if we don't occupy or catch or kill them there they will find other ways to kill Americans elsewhere. Maybe in a mall or school or railway station near you.

Of course the war is many other things than that, but let's start with self preservation and see if that has any meaning.

ironknee · Dec 20, 2006, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

The comment was about the overthrow of the government. Not the whole ordeal. We have went over this before. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

In the SAME SPEACH Bush said that, as I pointed out many times, he claimed it was not DONE. That there was STILL more work to be done. More hard times.

to fly in on a jet-fighter and have the speech on an aircraft carrier implies military knockout. we won...

the MORE came across as that the fighting was over and now we need to rebuild, establish a new government etc...

if that is wrong then he did a bad job at communicating it...!

Originally Posted by Kevin

But the anti-Bush zealots keep forgetting this. On purpose it seems.

kevin, i just realized why you keep calling us anti-bush zealots...it's because you people are truely anti-clinton zealots...nothing clinton does is good no matter what...and if something is bad then it's was clinton's fault, etc...

to use your word, projection.

the difference is bush has done something wrong, iraq was wrong. he had the whole country, including me, behind him after 911. let's go kick some osama ass....

then he went iraq on us...

as i've said before, it's oedepus rex. freud would have love this...

Kevin · Dec 20, 2006, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

to fly in on a jet-fighter and have the speech on an aircraft carrier implies military knockout. we won...
the MORE came across as that the fighting was over and now we need to rebuild, establish a new government etc...

Not to me it didn't. Esp when he said otherwise.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes

kevin, i just realized why you keep calling us anti-bush zealots...it's because you people are truely anti-clinton zealots...nothing clinton does is good no matter what...and if something is bad then it's was clinton's fault, etc...

I guess that is why I voted Clinton then. I hated him.

BTW when I compare the two I only do so to show what the Bush whining is really about. Partisan shilling.

the difference is bush has done something wrong, iraq was wrong. he had the whole country, including me, behind him after 911. let's go kick some osama ass....

then he went iraq on us...

as i've said before, it's oedepus rex. freud would have love this...

We will have to agree to disagree.

marden · Dec 20, 2006, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

to fly in on a jet-fighter and have the speech on an aircraft carrier implies military knockout. we won...

the MORE came across as that the fighting was over and now we need to rebuild, establish a new government etc...

if that is wrong then he did a bad job at communicating it...!

Cut it out, ironknee.

It's time to change your tune. Everyone acknowledges that the problem in Iraq came from the failure to establish control after the Iraqi military was defeated and correctly prompted a hearty well done and, "Mission Accomplished!"

The problems that we face started AFTER the military victory.

ironknee · Dec 20, 2006, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Cut it out, ironknee.

It's time to change your tune. Everyone acknowledges that the problem in Iraq came from the failure to establish control after the Iraqi military was defeated and correctly prompted a hearty well done and, "Mission Accomplished!"

The problems that we face started AFTER the military victory.

why? didn't bush's war machine think of what would happen after? it's all one war, military and occupation....just because you hit (easy) homeruns doesn't mean you don't need good pitchers.

any superpower can take down a government...it's what you do after it that counts...do you make life better for the people or not?

i give you germany and japan

BRussell · Dec 20, 2006, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I blocked out all the rumsfield crap cause it has nothing to do with my statement.

I understand why you don't want to deal with it because it is the essence of the issue. The administration believed that they would invade and get out. The Mission Accomplished banner and the speech claiming the battle of Iraq was over merely publicly show that fact.

The quotes you provide absolutely prove my point and prove you wrong. Bush said the battle was over, and all we had to was find the WMDs, build some schools, and put the bad guys on trial. Then we'd go on to other wars in other countries. Nothing about an insurgency, nothing about any more combat, nothing about tens of thousands of American casualties, nothing about what has really happened.

Now don't pull this when this issue comes up again.

tie · Dec 20, 2006, 11:52 PM

Kevin, your quotes are saying exactly what BRussell said.

Originally Posted by BRussell

He didn't say anything about any more fighting. He said they needed to hunt for WMDs and rebuild the country. He said Iraq was free.

Originally Posted by Bush (courtesy of Kevin)

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even those people eventually realized this war is wrong and started under false pretenses. The entire world hates America. There are people starving in this country, living in poverty, and Katrina victims are still homeless.

You must be a Democrat. See, the essential difference between Democrats and Republicans, according to Spliffdaddy, is that Republicans are essentially optimists, while Democrats are essentially pessimistic about human nature. Democrats think we have failed in Iraq. Republicans think that as long as we stay the course, we can't help but achieve victory; we aren't failing in Iraq, just not succeeding as fast as we'd like to succeed (to paraphrase the ever-quotable Bush).

Democrats believe in induction; while Republicans are counterinductivists. You know the old story; explorers come upon a society of counterinductivists living in squalor, completely miserable. They make some suggestions, and the counterinductivists reply: We won't change anything. It hasn't worked so far, so it is bound to work next time. Republicans are the same; staying the course has completely failed so far, so it is bound to succeed if we just keep it up.

( The Problem of Induction )

peacegirl · Dec 21, 2006, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

and your solution to victory in Iraq is ?

I think it is painfully obvious that there is no solution. There won't be an obvious "victory" as there was in WWII. I think we need to get out and let them stand on their own--if they can.

peacegirl · Dec 21, 2006, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by ironknee

to fly in on a jet-fighter and have the speech on an aircraft carrier implies military knockout. we won...

the MORE came across as that the fighting was over and now we need to rebuild, establish a new government etc...

if that is wrong then he did a bad job at communicating it...!

kevin, i just realized why you keep calling us anti-bush zealots...it's because you people are truely anti-clinton zealots...nothing clinton does is good no matter what...and if something is bad then it's was clinton's fault, etc...

to use your word, projection.

the difference is bush has done something wrong, iraq was wrong. he had the whole country, including me, behind him after 911. let's go kick some osama ass....

then he went iraq on us...

as i've said before, it's oedepus rex. freud would have love this...

And by the way ... Where is Osama? I thought he was responsible for 9/11--Not Sadam Hussein. One would think that with all the resources that have been used, the money that has been spent, and the people that have died and have been injured--that at least Osama would have been captured by now.

subego · Dec 21, 2006, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think we need to get out and let them stand on their own--if they can.

Seeing as how we chopped the country off at the knees, I'd say that's a tall order.

Edit: welcome!

peacegirl · Dec 21, 2006, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by marden

peacegirl, we are in for the fight of our lives. The next 10 - 20 years is going to be non-stop warfare and IF we are lucky it will only be in Iraq. However, it's likely that Iraq is just the second front to be opened up.

You are incorrectly using a VietNam model for assessing the war in Iraq. If it were that simple do you REALLY think the Islamists would use that model? If they did then any simpleton would be able to recognize their plan and thwart it. Do you think about the enemy at all, or are you only able to see what we are doing wrong or aren't doing right?

Have you ever seen or heard of the Islamist's 20 Step Plan to take America?

Do you know that the Navy and the Air Force met their recruitment quotas this past month and the Army and Marine Corps exceeded their quotas? The time is coming when circumstances will smack the American public up side the head and then you will PLEAD for a draft. The fact is that if you are a cut and runner you MAY be unpatriotic but you may also be simply misunderestimating the threat and the stated intent of the Islamofascists.

They want to dominate the world in the name of Allah and they will do it in any way necessary. Peacefully or violently. There are millions of Muslims who support the violent form of jihad around the world.

Please stop thinking about Iraq as a separate war and instead think of it as a delaying action for people who want to kill you. And if we don't occupy or catch or kill them there they will find other ways to kill Americans elsewhere. Maybe in a mall or school or railway station near you.

Of course the war is many other things than that, but let's start with self preservation and see if that has any meaning.

Well ... I know that Bush doesn't remember Vietnam. I guess he was too busy partying. Anyway, he's a different kind of guy now ... found God and all that stuff ... Now he just thinks it's OK to let one young soldier die after the next. At least during the Vietnam era, we watched the body bags--one after the other--deplane every night during the evening news. Have you noticed how we don't see that now? No ... Bush won't allow coverage of that. I'm obviously not as smart as you are, but we are not going to convince Muslims--either through war or debate--to stop their jihad. It's not going to happen. We can stay in the Middle East for the next 20 years, deplete all our resources, let our own country go to pot, and they'll just keep banging out one kid after the next who hates us more than the last one did. They cannot be reasoned with. So maybe we should consider securing our borders and ports and taking whatever steps we can to be more vigilent at home. This so-called war is not winnable. It's time to cut our losses.

badidea · Dec 21, 2006, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And by the way ... Where is Osama? I thought he was responsible for 9/11--Not Sadam Hussein. One would think that with all the resources that have been used, the money that has been spent, and the people that have died and have been injured--that at least Osama would have been captured by now.

Maybe someone does not want him to be captured? (or maybe this story is complete bu****it)

voodoo · Dec 21, 2006, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by badidea

Maybe someone does not want him to be captured? (or maybe this story is complete bu****it)

Bush jr. declared a long time ago that OBL wasn't a top priority.. in fact he didn't think much about OBL at all.

But whoa. French troops working for the US. Does Spliffdaddy know? (ey they could be Italian)

V

Pendergast · Dec 21, 2006, 08:27 AM

Count with me:

600 000 000 000
600 000 000 001
600 000 000 002...

BlueSky · Dec 21, 2006, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The "advisors" are a ruse meant to mislead the public into thinking he is a rational human being who might actually consider other options and opinions. The bottom line is he won't listen to advisors because he is too busy still listening to Cheney. He meant it when he said that he wouldn't change his mind about this war even if the "first dog and the first lady" were the only ones who still believed in it.

Which demonstrates his arrogance and fits right in with his constant implying that people who don't support his agenda "don't understand". Bush and only Bush knows the way forward, and why is that? Because Jesus told him so, and he's quite willing to be a martyr for it, for history will judge him right 20-30 years from now. In any case, he knows his legacy is tied to the Iraq invasion, and he'll be damned if he shows any kind of "weakness" about it by pulling out.

This guy has been holding the country hostage for years, and never has it been so evident. Delusional. I'd love so much to see Jenna and Barb get sent to Iraq.

marden · Dec 21, 2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by ironknee

why? didn't bush's war machine think of what would happen after? it's all one war, military and occupation....just because you hit (easy) homeruns doesn't mean you don't need good pitchers.

any superpower can take down a government...it's what you do after it that counts...do you make life better for the people or not?

i give you germany and japan

You make valid points. The failure to exert total control WAS a mistake.

Now will you stop hating our team just because our relief pitching gave up run?

Chuckit · Dec 21, 2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by marden

You make valid points. The failure to exert total control WAS a mistake.

Now will you stop hating our team just because our relief pitching gave up run?

People don't die if you keep playing baseball when it would be better just to start another game.

Rumor · Dec 21, 2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And by the way ... Where is Osama? I thought he was responsible for 9/11--Not Sadam Hussein. One would think that with all the resources that have been used, the money that has been spent, and the people that have died and have been injured--that at least Osama would have been captured by now.

It was a great distraction.

Osama wasn't found because the administration really didn't want to find him. When the American people started to become disappointed with the way things were going, they turn the attention of the people away from Osama and towards Iraq.

marden · Dec 21, 2006, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

People don't die if you keep playing baseball when it would be better just to start another game.

Try again. You lost me.

peacegirl · Dec 21, 2006, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Seeing as how we chopped the country off at the knees, I'd say that's a tall order.

Edit: welcome!

Yes ... Their infrastructure was actually in better shape pre-war than it is now.

peacegirl · Dec 21, 2006, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Which demonstrates his arrogance and fits right in with his constant implying that people who don't support his agenda "don't understand". Bush and only Bush knows the way forward, and why is that? Because Jesus told him so, and he's quite willing to be a martyr for it, for history will judge him right 20-30 years from now. In any case, he knows his legacy is tied to the Iraq invasion, and he'll be damned if he shows any kind of "weakness" about it by pulling out.

This guy has been holding the country hostage for years, and never has it been so evident. Delusional. I'd love so much to see Jenna and Barb get sent to Iraq.

I think W could set no better example than having his girls enlist in the military. But, as you well know, that will never happen. He just reminds me of a guy who drives around aimlessly because he is too stubborn to pull into a gas station and ask for directions. Maybe a better analogy is a person who buys a stock and watches it plummet while thinking they'll just hold on to it and wait for the price to come back up. Many, many times, it just doesn't happen. Sometimes, you've just got to admit your mistake and cut your losses. It's time for W to cut our losses in Iraq and stop being so selfish. It's not about his legacy--It's about all the people (of all nationalities) who have died needlessly, the money that has been squandered, and the work that needs to be done here at home to make this a better place for ALL Americans and not just the privileged. It's time for him to grow up and act like a real man.

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 21, 2006, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Now will you stop hating our team just because our relief pitching gave up run?

People don't hate the team when the coach makes bad decisions that cost the game. They hate the coach. I remember telling you before that there's a difference between the coach and the team, but you rejected that idea out of stubbornness and star-struck bushy idolatry.

Chuckit · Dec 21, 2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think W could set no better example than having his girls enlist in the military. But, as you well know, that will never happen.

Maybe because women are no longer considered property in this country?

Rumor · Dec 21, 2006, 03:25 PM

Can anyone find out how many politicians have children in the service?

marden · Dec 21, 2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

People don't hate the team when the coach makes bad decisions that cost the game. They hate the coach. I remember telling you before that there's a difference between the coach and the team, but you rejected that idea out of stubbornness and star-struck bushy idolatry.

Explain that difference to the millions around the world who are unclear on the concept and who are encouraged by the thought that the American "people" are in revolt against their government and the government is too weak or stupid to do anything about it.

Of course WE understand this is how a free nation works but until we are able to spread democracy around the world for people to experience first hand the coach and the team are the same.

BlueSky · Dec 21, 2006, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Maybe because women are no longer considered property in this country?

I'm sure George wouldn't mind an amendment to the Patriot Act.

ironknee · Dec 21, 2006, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by marden

You make valid points. The failure to exert total control WAS a mistake.

Now will you stop hating our team just because our relief pitching gave up run?

we're all on the same team...the human race.

it wasn't the relief pitcher's falt...it was the coach who scewed up

Kevin · Dec 21, 2006, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

I understand why you don't want to deal with it because it is the essence of the issue.

No because it's a smoke-screen. You know you can't prove that Bush meant that. He said the opposite. So you smoke screen. I don't play that game. I cut it off.

You made accusations that simply weren't true. And you got proven wrong about this, time and time again.

When Bush said "Mission Accomplished" he was referring of the toppling of the Iraqi gov and NOT Iraq as a whole. How do we know this? Because in that very same speech he said the job wasn't done yet. That there was still dangerous work to be done. And we would be there till Iraq was a safe place.

But you keep ignoring that, while planting your smoke-screens that have nothing to do with what I said. Or what I proved you wrong about all these times.

The idea that Bush thought that we were "done" in Iraq when he said "Mission Accomplished"simply doesn't go along with the facts. But that never stopped anti-Bushies from making baseless accusations.

Kevin · Dec 21, 2006, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by tie

Kevin, your quotes are saying exactly what BRussell said.

No they do not. He forgot the parts about Bush saying the job wasn't done. That there was MORE DANGEROUS work to be done.

He always forgets to add those parts.

tie · Dec 21, 2006, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

No they do not. He forgot the parts about Bush saying the job wasn't done. That there was MORE DANGEROUS work to be done.

He always forgets to add those parts.

Perhaps you're right, but then you must have forgotten those parts, too, since they aren't in your above quotes.

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 21, 2006, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Explain that difference to the millions around the world who are unclear on the concept

I'm sorry, but that's the stupidest thing you've said yet. You don't think the Iraqis understand better than the average American that they can love Iraq but hate the current leader?

Besides which, what you're saying is that we have to keep from talking (talking!) to each other for the sake of what the rest of the world thinks. WTF.

Spliffdaddy · Dec 21, 2006, 08:20 PM

yeah, that sounds like the whole premise of liberal thought.

Kevin · Dec 21, 2006, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by tie

Perhaps you're right, but then you must have forgotten those parts, too, since they aren't in your above quotes.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.

That doesn't sound like "We are done" to me.