[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
19 Dec
More Good News from Iraq
This entry was posted in The Iraqi War. Bookmark the permalink.
Wednesday, December 19th, 2007 at 7:36 am | 2 views
Stats
Not that this would do any good Mike, but you need to send a link to this report to Harry Reid’s office. According to Capt Ed a CQ, he hasn’t recieved the memo. LINK
The only way Democrats will declare success in Iraq is if it happens on their watch. The withdrawal was ordered back in Sept, started this month, and will continue (unless there’s an AQ counter-surge) until the election. At that time Democrats will surely say, “See, withdrawing was the right thing to do.” Followed by revisionist history (as seen innumerable times since 911) claiming that the withdrawal allowed peace, not peace allowing the withdrawal.
Wow!
The level of violence in Iraq is ONLY at the level it was in 2005.
Let’s give out another round of Medals of Freedom.
What happened to the central government that was the purpose of President Bush’s Nation Building?
What about the other part of the report that notes one of the reasons for the decline is that ethnic clensing has succeeded in making Baghdad a segregated city, with blast walls seperating people from their (former) homes?
What aoub the US now trainig qand equiping all three sides of the civil war in Iraq, with the three militias waiting for US money and military to give out to resume their wars?
What about the Shia (Iranian) controlled South, now imposing Sharia law?
What about al Qaeda back in Afghanistan/Pakistan that, accourding to our own estimates, is back to it’s “Pre 9/11″ strength.
What about the Kurds in the north, on the verge of war with our NATO ally Turkey? (the US, having trained and equipped both sides in that war as well).
The disater in the Middle East is continuing, and Conservatives are high-fiving themselves because the war in Iraq is “only” at its 2005 levels.
And I am, of course, evil for point these facts out to those within the Conservative Bubble, who are not permitted (by Republican Party rules) from even knowing about it.
Poor Steve: Still trying to find that needle of bad news in a haystack of good news.
One thing Steve won’t discuss is that except for the absolute bloodiest days of Al Queda violence in Iraq (another thing Steve forgets is WHO is doing this)the death toll is still lower than the decades long crime against humanity which Saddam engaged in against his own people.
Check the much vaunted Human Rights Watch figures if you are confused Steveo.
You look pathetic Steve. You’ve swallowed every bit of enemy/defeatist propganda without missing a beat.
What an awful way to live.
The American people will make the decision the final assessment on Iraq. At this point, and I don’t believe the surge will have much of an effect on it, the citizens of the United States believe that over all the Invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
Americans that feel Iraq was a mistake 57%
Americans that feel Iraq was NOT a mistake 41%
Asking/tasking our military to continue to prosecute a war that most Americans believe to be a mistake is unfair to our Armed Forces.
The percentage of Americans that want the troops out and home within a year is even higher usually in the low 60s%
Even though 68% feel that a full scale civil war will break out with 10s of thousands of deaths, Americans still want the troops to come home now.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx
And for the partisanship that democrats are bad and the republicans are good well that just continues to be divisive. As you can see from all of the polls the Americans people believe that the Democrats will do a better job than the other party.
“The level of violence in Iraq is ONLY at the level it was in 2005.â€Â
Choosing to ignore that violence is declining, and has been declining, and shows almost no sign of reversing, this comment ignores all good news in search of the worst news possible presumably in order to either:
1) oppose an invasion that was facilitated by via bi-partisan support 5 years ago
2) Cannot just be un-done without causing genocide and regional war-possibly world war
3) Is opposed as means of opposing and limiting the power of a lame duck President who cannot run for another term (ie, an endeavor/sentiment in futility and stupidity)
4) Possibly prepares to make the case that US forces should be withdrawn in complete ignorance (likely deliberate ignorance again) of the fact that orders for a withdrawal in line with DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s description of responsible withdrawal were issued 3 months ago, is currently underway, and appears likely to continue unabated (as previous withdrawals all have) until the election in 2008.
“Let’s give out another round of Medals of Freedom.â€Â
Purely an expression of political partisan disenfranchaisement.
“What happened to the central government that was the purpose of President Bush’s Nation Building?â€Â
The Iraqi govt is functioning better than the Democrats’ govt on Capitol Hill…yet, Democrats complain about the lame duck President and give a free partisan pass to the leaders THEY elected.
“What about the other part of the report that notes one of the reasons for the decline is that ethnic clensing has succeeded in making Baghdad a segregated city, with blast walls seperating people from their (former) homes?â€Â
Yes, one of many reasons, but not THE biggest reason which was the effort of US, Iraqi, and Coalition forces to destroy Al Queda in Iraq which was fueling the violence.
“What aoub the US now trainig qand equiping all three sides of the civil war in Iraq, with the three militias waiting for US money and military to give out to resume their wars?â€Â
Far left talking points/spin. In reality it’s almost identical to the Democrats’ plans for Iraq (see also Biden’s plan which goes even further than just arming all sides, but dividing them and providing them with casus belli to attack each other in the future.
“What about the Shia (Iranian) controlled South, now imposing Sharia law?â€Â
Talk to the Brits. They tried the American leftist approach of withdraw to bring peace, and it’s failing.
“What about al Qaeda back in Afghanistan/Pakistan that, accourding to our own estimates, is back to it’s “Pre 9/11″ strength.â€Â
Given that there were no reliable estimates of pre-911 strength, that’s pure speculation. Besides, NATO-not the US-is in charge over there. Remember all that leftist banter about how we need our allies to make things work? Well, apparently relying on allies doesn’t make things work.
“What about the Kurds in the north, on the verge of war with our NATO ally Turkey? (the US, having trained and equipped both sides in that war as well).â€Â
Interesting. Democrats in Congress try to provoke a war by deeply offending the Turks, then rant about how there’s almost a war. Duplicitous, but interesting.
“The disater in the Middle East is continuing, and Conservatives are high-fiving themselves because the war in Iraq is “only” at its 2005 levels.â€Â
No. PEOPLE-not just conservatives-are seeing a trend towards peace in Iraq as a result of the hard work of so many American servicemen and women. That’s what PEOPLE take pride in. Liberal/progressive/Democrats only take pride in the defeat and failure of US forces.
“And I am, of course, evil for point these facts out to those within the Conservative Bubble, who are not permitted (by Republican Party rules) from even knowing about it.â€Â
Given that the link to the report and the graphics from the report are very clear, the idea that conservatives (anyone who leans politically right of Hillary Clinton) live in a bubble is impossible to defend as the information is right there, in the link, in the report, and in the graphics provided. Those who live in a bubble are those who still seek to:
1) oppose an invasion that was facilitated by via bi-partisan support 5 years ago
2) Cannot just be un-done without causing genocide and regional war-possibly world war
3) Oppose for opposition’s sake and limit the power of a lame duck President who cannot run for another term (ie, an endeavor/sentiment in futility and stupidity)
4) Possibly make the case that US forces should be withdrawn in complete ignorance (likely deliberate ignorance again) of the fact that orders for a withdrawal in line with DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s description of responsible withdrawal were issued 3 months ago, is currently underway, and appears likely to continue unabated (as previous withdrawals all have) until the election in 2008.
Steve and John are self appointed democrat elites that see no truth other than that which comes for the propaganda machine of the AQ/MSM. Millions of brains have been destroyed by BDS and there’s no switch to turn it off when President Bush returns to Tx knowing he’s done what he could to protect the American public. Steve and John, along with millions of BDS infected democrats will still be wallowing in their own self pity.
If you want to see the depth of insanity in the democrat party surf over the KOS, Huff and Puff and DU and read the comments regarding an ‘electical’ fire in an old building in D.C. Could it be the democrat firebugs have moved from the Senate office building? LMAO (Va Firefighter)
John: I realize you would prefer to be governed by a dicatorship of the majority up until the point when that majority disagrees with you. You want me to go down the list of stuff you would have to swallo?
But we live in a Represenative Democracy where we elect people to both house of the legislature to make those decisions in balance with the President, whom we also elect.
Pity your Democrats who claim they got a mandate in 2006 to pull out of Iraq weren’t able to translate that into defeat for the United States in wartime, but that’s how the cookie crumbles.
You want to elect more idiot Dems to Congress, go ahead and try. Something tells me that the American electorate is having second thoughts about having Dems in charge and I can’t wait until we get to the next election and you people try and overturn the legal result.
So much for your concern about what the American people want.
Even through the Senate Majority Leader sends message of support to the terrorists on an almost daily basis, it seems that some American leftists still feel they must send their own messages of support to the terrorists. Since the message from the American leftists has been the same since the late 1960s I’m pretty sure all terrorists know; if they can just hold on until the Democrats gain control of the US, they will be the winners.
Re: “John: I realize you would prefer to be governed by a dicatorship of the majority up until the point when that majority disagrees with you. You want me to go down the list of stuff you would have to swallow?”
Interesting point, given that a dictatorship is actually the Republicans’ favored form of government.
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier…just as long as I’m the dictator…”
George W. Bush–Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during Bush’s first trip to Washington as President-Elect
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2004/11/bush-just-as-long-as-im-dictator.html
“If this were….”
ie it’s not.
Closest thing to an American dictator was FDR (D).
1) oppose an invasion that was facilitated by via bi-partisan support 5 years ago
As I have said repeatedly, the deceptions on the part of the Bush Administration would be a minor point now, had George W. Bush proven even mildly competent regarding the OCCUPATION that followed. And there is not one single Conservative here who is honest enough to talk about that (lack of) competence: Out of 100% personal loyalty to George W. Bush.
2) Cannot just be un-done without causing genocide and regional war-possibly world war
The genocides that already have taken place, the $3 billion a week we spend, and the lives of Americans lost since 2004 were all unnecessary, had Donald Rumsfeld not ignroed, and fired, those who warned him to prepare for occupation. And ther is not one Conservative her who is honest enough to publicly declare who is ultimately accountable for the botched OCCUPATION of Iraq. 100% of conservatives perfer to discuss the authorization for invasion and the fact that Americans and Iraqis are “only” dying and being maimed at the pace of 2005, rather than the fact that they would not be dying or maimed to any significant degree at all, were Geroge W. Bush a competent manager.
3) Oppose for opposition’s sake and limit the power of a lame duck President who cannot run for another term (ie, an endeavor/sentiment in futility and stupidity)
From the party that opposed President Clinton’s Nation building in the Balkans this is rich! Republicans (such as Trent Lott and Bob Barr, were reading press releases from war criminal Milosovbich on the floor of Congress, while Milosivich’s troops were shooting at American pilots. But not one single Conservative here will admit that, becuase they are more loyal to the Republican party than they are to the troops of the US.
4) Possibly make the case that US forces should be withdrawn in complete ignorance (likely deliberate ignorance again) of the fact that orders for a withdrawal in line with DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s description of responsible withdrawal were issued 3 months ago, is currently underway, and appears likely to continue unabated (as previous withdrawals all have) until the election in 2008.
The “withdrawl” will, in my opinion, only go to the level of tgroops that were in Iraq back in 2005. Then what will the US do when (as is likely) the civil war erupts again: This time with Sunni and Shia militias fully equipped and trained by US troops? My opinion is that President Bush will just run out the clock to January and dump this mess on the next president (no matter who) to actually find a solution that does not involve $3 billion a week (mostly borrowed from the Chinese government) and a decade of occupation.
Every single Conservative is required to remember the al Qaeda quote about Iraq being the “forefront” of their agenda, while they are recruiting, with the assistance of Saudi-funded schools, in the rest of the Muslim world.
But not one single Conservatives is permitted to acknowledge this goal of bin laden:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html
Osama Bin Laden: “So We Are Continuing This Policy In Bleeding America To The Point Of Bankruptcy.” (‘Full Transcript’ Of Bin Laden’s Message, Posted On Al-Jazirah Site, 11/1/04)
When the Chinese Central Bank stops lending our government the $100+ billion a year, that day will come very quickly.
Re: “Closest thing to an American dictator was FDR (D).”
Can you come up with a quote from FDR, similar to the one I provided from George W. Bush to back that up? Or is that just another NewsMax talking point provided to you?
Steve: I’ve said before you are your own worst enemy.
After reading your comment above where you said: “a dictatorship is actually the Republicans’ favored form of government” I stopped reading the rest of your tiresome screed.
It’s clear you are not a serious individual capable of a rational debate founded on intellectual integrity.
But you just go right ahead and keep blathering like Michael Moore. It only makes you look like a bigger fool and shows what you anti-war types are really made of.
Considering I and many of my fellow Soldiers have given so much to this effort, support it as much now as we did in the beginning (even back to Operation Desert Fox), and are making far more progress than was ever envisioned, comments from the useless idiots like Steve and John are disgusting beyond measure.
Steve lives is some fantasy world where Republicans are out to get him and conservatives are “not allowed” to research and defend our positions. He forgets that conservatives have always had to defend our beliefs and actions while the left gets free pass after free pass. The left holds the right to impossible standards while the left HAS no standards. Steve lives with a disease called projection and needs help with reality.
I have fought this war since its current inception. I support it with every fiber of my being. Close friends of mine, closer friends than most of the traitorous left can even imagine having, have perished. We tried the status quo through the last few decades as the left desires. It failed, miserably. We knew this would be difficult and we had a lot of learning at a high cost but we are suceeding on all fronts, including Afghanistan. We are suceeding with NO THANKS to the left who has betrayed, lied, and stabbed us in the back at every turn. History shows Islam repeatedly attacked the West starting at Islam’s creation on. The current GWOT is a long overdue counter attack.
I wish I could have told you about this report months ago as I saw the trends unfold, but I could not.
We have worked very hard, with leftists stabbing us in the back at every step, to get to this point. One of the indicators shows electrical consumption vs production. The delta in these measures is caused by the fact Iraqis now have a need to use electricity for more than lights. They now have air conditioning, heating (it does get cold there), running water (many had polluted wells before), TVs, and other things we take for granted. Saddam’s power grid was only built to service the National Socialist Ba’ath party, Iraqi government facilities, and his cronies. We have taken another failed socialist state (this time mixed with Islam) and are, with the help of Iraqis, turning it into a productive country. Yes there is violence there, but there is violence in Burma, Thialand, Indonesia, Sudan, and hundreds of other places. The difference is that in Iraq, the violence is decreasing, while the same cannot be said for other places.
But leave it to the useful idiots to rant and rave stupidity like “a dictatorship is actually the Republicans’ favored form of government”.
Steve, you are a disgusting, willfully ignorant moron who follows are political philosophy of seditions and lies embodied by the Democratic Party. You deserve nothing but contempt.
“Can you come up with a quote from FDR, similar to the one I provided from George W. Bush to back that up? Or is that just another NewsMax talking point provided to you?”
Well if your link actually worked I could maybe read the quote. I also get the feeling it was a line said as a joke. Because that line is a joke. Not as big of one as you are though.
“As I have said repeatedly, the deceptions on the part of the Bush Administration would be a minor point now, had George W. Bush proven even mildly competent regarding the OCCUPATION that followed. And there is not one single Conservative here who is honest enough to talk about that (lack of) competence: Out of 100% personal loyalty to George W. Bush.â€Â
Actually, I wrote a book about the poor leadership at the start of the occupation, and in it, I chastised the Bush Administration. That was Nov 2003.
“The genocides that already have taken place, the $3 billion a week we spend, and the lives of Americans lost since 2004 were all unnecessary, had Donald Rumsfeld not ignroed, and fired, those who warned him to prepare for occupation. And ther is not one Conservative her who is honest enough to publicly declare who is ultimately accountable for the botched OCCUPATION of Iraq. 100% of conservatives perfer to discuss the authorization for invasion and the fact that Americans and Iraqis are “only” dying and being maimed at the pace of 2005, rather than the fact that they would not be dying or maimed to any significant degree at all, were Geroge W. Bush a competent manager.â€Â
More aimless, goal-less Bush hate. Accountability is an interesting word often confused with responsibility, and/or cause. Would the Titanic have sunk with a different Captain? Sure given the conditions. Would the ship still have sunk because of design flaws? Sure. Would the people still have been stranded on the boat because of legal loopholes? Sure. The purpose here isn’t to compare Iraq to the Titanic, but to point out that finger pointing to the guy with the most scrambled eggs on his hat doesn’t necessarily fix a problem. It only gives a type of accountability that satisfies people looking to finger point more than they are interested solving problems and preventing them in the future.
“From the party that opposed President Clinton’s Nation building in the Balkans this is rich! Republicans (such as Trent Lott and Bob Barr, were reading press releases from war criminal Milosovbich on the floor of Congress, while Milosivich’s troops were shooting at American pilots. But not one single Conservative here will admit that, becuase they are more loyal to the Republican party than they are to the troops of the US.â€Â
I hear that claim a lot, but I can’t find any quotes from Republicans saying the war in Kosovo was lost, was a quagmire, or Republican calls to cut and run let alone threaten dozens of times to cut funding.
“The “withdrawl” will, in my opinion, only go to the level of tgroops that were in Iraq back in 2005. Then what will the US do when (as is likely) the civil war erupts again: This time with Sunni and Shia militias fully equipped and trained by US troops? My opinion is that President Bush will just run out the clock to January and dump this mess on the next president (no matter who) to actually find a solution that does not involve $3 billion a week (mostly borrowed from the Chinese government) and a decade of occupation.â€Â
A purely speculative prophecy that’s not only without historical trending or precedent to support the claim, but is in fact counter to the decreasing violence trends and the past examples of American withdrawals.
“Every single Conservative is required to remember the al Qaeda quote about Iraq being the “forefront” of their agenda, while they are recruiting, with the assistance of Saudi-funded schools, in the rest of the Muslim world. But not one single Conservatives is permitted to acknowledge this goal of bin laden…â€Â
Those goals, stated by Bin laden in the 5 declarations of war against the US during the Clinton years (all ignored) can be found in the 911 Commission report. What are they:
To get the US out of the Gulf region (the US was there to fight Saddam and maintain UN sanctions)
To get the US to stop attacking Iraq (in support of UN sanctions)
To end US support for Israel (a caveat tossed in by UBL to feed the 2/3 of AQ leadership that came from Egyptian Islamic Jihad).
Face it man, you don’t care more about hating GWB and Republicans than you do the war, and the war’s just your catalyst for ranting.
Btw, FDR….I think his best quote came when he authorized the undeclared, unwarranted, illegal, pre-emptive use of force on the high seas against Germany on Sept 11, 1941 in his Sleeping Rattlesnake radio address.
“When You See a Rattlesnake Poised to Strike, You Do Not Wait Until He Has Struck Before You Crush Him”
http://www.usmm.org/fdr/kearny.html
duh, wrong link
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usmm.org%2Ffdr%2Frattlesnake.html&ei=_39pR82WHpPievek7eoE&usg=AFQjCNFTIi-n5nrahauKUaBtFPxA_YgH1A&sig2=z-hZoxg8k9J9xBPajEYMIw
Re: “It’s clear you are not a serious individual capable of a rational debate founded on intellectual integrity.”
I was responding to another post that digressed to accusing FDR (who was not part of this thread at all). But apparently, while Conservatives are permitted to shift across to any topic, Liberals are confined.
But then, Conservatives never subject themselves to the rules they set for others.
Re: More aimless, goal-less Bush hate. Accountability is an interesting word often confused with responsibility, and/or cause. Would the Titanic have sunk with a different Captain? Sure given the conditions. Would the ship still have sunk because of design flaws? Sure. Would the people still have been stranded on the boat because of legal loopholes? Sure. The purpose here isn’t to compare Iraq to the Titanic, but to point out that finger pointing to the guy with the most scrambled eggs on his hat doesn’t necessarily fix a problem. It only gives a type of accountability that satisfies people looking to finger point more than they are interested solving problems and preventing them in the future.”
Conservatives ALWAYS go to their “lets not talk about the past” lines when Republicans would be accountable. I have never heard a single Conservative, anywhere, any time, say such a comment when their peers start into the “it’s all Clinton’s fault” referring to the 1990′s. Have you? Or, again, is that DIFFERENT?
“Conservatives ALWAYS go to their “lets not talk about the past” lines when Republicans would be accountable. I have never heard a single Conservative, anywhere, any time, say such a comment when their peers start into the “it’s all Clinton’s fault” referring to the 1990′s. Have you? Or, again, is that DIFFERENT?”
I’ve almost never seen anyone say that 911, Iraq, etc were “all Clinton’s fault”, but I’ve equally never seen faux liberals (close-minded political partisan types who care only about party and not ideas) accept that the bulk of the responsibility for the 911 attacks and intel failures that led to the Iraq invasion were vestiges of the Clinton Administration. When it comes to the “accountability” mentioned above, it seems there is ZERO accountability ever afforded to anyone with a D next to their name. Bear in mind that I voted for Pres Clinton both times.
Steve: You really do need some psychological help. Your latest spew: “Conservatives never subject themselves to the rules they set for others” is such evident and transparent transference that it’s laughable.
Again, every time you hit the “post” comment button here you reaffirm the total lack of intellectual integrity on the part of the left.
To steal a Clinton line: “I feel your pain” Steve. But you just keep on commenting like the class clown!
Re: “I hear that claim a lot, but I can’t find any quotes from Republicans saying the war in Kosovo was lost, was a quagmire, or Republican calls to cut and run let alone threaten dozens of times to cut funding. ”
I guess these don’t count, since they are not from FoxNews or NewsMax?
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-99/03-12-99/a04wn021.htm
WASHINGTON — A torn House rejected a Republican-led effort to oppose sending U.S. troops to Kosovo, handing President Clinton a critical victory after he warned such a measure could jeopardize upcoming peace talks.
On a 237-178 vote, the House late yesterday turned aside a proposal by Rep. Tillie Fowler, R-Fla., to protest any American troop engagement in the war-torn Serbian province.
Although it would have been nonbinding, the administration warned the amendment’s approval was sure to torpedo already-endangered peace talks due to resume in Paris Monday.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39c296e22bd8.htm
ASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — House and Senate negotiators are fighting over a deadline for withdrawing American troops from Kosovo, renewing a clash with President Clinton and putting Gov. George W. Bush on the spot again, since he lobbied Senate Republicans to drop a similar provision earlier this year.
At issue is a proposal to cut off money for nearly 6,000 United States ground forces in Kosovo by April 1, forcing their withdrawal unless Congress authorizes an extension.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/03/kosovo.congress/
With U.S. forces already involved in NATO airstrikes on Serbian targets in Yugoslavia and Kosovo, many Republicans have grudgingly given their support to the Clinton Administration. But some senators still oppose the action and want the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict in Yugoslavia. Others are against the introduction of ground forces.
Of course, neither you, nor any Conservative will be permitted to acknowledge these sources, since to do so would admit that a Liberal (myself) was correct on anything at all (you would be banned from all Conservative blogs forever).
Re: “I hear that claim a lot, but I can’t find any quotes from Republicans saying the war in Kosovo was lost, was a quagmire, or Republican calls to cut and run let alone threaten dozens of times to cut funding. ”
Note the last paragraph (another item you will not be permitted to acknowledge exists)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE5DA143EF931A25750C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
The House voted narrowly tonight to support President Clinton’s plan to send American troops to Kosovo should a peace settlement be reached, after a passionate and bitter debate on United States policy in the Balkans.
The 219-to-191 vote reflected a House deeply divided over Mr. Clinton’s efforts to commit troops to another peace settlement in the Balkans.
Supporters of the President argued that the United States has a moral obligation to stop a genocidal war that could ignite a broader conflict.
Opponents — including the House majority leader and the House Republican whip — argued that Kosovo would prove to be a quagmire, and that Europe should police any settlement.
LOL!
The story says the Republican House voted to support the Clinton operation, and barely mentions a handful who opposed it. Were they right? Is Kosovo a quagmire? Recall as well that Democratic leaders-including Kerry, Kennedy, and even Dean, all stood with that handful of Republicans against the US of US troops without a peace agreement first.
Nah, I don’t at all deny there was some opposition to Kosovo. There’s opposition to everything with 535 members of Congress, but to put the tacit, weak, and limited opposition to that war on the same level as the left’s opposition to Iraq is far from reality. It also pushes the envelope of the “well, Republicans did it, so no matter how wrong it was Democrats should do it too” argument. Me, I voted for a Democrat for Senate, and a Democrat for the House, and I expect better of them. I expect them to be better than the Republicans that they railed against, not the same or worse, and I certainly didn’t vote them into office because of a hoped legislative impotence.
In spite being wrong on Illegal Immigration, Israel and the Plestinians, and weak on Iran, and lacking in the ability to communicate, and in spite of unprecedented demonization by the left, George Bush will go down in history as one of the best Presidents ever, certainly one of the most positively influential ones. He hung on when everything looked lost, militarily and politically, and had the presence of mind to believe the real picture not the one painted for him by his opponents. He outwitted a Congress that was completely controlled by the militant left, at least as far as how it had to act publicly that launched one major offensive against the war after another in unrelenting waves. He had the presence of mind to ignore the recommendations of the Iraq study group. He changed strategies completely at the last moment and won. The Middle East will be a different place because of him, all for the benefit of this great country. Thanks you George Bush!
Couldn’t agree more! I think he had his failures too, but I think in the end he’ll go down as one of the best-certainly one of the most controversial for the next 20yrs, but even Nixon is getting good reviews in History books these days.
Re: “I hear that claim a lot, but I can’t find any quotes from Republicans saying the war in Kosovo was lost, was a quagmire, or Republican calls to cut and run let alone threaten dozens of times to cut funding. ”
There are too many quotes from this column. Suffice it to say that the Cato Institute is both hard-core Republican and just loves the Iraq war, but their tune was quite different when a Democrat was president.
Of course, no conservative is allowed to see this one either.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n4/balkans.html
On May 18 the Cato Institute held a conference, “NATO’s Balkan War: Finding an Honorable Exit.†Among the speakers were Doug Bandow, syndicated columnist and Cato senior fellow; Alton Frye, presidential senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations; John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago; and Rep. Curt Weldon, Republican from Pennsylvania. Excerpts from their remarks follow.
You REALLY believe that the Republican opposition to Kosovo was as strong as the opposition to the Iraq War, and that this justifies the opposition to the Iraq War? Maybe liberals aren’t allowed to see that conflict of fact.
Re: “He hung on when everything looked lost, ”
Conveniently omitting the fact that it “looked lost” because of his Administration’s total incompetence in managing the occupation to begin with.
Re: “You REALLY believe that the Republican opposition to Kosovo was as strong as the opposition to the Iraq War, and that this justifies the opposition to the Iraq War? Maybe liberals aren’t allowed to see that conflict of fact.”
The war in Kosovo was not botched the way the occupation of Iraq was.
I keep saying (and not one single Conservative has been permitted by Republican Party loyalty to acknowledge) that we would not be fighting in the midst of a three-way civil war right now had the Bush Administration taken the advice of its senior military officers (and the Secretary of State) in preparing for the occupation. That incompetence had nothing to do with the votes or decisions to launch the invasion to begin with.
Had the occupation been planned as well as, say, George W. Bush’s re-eleciton campaign, no one would be talking at all about the deceit in the reasons, since Saddam was indeed evil.
But that did not happen. President Bush’s Secretary of defense botched the occupation. And the Americans fighting in Iraq right now are dying and being maimed because of that arrogance and incompetence.
But “mistakes happen” as though they fell from the sky. And the fact that the mviolence is “only” at 2005 levels is considered, by Conservatives, to be evidence of what a brilliant manager George W. Bush is, rather than evidence of how much work and lives have had to be spent in order to compensate for George W. Bush’s incompetence.
And not one single Conservative will admit that the lives lost now are the price of incompetence. Not one.
Pick your two years in Iraq,You can throw in the war in Afghanistan also, and compare the death of active duty military members to 82-83 with no wars. Not one liberal democrat in the country worries about how many military members die in combat of otherwise. They simply use the number for political purposes and if the number doesn’t suit them they will provide more assistance to the terrorists to up the number. You can deny until you’re dead but the democrats are directly responsible for 95% of the deaths, American, Iraqi and otherwise, in Iraq. They have spent all of their time telling the terroirists, hang in there, kill more, and we’ll cut and run. After being responsible for the slaughter of up to 5 million in Southeast Asia what’s a few hundred more to someone who enjoys the blood of Americans on they’re hands.
You said:
“”I hear that claim a lot, but I can’t find any quotes from Republicans saying the war in Kosovo was lost, was a quagmire, ”
I posted:
“Opponents — including the House majority leader and the House Republican whip — argued that Kosovo would prove to be a quagmire, and that Europe should police any settlement. ”
You posted:
“You REALLY believe that the Republican opposition to Kosovo was as strong as the opposition to the Iraq War, and that this justifies the opposition to the Iraq War? Maybe liberals aren’t allowed to see that conflict of fact.”
I was not drawing parallels. Just proving you wrong. But, of course, you went off in another direction. Just as Conservatives always must when proven wrong.
Re: “Pick your two years in Iraq,You can throw in the war in Afghanistan also, and compare the death of active duty military members to 82-83 with no wars. Not one liberal democrat in the country worries about how many military members die in combat of otherwise. They simply use the number for political purposes and if the number doesn’t suit them they will provide more assistance to the terrorists to up the number. You can deny until you’re dead but the democrats are directly responsible for 95% of the deaths, American, Iraqi and otherwise, in Iraq.”
Item 1: What do the years 1982 and 1983 have to do with our discussion? Other than the usual Conservative diversions?
Item 2: Can you document a single Democrat saying that he/she does not care about military deaths?
I can document this about a Republican President’s concern about the man who perpetrated the September 11 attacks:
http://www.depresident.com/bushisms.asp
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- George W. Bush, 3/13/2002
What have you got?
Item 3: Can you document how Democrats account for 95% of the deaths in Iraq, considering that all of the politicians responsible for managing the war and occupation of Iraq have been Republicans? (Other than as a pure Republican political talking point, that is).
Sigh….
Either you really do have a reading comprehension problem or, as I suspect the real cause is, you intentionally ignore statements and facts that prove you wrong, such as this sentence from the same comment from Scott you quoted:
But you ignored that. Shocker.
Huh? What does getting bin laden have to do with military deaths? Getting him is NOT that important since he would just be replaced. Killing and capturing almost his whole organization DOES actually have an effect.
Scott, Mike, and the rest…give it up with this retard. He’s a lost cause. Statements like the one above, or his continual use of overlooking comments and facts to make a point, illustrate this fact. He’s a loon and not worth your time.
Re: “Either you really do have a reading comprehension problem or, as I suspect the real cause is, you intentionally ignore statements and facts that prove you wrong, such as this sentence from the same comment from Scott you quoted:”
Then I take it you never did say: “I hear that claim a lot, but I can’t find any quotes from Republicans saying the war in Kosovo was lost, was a quagmire, or Republican calls to cut and run let alone threaten dozens of times to cut funding. ”
Do you maintain that you never said that about?
Re: “Huh? What does getting bin laden have to do with military deaths?”
It has everything to do with a claim made that Liberals do not care one bit about military deaths (a claim made totally without any reference, source or documentation) Just your typical, out-of-thin-air Conservative declaratin of Truth.
These were the exact words of the claim: “Not one liberal democrat in the country worries about how many military members die in combat of otherwise.”
I asked for backup documentation for that claim. As a reference, I noted that a Republican President does not care to pursue the person responsible for the September 11 attacks, obviously indicating his “concern” about those deaths (although he did give a great “dead or alive” speech about bin Laden… that meant nothing). And I demonstrated how one justifies a claim with documentation.
That is all.
Re: “Huh? What does getting bin laden have to do with military deaths? Getting him is NOT that important since he would just be replaced. Killing and capturing almost his whole organization DOES actually have an effect.”
I thought that Conservatives believed that the symbolism of events matter a lot. We can be sure that, had bin Laden actually been captured or killed that Conservatives everywere would have declared how important an event it was, instead of providing alibis for Bush Administration decisions regarding al Qaeda in Tora Bora.
Finally, killing/capturing all of al Qaeda is not going to happen as long as they are safe on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and most of the US military power is bogged down in Iraq.
Steve: You whacked, sputtering basket case! Harry Reid makes more sense.
Get some help pal!
Mike, I argued with liberals on “TheHill” blog for close to a year until I got tired, many of them. Steve is just a typical representative. They have no sense of proportion or basic understanding of how the world works. They actually believe only what fits the agenda, they are not pretending. If the surge can’t help the situation due to the laws of liberal world view, than obviously there has to be another explanation for what’s happening in Iraq. Tora Bora is a very important place in liberal geography, eventually ALL arguments about the war on terror lead to that sacred place. Arguing with liberals is like wrestling a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Igor: It is frustrating. You notice that as you bat away one wad of moonbattery they simply launch into another. Apparently, they have an endless supply.
A number of people have spent a fair amount of time giving detailed and well considered responses to Steve, but as Curt says, it really is a waste of time.
Steve’s a legend in his own mind and so poisoned by hate for Bush that he’s incapable of seeing how trapped he is.
The post, from a Conservative here, was “I hear that claim a lot, but I can’t find any quotes from Republicans saying the war in Kosovo was lost, was a quagmire, or Republican calls to cut and run let alone threaten dozens of times to cut funding.”
I documented that this post was flat out wrong, with sources. In return I have received a stream of insults. but no acknowledtgement that I was correct and the Conservative poster was wrong. It appears that throwing out insults, among Conservatives at least, is considered an proper rebuttal of facts.
Steve: The only person FLAT WRONG here is YOU STEVE!
Is there something about the word “quotes” that escapes you?
In the two links you provided there is not one quote where Republicans called Kosovo a “quagmire.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE5DA143EF931A25750C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n4/balkans.html
Unless of course you want to call the New York Times reporter who used the word a Republican.
As usual, you miss the point entirely and your blind, DESPERATE opposition to any good news in Iraq simply invalidates any substantive point you MIGHT in some distant future attempt to make.
You’re not only wrong, you’re a time waster who is clearly in love with your own ego. But you have’t got the intellectual integrity, let alone the intellectual capacity to realize what a boob you are!
Philly Steve:
“I documented that this post was flat out wrong, with sources. In return I have received a stream of insults. but no acknowledtgement that I was correct and the Conservative poster was wrong.”
Scott:
“I don’t at all deny there was some opposition to Kosovo. There’s opposition to everything with 535 members of Congress, but to put the tacit, weak, and limited opposition to that war on the same level as the left’s opposition to Iraq is far from reality.”
Are you looking to see the words, “Steve, you’re absolutely right that some people-including some Republicans-opposed the war in Kosovo.” Was “I don’t deny at all” not the sweet treat special dog biscuit you’re looking for? Then sure. There they are. There’s your specific words since since you’ve demonstrated the inability to see anything but those. My point remains that the opposition to that war was nothing at all in quantity or quality to that of the pure political misleading done by the left regarding Iraq under the umbrella of “opposition,” and I’m happy to be both right about that, AND that you agree. In fact, the right’s opposition to Kosovo wasn’t even as strong as the left’s opposition to the war in Afghanistan after 911.
Ultimately, what you seem to be looking for is a cookie for being “right” about something. All you want to do is play gotcha politics rather that face the fact that anyone-myself included-who voted for a Democrat for Congress last year, has been lied to by Democrats. While you’re out and about saying “Conservatives this” and “Conservatives that” you’re giving an absolute free pass to Democrats who:
promoted the war
saw the same or more intel than the President
were not misled by the President in the least
still chose to authorize the war
supported the war
funded the war
called for more troops
pledge to continue the war until 2013,
and rather than hold them accountable, you give them a free pass, ignore them because they’ve got a D next to their name, and prefer to argumentatively stroke yourself in search of some affirmation that you might have been right about some little thing (and the little bit of Republican opposition to the war in Kosovo is such a little thing).
Re: “saw the same or more intel than the President”
Dead wrong.
The Iraqi foreign minister had “turned” in 2004 and was feeddin information back to the Bush Administration (that the WMD program was a sham). this key information was not only ignored by the Bush Administration, it was NOT shared with others.
Besides, as I have said numerous times, had theBush Administration been even mildly competent in the OCCUPATION of Iraq, no one would have cared about the deceit in the lead up to the invasion.
However Geroge W. Bush WAS (and IS) incompetent. And, as a result, we are now spending more than $3 billion a week and thousands hafve lost thier lives. Shifting the discussion to discussins about “intellegence everyone knew (a lie) does not change, one bit, the incompetence of the OCCUPATION, and the cost it has imposed on the US and Iraq.
Neither you, nor any Conservative anywhere is permitted to admit that George W. Bush is accountable for the debacle that ensued in the OCCUPATION of Iraq. You are only permitted to say “mistakes happen” in war, as a means of protecting President Bush from ever having to admit his arrogant incompetence led to thousands of deaths and an occupation that will extend decades longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html
Amazing, though not surprsing.
Steve has managed to ignore every counter to his moonbattery while clinging to the most slippery of arguments.
Have we had enough of Steve?
Or do lefties who exhibit a total lack of any intellectual integrity and accountability serve a purpose?
Let’s discuss that, as it’s clear even Steve can’t deny the obvious fact that the Bush policy for Iraq is a success.
My favorite part was, “The Iraqi foreign minister had “turned” in 2004 and was feeddin information back to the Bush Administration (that the WMD program was a sham). this key information was not only ignored by the Bush Administration, it was NOT shared with others.”
Newsflash, the invasion was a year before that. Besides, Tariq Aziz had Iraq’s interests at heart until the invasion, then his own.
Besides, Steve’s entire house of cards collapses under three kicks:
1) post-war investigations found Iraq to be a WMD threat
2) post-war combat has more than proven that the regime had closer ties to AQ than originally feared
3) he bases all of his claims on the word of Democrats and liberals who have already proven to be liars (see also New Direction in Iraq strategy that even Dean admits never even had a pre-election brainstorm committee)
That was great… ‘we know Saddam wasn’t a WMD threat because Tariq Aziz said so a year after the invasion, and President Bush didn’t share that with anyone before the invasion.’
C’mon man, you know you’ll vote for Hillary, and there’s no way to claim that she didn’t see as much or more intel than anyone. Supposedly Bill’s her golden crutch because he-err, I mean “she” has so much experience. Well, how’d that experience work on 10/2/02, 10/4/02, or 10/12/02? She couldn’t just roll over one night and say, “Honey, is Saddam really a threat?”
Wait-I get it. Bush knew about it after he invaded, but should have said something before. The ole, for it before being against it rantings. No wonder Sen Kerry had a snowball’s chance.
Correction. It was 2002.
And George W. Bush still presided over an incompetent OCCUPATION of Iraq. As a result of which thousands have died and the US is now spoending $3 billion a week, and will continue to do so, for many years to come.
For this incompetent occupation, Geroge W. Bush is ultimately accountable.
And not one single Conservative has the integrity to admit this fact.
And, had you read the referenced item, you would have know that fact. However no Conservative is permitted to actually read facts, unless they are presented to them through White House approved sources (NewsMax, The 700 Club, FoxNews, …)
Tariq Aziz wasn’t turned in 2002, and even if he was, we know from the Sen Intel Com that there was a different source inside Saddam’s inner circle that claimed there were WMD etc.
“For this incompetent occupation, Geroge W. Bush is ultimately accountable.And not one single Conservative has the integrity to admit this fact.”
He was held to account for the 2003 invasion and the 2003/2004 occupation in the 2004 election. I like how you keep claiming “conservatives” only get their info from Newsmax, Fox, etc., but what you’re ignoring is that I and many others do not, and the topic of this very thread shows that since the source isn’t one you listed, and no one on this thread has linked to partisan outlets like Fox and Newsmax except you who has linked to far left sites that have political spin as their agenda instead of news. I also like how you’ve claimed everyone who doesn’t agree with you lacks integrity. That’s a very open-minded and liberal statement very representative of today’s left. Thanks for demonstrating it in no uncertain terms.
How many times can Steve be proven WRONG before he shrinks back to his hidey hole in embarrasment?
Let’s all put a check mark next to the exchange above and add it to the growing list of absolute whoppers being put forward by Steve as fact.
Interesting that when he’s exposed for a fool, he simply flips off to another round of equally flawed moonbattery.
Fools never learn do they?
Re: “He was held to account for the 2003 invasion and the 2003/2004 occupation in the 2004 election.”
And in the 2006 election, when the magnitude of President Bush’s incompetence became fully apparent and the US populace tired of hearing “we are turning the corner in Iraq” every six month.
Conever Conservatives, ever loyal, must still insist the George W. Bush is perfection incarnate when it comes to his management of the Iraqi occupation. I have yet to hear one single Conservative here admit who is ultimately accountable for the incompetent occupation of Iraq: They all “pass the buck” to lower levels or pretend that mistakes fell from the sky. As long as that White House dictated front is maintained, I will remind Conservatives about those who are dying in Iraq not for the cause of Nation Building, but because George W. Bush was willfully ignorant and lazy in preparing for the aftermath of his invasoin of Iraq.
And those Conservatives who so gleefully hold President Clinton accountable for his sins (and I freely admit he did), will never hold a similar level of accountability for the lives now being given on account of George W. Bush.
Anything but face the fact that we are winning hunh Steve?
But this transparent psychological transference of yours regarding accountability is the best sypmtom yet of your disease.
You’d be happier if we lost.
Sorry Steve, but the 2006 election was a referendum on Congress; a moment of accountability for the Republican Congress which had failed on many levels. The American people held them accountable for those failures, and elected Democrats. When Congressional Democrats (who have accomplished nothing) are held to account in 2008, they too will be removed from power.
However, if you want to pretend that the 2006 election was a referendum on Iraq, then you must concede that equally the 2008 election will be a moment of accountability for which Congressional Democrats will have to face the music: they failed to end the war, to clean up corruption, to end earmarking, to impeach the President, to balance the budget, and on every other issue as well. That is…unless Democrats don’t really care about those issues, and only care about the letter D next to a persons name (thus making them political partisans rather than patriots). Moreover, if the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War, then it should be noted that the President-NOT THE DEMOCRATS’ CONGRESS too action. The President immediately hired a new SecDef, a new commander in Iraq, and changed course in Iraq by ordering more troops as well as a change in strategy from training and show of force to counterinsurgency ops. To that end, the President’s actions post 2006 election have brought both military success and political success (polls in support of the war show that more people prefer a victory-then-withdraw policy rather than the cut and run strategy advocated by Democrats). Thus, if you’re correct that the 2006 election was a referendum on the President’s handling of the Iraq War, the stats shown above in the initial post to this thread demonstrate that he took the correct action while the Democrats’ Congress took NO action (non-binding resolution is an oxymoron since resolve is either resolute, or it is non-binding).
btw, I searched this entire thread and never found a single quote from any “conservative” saying, “George W. Bush is perfection incarnate when it comes to his management of the Iraqi occupation. ” Quite the opposite.
However, I do think that your claims he was impotent, ignorant, and/or lazy in preparing for the occupation are questionable, and debatable. Effective counter insurgency ops couldn’t really begin until AQ had burned its bridges. A larger initial occupation force (advocated by Gen Shinseki) could just as well have sparked and exacerbated the insurgency as it could have combat it. More troops less insurgency (see also Russian experience in Afghanistan, and US experience in Vietnam). Counter insurgency strategy is a different animal, and your understanding of military strategies is demonstrated by its apparent limit to: more troops=more success. You need more than just numbers. The other occupation debate point is that it was wrong to dismiss Saddam’s army. I’ve heard experts in European warfare argue that point, and some Clinton Admin people as well, but if the US had just kept Saddam’s Sunni-led Baathists in place, then in reality the regime change needed in Iraq wouldn’t have been a regime change. It would have been a big raid leaving the same power structure and same regime in place sans a few leaders. Locking up Saddam’s Army would have been an interesting option.
It seems you just want to finger point at GWB rather than fix a problem; as if replacing GWB with ABB would have been better. Welp, that’s not an option anymore. Neither is just dropping all the gear and running for the border (ie “redeploy”. An orderly withdrawal is taking place, and it’s happening in the wake of accomplishments made by American servicemen and women-accomplishments that are historic and deserve recognition not dismissal and deliberate ignorance (certainly not insult as some Dems are doing). Those accomplishments took place as the result of orders from their commander in chief who took action after the 2006 election. The Democrats’ Congress did not. In fact, they openly, strongly, and repeatedly opposed the actions that have brought down violence and facilitated the ongoing withdrawal from Iraq.
Lastly, I have not once seen you or any other Bush hater express a similar desire to hold President Clinton and other Democrats accountable for their failures re Iraq, intelligence gathering, and 911. In fact, I haven’t even seen you identify them. Instead, it’s pure Bush bashing hate and unwarranted as well as unfounded claims about conservatives (ie, anyone who disagrees with you or the modern day communists).