I’m sure it’s not the way they hoped the news would be reported, but US and Iraqi forces captured one of the leaders of the insurgency who has been using Iranian armor-piercing EFP (explosively formed projectiles) to kill Americans. Looks like he’s a member of Iran’s Special Forces (or at the very least working with them).
On that same day, Iranian diplomats confirmed that their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is personally coming to Baghdad. That’ll be quite the scene given the bad blood leftover from the Iran/Iraq war and the 1-2million people who died in it. One way or the other, by force or by diplomacy, Iran will have to stop killing Americans and Iraqis inside Iraq.
“One way or the other, by force or by diplomacy, Iran will have to stop killing Americans and Iraqis inside Iraq.”
No one in the West has the will or the fortitude to stop it, so unfortunately, it will continue.
Perhaps there is stil time to ‘dis-invite’ hitler, jr. He seems to be racking up the dis-invites like no world ‘leader’ has before.
bronze, a big part of me agrees there, but at least some very special people are willing to do so, and are doing so…in Iraq (as the first link in the OP shows).
While there is still SOME bad blood between Iran and Iraq, both now look at that war as being primarily having a prime mover of Saddam, although at that time Saddam was ourally and bff (best friend forever). On the Iraqi side most of the casualties were Shia conscripts, cannon fodder that Saddam was happy to be rid of
Very true John, but let’s not ignore that he’s going to Sunni Baghdad, and it’s gonna be interesting to see him at the monument to the unknowns.
What’s the big surprise? Iran has been the biggest winner our of the occupation of Iraq, with a Shia ledership in Baghdat that is closely aligned with the Iranian government. And Iraq now has a constitution that declares Islamic law paramount, just like Iran’s.
Why shouldn’t the Iranian government send its president ot Baghdad to celebrate this victory and alliance?
“Why shouldn’t the Iranian government send its president ot Baghdad to celebrate this victory and alliance?” They have already sent him to the United States to thank the American leftists for their overwhelming support and the same knowledge that the American leftists sent to Hanoi: that America can never win as long as the American left supports our enemies.
BAM! Pagar hits it out of the park!
“that America can never win as long as the American left supports our enemies.”
What do “American Leftists” have to do with an Iraqi constitution that enshrines Islam law as supreme? Especially since American Conservatives were the ones who celebrated this same Constitution,when it was adopted, as clear evidence we were “turning the corner in Iraq”?
What do American Leftists have to do with an Iraqi central government, composed mostly of Shia Muslims, many of whom spent the past decades in Iran and ally themselves with their co-religionists in the Iranian government?
Or are we seeing the standard Conservative alibi for everything in play, again?
What does an Iranian madman (who has sworn to destroy Israel and the US) have to do with the the leftists the US? Why did they feel compelled to invite him here to gloat over how he plans to destroy us?
Why do American leftists feel that Iraqis would decide to completely abandon a religion that has always been part of their lives, based on the demonstated support of the American leftists for any one willing to destroy them and their country and us and our country.
Why are American leftists who are still all aglow from having had the leader of Iran, the leftist most involved in plans to destroy America, here: now trying to convince us that the Iranian that they glorified here in the US, should not have allowed Iraqis who’s lives were endanger in Iraq because of Saddam to live i n his country? The American leftist position on this makes no sense. They claim to be opposed to the Iranian madman they have supported thru out his effort to defeat America.
Pingback: Operation R.A.M.B.O. - 27 FEB 08 « AmeriCAN-DO Attitude
I see that my reply to pagar’s post was deleted. Even though I was not personallya busive. I just asked, again, how he managed to hold “American Leftists” accountable for the alliance and close bonds between the Shia government of Iraq and the Shia govenrment of Ian.
Because of the “American Leftists” repeated efforts to insure that every possible ally of the US is made aware that the “American Leftists” will pull the plug on any nation that dares look to the US for support. No national leader could have missed the stories from the “American Leftists” betrayal of South Vietnam; millions killed by the North Vietnamese after their capture of Saigon.
No national leader could have have missed the implications of the ranking Democrat Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee flying to Syria as soon as he got the intelligence briefings he needed : Link
“ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.”
Every nation that is not strong enough to defend them selves has to plan how to survive when the “American Leftists” pull the plug on them.
Your reply does not make any sense.
The Iranian government is the big winner in Iraq because the current government is composed mostly of Shia who spent their exile years in iran (except for theones who spent those years in London and Washington, lobbying the Neoconervatives of the American Enterprise institute).
Now that the Bush Administration has removed the Sunni government of Iraq, the two Shia governments are free to stay allied.
Please explain again exactly how that is all the “American leftist’s” fault when the Shia President of Iran goes to his good friend, the Shia President of Iraq to plan their future together.
“The Iranian government is the big winner in Iraq because” I can repeat i a 100 times in a 100 different ways but it always boils down to the same message. The “American leftists” have shown themselves able to destroy nations such as Vietnam who had no other protectors. Therefore, nations that should be firmly allied with the US are forced to hedge their bets by also trying to avoid being destroyed when the “American leftists” force the US to abandon them.
I do share the frustration of positions that don’t make sense, IMO, no leftist position on anything makes sense.
Steve’s absolutely right that the United States should not invade Iraq, and I will not vote for President Bush this fall if he orders an invasion.
[/partisan blinders off]
That’s odd Steve. When I was in Iraq in 2007, I worked with a lot of Sunnis in the Iraqi Government and Ministry of Defense.
But then if you rely on the media and Democrats for your world view, I can see how you might think otherwise. I’ll give you a free lefitst pass for that.
Re: ““The Iranian government is the big winner in Iraq because” I can repeat i a 100 times in a 100 different ways but it always boils down to the same message. The “American leftists” have shown themselves able to destroy nations such as Vietnam who had no other protectors. Therefore, nations that should be firmly allied with the US are forced to hedge their bets by also trying to avoid being destroyed when the “American leftists” force the US to abandon them.”
In case you hadn’t noticed, Iraq has more than 100,000 American soldiers, and almost as many mercenaries in there protecting it. and John McCain promising they will be ther for 100 years.
Additionally President Bush has promised to sign agreements that lock America in for at least a decade, constructing $1 billion bases.
So, why is the Shia leader of Iraq, who President Bush backs 100% signing agreements then with the Shia president of Iran?
Some how, your saying that this is all “American leftists” fault does not make sense. And, were it not for the Conservative policy of 100% loyalty to all other Conservatives, no matter what, other posters here would point out how little sense your conclusion is.
And the number of supposed mercs comes from WHAT source???
The “John McCain promising they will be ther for 100 years” has been disproven how many times?
And somehow it is bad that the US signs defense treaties with former enemies???? Or should they remain enemies?
“So, why is the Shia leader of Iraq, who President Bush backs 100% signing agreements then with the Shia president of Iran?”
IMO, it appears that someone on the left is upset, because the leader of Iraq might have done something that makes Pres Bush look bad. I would think that would actually make the left happy. Am I missing something?
Steve, the US forces in Iraq are there as part of a UN-mandated international force, and opposing them is specifically prohibited by UN resolution and the UN charter.
Re: “And somehow it is bad that the US signs defense treaties with former enemies???? Or should they remain enemies?”
I don’t believe that is bad. I did not comment personally one way or the other regarding that event.
However I was commenting on the fact that the Shia government of Iraq was signing friendship agreements with the Shia government of Iran: The one Conservatives right here post continual comments about being a threat to the United States. This is the [Iraqi] government that the Bush Administration unconidtionally backs, with no conditions and no pressure to actually govern the country.
But pagar declares that this government’s signing hosting a state reception for the president of Iran, and singing a friednship agreement with him is all the fault of “American leftists”.
And every single Conservative here apparently agrees with that assesment.
And I assert that such a belief has no basis in fact and is nothing more than further evidence of irrational hatred and and irrational beliefs of American Conservatives.
Considering what Pager, my parents, and others like them went through in dealing with the American Left, I can fully understand why he is a tad miffed. Considering that the Islamofascists (or as Micheal Moore calls them “minutemen”) and the American Left have the same talking points and that after the same islamofascists reacted with jubilation and several renewed rocket/mortar attacks after the Democrat’s “non-binding” vote in the House almost 1 yr ago (after which I spent 4 months in Physical therapy for a busted shoulder thank you for nothing Mrs Pelosie and Mr. Murtha) I can also relate.
After seeing the “anti-war” left protest with multitudes of signs which declare they “support our troops when they shoot their officers” and signs/screamfests in support of the terrorists and “our mutineers”, I CAN assert that such a belief HAS a basis in fact and is a product of irrational hatred and irrational beliefs of American leftists.
And Iraq has conditions they must meet. But since the President and Congressional leaders (of both parties) are wisely not going to reveal classified information on the “eaches” of the points as it gives Iran and AQ clues as to what they must do to thwart our efforts, I will not either.
Rant on Steve. It’s moot. It does nothing. Bush will be gone, and no matter who is elected…the war will end dependent upon conditions on the ground NOT the drummed up rantings of those gullible enough to have their fears and/or sense of political alienation played upon by propagandists like the Maple Syrup King of Vermont, the Reverend Hillary Clinton, or a political Messiah from Illinois.
Thousands of American troops have been under fire, from enemies of America, who have been lead by such American leftists as Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite, Ramsey Clark, John Kerry and their American leftists supporters. There is no way of determining how many names of the Americans I served with in Vietnam, or the Americans who have died in such God forsaken places as the Marine Barracks in Beirut, The Cole battleship attacks, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and other places have been carved in stone, because American leftists support for our enemies. American leftists supporting our enemies is real personal with me. Every single military member on either side knows that the cheapest way to avoid deaths on your side, is to get any/every member of your enemy off the battle field as soon as possible. That is what the left is trying to do, and it’s not just our leftists, it’s the ones from England, Netherlands, France, Germany, Australia, Canada
and other countries.
Turning to domestic policies, We have a million or more inconvenient, innocent children killed every year for the past 35 years because of the American left.
We have seen a 5 year old child, Mother dead from the struggle to get him to America to escape slavery, pulled from his bed at the point of a weapon, to be handed back to an evil Castro, by the American Left.
We have seen a totally helpless woman, charged with no crime, pulled from her loving parents arms, put under armed guard to prevent food or water from being given to her; take 13 days to die-her death celebrated as some great victory by the American left.
I can go on and on with leftist policies which IMO, cause needless death and suffering for all of us, but it would simply rehash things already known. I believe that what I have shown provides ample reason to state my beliefs, and justifies them.
Re: “Considering what Pager, my parents, and others like them went through in dealing with the American Left, I can fully understand why he is a tad miffed.”
I was not commenting on his attitude. Just the irratinoality of his reasoning. Having heard “let it go” from Conservatives so often regarding their past misdeeds, I am surprised that you, a loyal Conservative, use generation-old grudges as justification for the fanatical hatred that pagar has displayed (a hatred that Conservatives here incessently attribute to me).
Re: “the American Left have the same talking points and that after the same islamofascists reacted with jubilation and several renewed rocket/mortar attacks after the Democrat’s “non-binding” vote in the House almost 1 yr ago (after which I spent 4 months in Physical therapy for a busted shoulder thank you for nothing Mrs Pelosie and Mr. Murtha) ”
If you are attributing the mortar attack as the direct responsiblity of Speaker Pelosi for her words and actions, can I blame the entire Iraqi civil war on President Bush’s daring Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans with his “Bring it on!” boast in 2003? (Your answer will, of course, be “no”, since that would be holding a Conservative to the same standards you impose on others).
Re: “After seeing the “anti-war” left protest with multitudes of signs which declare they “support our troops when they shoot their officers” and signs/screamfests in support of the terrorists and “our mutineers”, I CAN assert that such a belief HAS a basis in fact and is a product of irrational hatred and irrational beliefs of American leftists.”
If you are holding us all accountable for these few demonstrations, can I hold you responsible when your thought-leader Ann Coulter calls for the assasination of Democratic politicians? (Your answer will be, “of course not” because then YOU would be held up to the same standards you are imposing on me.
Re: “And Iraq has conditions they must meet.”
They are conditions with no deadlines, as President Bush and Conservatives everywhere have amply demonstrated. Which means they are no conditions at all.
Re: “Turning to domestic policies, We have a million or more inconvenient, innocent children killed every year for the past 35 years because of the American left. ”
That is completely off topic. Had I made such a post, I would be threatened with having my posts deleted. Of course pagar, being a loyal Conservative, will have no such standard applied.
Re: “We have seen a 5 year old child, Mother dead from the struggle to get him to America to escape slavery, pulled from his bed at the point of a weapon, to be handed back to an evil Castro, by the American Left.”
Another off topic. Will pagar be held accountable? Of course not.
Re: “We have seen a totally helpless woman, charged with no crime, pulled from her loving parents arms, put under armed guard to prevent food or water from being given to her; take 13 days to die-her death celebrated as some great victory by the American left.”
Third off-topic. Any consequence? Nope! Free passes all around!
The fact that Conservatives will not hold one of their own to sthe standards they apply to others is Standard Operating Procedures that Conseervatives apply to their own every single time, without exception. As amply demonstrated right here and now.
Um, Steve is complaining about a lack of accountability, free passes, and topic shift? Yeah, pot meet kettle
Steve,
Where to start with your post…….
On the ONE point you feel so threatened and full of “help help, I’m being repressed” on: Pager, Steve gets terribly upset (even almost to the point of miffed) when you bring up the multi-billion dollar a year Abortion Industry/lobby and it was not part of the topic so please be nicer to Steve’s persecution complex.
BTW Steve, you may have missed that I have responded to other commenters about over the top remarks from conservatives. But you seem to miss those in your cries of “persecution” in between your bouts of projectionism and spoon fed propaganda.
Now to be fair, which is not a requirement in reality last time I checked, Steve, You are also off topic AGAIN with your repeated cries of persecution and ‘woes to Steve’.
As for the rest of your post.
First, Pager is not fanatical. I could more easily attribute fanaticism to you and your daily “conservatives this that and the next” tired and predictable screeds. Second, This is a generation-old “grudge” because it continues on from the same people (Clark, Fonda, Kerry, etc) on the left today. Now they act even more in the open and receive more media adoration. Nothing has changed except that the funding for these “anti-war” groups no longer comes from the USSR, but from Move-on and Soros. Third, where have your heard “let it go” from anyone here? I have never heard it. All I see and hear is conservatives being blamed for everything under the sun. Hillary Clinton lets info out on Obama and conservatives are blamed for it. Newt Gingrich’s cell is illegally recorded and “wither on the vine” is twisted to not mean the reformation of a corrupt tax system, but conservatives wanting old people to starve. The only “let it go” I see here is you stating to the effect “let it go” for leftist “anti-war” protester’s words/actions/influence and deeds of leftist leaders in their recent past.
So on this I call “Steve projectionism” again.
Absolutely my answer will be NO on this. First, since you have thrown out some outrageous numbers I asked for proof on and a debunked McCain quote above, please source the quote and the entire speech. Second, most of the “insurgents” were not Iraqi, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Those that were Iraqi were either Saddam’s thugs or Iranian backed Shia. The terrorists do not quote our President, the DO quote our congressmen and women in their jubilations. Go to MEMRI and see for yourself. I also attribute much of the insurgencies early, though ultimately futile ‘successes’ to the US State Dept’s actions and policies along with the repeated backstabbing from the left.
This is followed by more of your self-pity which makes me want to say “yes, I do give a ‘conservative pass’ to everyone else just to piss you off”. You make “points” in the fashion of “so how long ago did you stop beating your wife” and wonder why people get exasperated with your inanity!
“FEW demonstrations”??!!?? You do not get out much do you? They may be the same groups paying people to protest, but they go on and on. Considering Howard Dean showed up at a few Move-on/ANSWER protests, along with other Democratic leaders and groups showing up in them, what exactly are the rest of us supposed to think about the power and influence these “few” have over the rest of the left? Websites like zombietime.com have multiple photo and video records of what these protesters are stating and who is supporting them.
Also, I was not aware I had a “thought-leader” nor was I aware Ann Coulter was it. Thank you. I will report back to my nearest university for ‘re-education’ in proper leftist “thought”. I have heard a few snippets of her quotes, but I also heard her rebuttals to the soundbytes. Considering your falling for the “100 years war” BS and highly dubious “mercenary” numbers in Iraq, I have to wonder who your “thought-leaders” are and how brainwashed you have become. Now I will have to go read everything Ann Coulter said for the past few years as I do not read her columns. If she said it, then she was wrong. I prefer to let the left scream about “making conservatives pay” and other open threats they make. I believe I even stated that in a rebuttal to a passing right-wing poster here a couple of times.
Al-Zawahiri: Democrats have failed to bring any substantial change to America’s Iraq policy [AP]
Al-Qaeda’s deputy leader has described the US plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq as a gamble that is bound to fail. In an audio tape posted on the internet on Tuesday, Ayman al-Zawahiri also criticised the Democratic Party for not changing US policies. “[Bush's] addiction to gambling … motivates him to continue to place losing bets until he goes completely bankrupt,” he said. “Were the Americans to leave [Bush] alone, he would continue to send their forces to Iraq until the Mujahideen kill the last one of their soldiers.”
Terrorists LOVE Democrats, support them, encourage them, and cannot succeed without the far left’s rhetoric. People like Steve give them their excuses to kill-pure and simple
Re: “On the ONE point you feel so threatened and full of “help help, I’m being repressed” on: Pager, Steve gets terribly upset (even almost to the point of miffed) when you bring up the multi-billion dollar a year Abortion Industry/lobby and it was not part of the topic so please be nicer to Steve’s persecution complex.”
That is a flat out lie. I made no such complaint about the position pagar took. Only that it was off-topic, something verboten to non-Conservatives on this site.
Re: “Al-Zawahiri: Democrats have failed to bring any substantial change to America’s Iraq policy [AP]”
Flat out wrong. Had Democrats not taken control of Congress in 2006 we would still have Donald Rumsfeld running the Iraqi occupation into the ground, and thousands more would be dying and we would be hearing, still, that “we are turning the corner in Iraq”.
Now we are “only” at the level of violence of 2005 (and nowhere near the levels when President Bush dared insurgents to kill American, a challenge to which they responded quite well).
Re:”Second, most of the “insurgents” were not Iraqi, as has been demonstrated repeatedly.”
Flat out lie.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html
from the September 27, 2005 edition
Iraq’s foreign fighters: few but deadly
A new report says foreigners make up 4 to 10 percent of Iraq’s 30,000 insurgents.
By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
CAIRO – Much of the US effort in Iraq in recent months has been aimed at stopping the inflow of foreign jihadis. US warplanes have blown up bridges to deny insurgent infiltration routes, troops have occupied small towns thought to be crossing points for foreigners into bigger cities, and spy drones continuously buzz the Syrian border.
Even if the US can seal Iraq’s borders, stopping the flow of foreign fighters would do little to eliminate most of the country’s insurgents. Only 4 to 10 percent of the country’s combatants are foreign fighters, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies released last week. But while they are a minority, says the report, they are a potent segment largely from Algeria and Syria.
Re: “I also attribute much of the insurgencies early, though ultimately futile ‘successes’ to the US State Dept’s actions and policies along with the repeated backstabbing from the left.”
How could that be when the occupation was managed by the DoD, under Donald Rumsfeld?
Re: “This is followed by more of your self-pity which makes me want to say “yes, I do give a ‘conservative pass’ to everyone else just to piss you off”. ”
I have never seen you, or any other Conservative here say one word of criticism of Ann Coulter, and her comments about killing those with whom she disagrees: Other than your post right now.
Re: “Zombietime”.
I had never heard of this site before you plugged it in your post. Since thise is where you get all your information about those with whom you disagree, I can predict that you will love Ann Coulter’s stuff.
Re: “Al-Qaeda’s deputy leader has described the US plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq as a gamble that is bound to fail. ”
Since al Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while the Bush Administratio is bleeding America in Iraq, I would say that this is a pretty accurate overall assesment. Exactly how is President Bush going to keep his promise to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” in Iraq? Or are Conservatives required to pretend he never made that promise to America? Or that President Bush never said this only seven months after 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
The state of the “search” for bin laden
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7185592/
LONDON – Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.
In cae you want to pretend that President Bush never made the “Dead or Alive” promise:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/14/bush-binladen.htm
Re: “Absolutely my answer will be NO on this. First, since you have thrown out some outrageous numbers I asked for proof on and a debunked McCain quote above, please source the quote and the entire speech.”
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2003%2FALLPOLITICS%2F07%2F02%2Fsprj.nitop.bush%2F
There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there [Iraq}. My answer is, bring ‘em on.”
George W. Bush
July 3, 2003.
(That’s all I have time for now. But I predict another Conservative stream of venom, along with complete pretence that the information I posted does not exist.)
Half truths are not truths Steve. re: “That’s all I have time for now. But I predict another Conservative stream of venom, along with complete pretence that the information I posted does not exist.” You consistently argue moot points using half truths, half quotes, and distracted facts rather than hold your own political leanings accountable. My favorite in that long list of BS (and it is just bs) was the part about Al Queda only being a small portion of the insurgency. I like that one because the fact is that yeah, Al Queda was never very high in numbers, but the EFFECTS of the insurgency were largely from that small portion of insurgents who are Al Queda; a fact that is stated flat out in the article’s heading, but ignored so that you could pretend the insurgency was only about the number of people killing while ignoring the number of people killed…most of whom died from suicide attacks, and almost all suicide attacks coming from Al Queda.
Oh, I also LOVED the Bushisms quote and link. That was GREAT! Very pertinent-not. Another example of ignoring the whole truth of what was said. It’s like when you just so carefully slipped in that part earlier about how Al Queda is safe in Afghanistan-hardly. They’re hunted hard there.
Half truths ain’t truths Steve, and you will never see a truth if you close your mind to the big picture, the whole story; the whole truth. That truth remains that if America was united in conviction to fight Islamic Holy Warriors wherever, whenever, and however possible, then the political excuses and motivations they use would be rendered useless. They’d be reduced to regular ole killers instead of the faux religious zealots killing for political objectives.
‘course, I fall victim to my own condemnation here a bit by making a discussion about a fact that is moot for six months from now, you will vote for a President who will continue the war in Iraq indefinitely depending on conditions on the ground, and if it’s a Democrat who is elected-either Clinton or Obama-the left will (as you yourself have done) claim that their mere election brought success rather than anything they actually did. That’s actually rational since they’ve done nothing.
So obviously I did not make Steve happy by telling Pager to remain on topic…. I will have to find time to feel bad about that.
And if you want venom Steve, look in a mirror as you type.
From your own “political humor” link:
And yes we are plenty tough to deal with the threats even with all the lawfare out there against us. AQ made Iraq its choice of battle and lost and they even admitted it this year. I am very happy to have had my part in giving them that loss, as I have also helped give them loss after loss in Afghanistan less directly. I do believe our President was referring to Bin Laden’s assertions that the US would run after a few casualties as we did in Somalia. I suggest you research Bin Laden’s mid 1990s fatwa against America where he states such.
All Zombietime does is post pictures and videos of the “anti-war” groups. If this bothers you, join the list of leftists and Islamists who want to shut that site down.
As for the rest of Steve’s usual non-responses, Scott said it very well.
Sorry that my post to Pager was not enough for your feelings. What should we do oh all knowing lord and hater of “conservatives” since this is obviously your website?
Re: “Oh, I also LOVED the Bushisms quote and link. That was GREAT! Very pertinent-not. Another example of ignoring the whole truth of what was said.”
OK.
What DID George W. Bush mean when he promised to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive”, and later said that getting bin Laden was “not a priority”?
Re: “It’s like when you just so carefully slipped in that part earlier about how Al Queda is safe in Afghanistan-hardly. They’re hunted hard there.”
Not to any great success, I see.
While George W. Bush took his eye off the ball, this is what happened:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-11-us-terror-threat_N.htm?csp=34
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaeda has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.
A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the document — titled “al-Qaeda better positioned to strike the West” — called it a stark appraisal. The analysis will be part of a broader meeting at the White House on Thursday about an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.
Of course, no Conservative will ever be permitted to hold President Bush accountable for this result, will they?
Regarding John McCain’s “100 years” quote. How do you square that with the declaration by The Bush Administration, to which John McCain has pledged total loyalty on Iraq, that we are not building permanent bases in Iraq?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6077932230652381401&q=mccain+100+years+war&total=64&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/25/content_7491073.htm
Re: ” I like that one because the fact is that yeah, Al Queda was never very high in numbers, but the EFFECTS of the insurgency were largely from that small portion of insurgents who are Al Queda;”
Can YOU document that from any source other than a White House opinion piece? You are apparently trying to make the point that the insurgency would not have happened at all, were it not for al Qaeda. Is that your assertion? That, for example, had the Bush Administratin not permitted al Qaeda to get away in Afghanistan that the occupation wold have been concluede in the “six months or less” that Donald Rumsfeld predicted?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm
What could have happened to bin Laden and Al Qaeda
The situation inDecember 2002
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/10/ret.afghan.attacks/
What did happen
The situation four months later
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer
There would have been no al Qaeda to “start trouble” (as Conservatives insist there would have been no civil war in Iraq weree it not for al Qaeda) had President Bush completed his primise (“dead or alive”). So, instead we got “don’t care”.
And not one single Conservative will hold Geroge W. Bush even mildly accountable for this result. Not one.
Steve,
I wish I could drag you into the briefings which refute you, but all I can say is your links are dated and maybe something after the Pakistanis began their offensive in those high mountains might clear you up.
And just to piss you off, I will not hold our President accountable for capturing a man given to us on a silver platter 10 years ago. He is not an all knowing military genius like you and the left wing.
I am with Scott. I am not going to vote Bush for President this year. You convinced me Steve.
Your sneering sarcasm becomes you well.
And, of course, were we all as smart and knowing as you, we would all worship at your feet and support the Republican Party, 100% of the time, like all good Conservatives.
Of course everything is going perfectly. Just as you, “in the know” folks tell those of us who are not as worthy as you are. Just as we were told for years (and are still being told), “We are turning the corner in Iraq”.
Re: “I am with Scott. I am not going to vote Bush for President this year. You convinced me Steve.”
But you will vote loyally Republican, just as you did when George W. Bush WAS on the ticket.
Becaused you are worthy of the “secret briefings” that, were we of a character you deemed worthy, we could see and immediatly marvel at the wonderful leadership we have had in the occupation of Iraq all these years.
Re: “And just to piss you off, I will not hold our President accountable for capturing a man given to us on a silver platter 10 years ago. ”
That’s a lie that the NewsMax and FoxNews teams have bee promulgating for years, in order to relieve George W. Bush of any accountability whatsoever, as always.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/
REad this book and you will know that the Bush Administration was negotiating with the Taliban, over oil of course, right up until the attacks.
http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Truth-U-S-Taliban-Secret-Diplomacy/dp/1560254149
But then, you are privy to all those secret briefing that, were someone as modest as myself to see, would completely make me agree with VP Dick Cheney that Donald Rumsfeld was “the greatest Secretary ofDefense in History”. So you must be aware of the Bush Administrations free pass to the very same Taliban that was harboring Osama binladen during these negotiations. But, of course, you do not place even the slightest responsiblity on George w. Bush for this, do yo?
You must be joking. “Forbidden Truth?”….sigh, poor poor Steve. So lost in your quest to do the bidding of your masters you have lost all ability of any cognitive reasoning.
That book was written by two French men who had to apologize in the Economist, The Times of London, and The Financial Times, for its many lies and mistakes.
Corn notes the many lies and shoddy work of the book you hold so dear:
The authors have lost every libel action filed against them and Mr. Brisard’s congressional testimony had to be retracted. Hell, the man even lied about working at the United Nations.
And this is the kind of stuff you buy into?
Why am I not surprised, it actually speaks volumes about your character.
As for Clinton and bin-Laden….lets listen to Billy in his own words:
The 9/11 Commission told us that they couldn’t find any evidence to support the claim that Sudan offered up Osama, but Bill admitted there was an offer but felt legally constrained to do anything. The Commission even admitted they never watched the video of Clintons statements in 2002 but came to their conclusion anyway…..sure thing.
Curt: Perhaps we need to revisit our moonbat tolerance policy again. When I think of all the hours that have been wasted in the vain attempt to illuminate Philly Steve, I realize we all could have posted much more positive information reaching a wider audience than just this self absorbed mentally deranged sufferer of Bush Syndrome.
I had a similar experience recently in a community association issue I am involved in. After my spending hours responding with thoroughness and consideration to what were clearly a set of prepared talking points, he began insulting my veracity. After that, I just told him that I intended to defeat his position using very colorful language which I won’t repeat here.
If Philly Steve can’t learn to behave himself, perhaps we should give him a shove. He’s clearly a legend in his own mind and despite the fact that our first rate team here has him outclassed in every respect he will never be able to see that truth.
Yeah, but he does provide us with an example of the typical DummiesU aficionado. I also have to agree with Word that it brings out the best in a lot of you guys as you destroy him with facts, which he sidesteps and changes the subject. It’s actually quite amusing….
Steve,
Again, your arrogance is only outshown by your ignorance and beholding to your “thought leaders” spoon fed propaganda. Your tired and predictable “two minutes hate” on all things you think are conservative has really become quacking in the true sense of the word. Though I am happy that my not bowing to your ignorance and arrogance gets you so wound up as it penetrates your medication and bring out your true brainwashed self.
BTW, my absentee ballot was thrown out in 2000 and 2004 just like many of the military votes, so technically, I never voted. In 2006, I was able to actually vote in my district as I was not deployed that moment. Also, YES I will NEVER vote for your socialist masters and as the only viable alternative, if if they are “Democrat Lite” at times, the Republican Party will get my vote. They will not get it out of loyalty as your masters tell you, but out of disgust at what the socialist Democratic party is and seems destined to stay. So, in a sense, it is a protest vote against arrogant, ignorant people like you and your leftist totalitarian masters, not a vote for a center-right McCain.
Poor Steve. You can tell he’s getting nervous about the forthcoming 2008 election where he and other poser-liberals (people who pretend to be open-minded but are far from it) will finally have to cast votes that themselves will authorize the continuation of the UN-mandated war in Iraq. Accountability is his new paranoia word.
“What DID George W. Bush mean when he promised to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive”, and later said that getting bin Laden was “not a priority”?” Really? He “PROMISED”? I remember him saying that he didn’t care how Bin Laden is brought to justice, even preferred him dead, but I don’t remember a “promise.” Could that be another exaggeration to perpetuate a false political dogma on Steve’s part?
re: the idea that President Bush “permitted” Al Queda to escape Afghanistan…I gotta say, you’re tenacious-albeit completely contrary to the idea of being open-minded or even truthful, and here’s why:
1) your position that Al Queda escaped Afghanistan is contrary to your position that Al Queda is in Afghanistan. That’s either an example of distorting historical fact to perpetuate your political naiveté or an accidental acknowledgment that the Afghan/Pakistan border (which varies in location depending on who’s map you use) is so porus that even the combined forces of the United States, Afghan, Pakistan, and all of NATO cannot seal the historically unsealable border (again, a border which really doesn’t exist).
2) the link you gave is from 2007-not mid November 2001 when Bin Laden left Afghanistan and entered Pakistan
3) Al Queda en masse did not escape Afghanistan in 2001 or 2002. Only a few hundred did, and by far most of the “Arab Afghans” in Afghanistan in 2001/2002 were killed.
4) there is a popular misconception that the US could have sent in thousands of troops and sealed the border (which, as I’ve already said doesn’t even exist consistently on maps today let alone in 2001). This misconception-typical of Steve’s consistent ignorance or political half-truth-distortion- is proved false not only by the above mentioned facts, but by a little thing called Operation Anaconda. Anaconda was an operation designed to specifically address the alleged failure to surround and trap Al Queda fighters in Afghanistan. It used thousands of American troops deployed directly into the “rat lines” by which Al Queda was moving in and out of Pakistan. Operation Anaconda killed hundreds-perhaps thousands more of the “Arab Afghans,” but it didn’t prevent some from escaping, and as we’ve seen, all that matters to those interested in distorting history to further their political agenda is for a few to survive and escape.
5) I love it when you cite books then ignore the real sources on the subject. Aside from the 4 bestsellers written by the CIA and special ops people who were actually in Afghanistan in 2001/02, let’s keep it simple and point to Philip Smucker’s, Al Queda’s Great Escape. Those 5 books completely prove my points that President Bush didn’t “permit” Al Queda to escape. More could have been done, but not much without invading Pakistan and since India/Pakistan were on the verge of nuclear war in 2001/02, and since Pakistan was on the verge of collapse in 2001 due to popular protest against the US presence in Afghanistan…this really isn’t a political option (let alone a much better military one as proven by Operation Anaconda).
btw, America held President Bush accountable in 2004, and decided that even though he wasn’t very popular (less than 50% approval rating), he was a better choice than the indecisive nimrod that the Democrats chose. That’s how the system of checks and balances works-by voting.
Accountability: the Democratic Party’s worst nightmare.
You were right about the book. I apologize for bringing it up. I only read a synopsis and displayed incredibly poor judgement in using it as an example, for which I was justly raked over the coals.
However I stand by my assertion that, given the situation at the time, Bill Clinton tried, but failed to capture a man who, neither he, nor any Conservative, knew to be the monsterous threat he was.
We do know that, after everyone knew what a monster Osama bin Laden was, that the Bush Administration allowed him, along with most of the al Qaeda leadership, to get away when they ere cornered in Afghansitan: A blunder that we are apying for, with lives and teasure, to this day. And that, while every single Conservative hates Bill Clinton for not “getting” bin Laden in th 1990′s, not one single Conservative wille ver hold George w. Bush even slightly accountable for letting bin laden get away in 2001. Not one. They wil l parse words, ally the Bush team “fine print” and let us know that nothing was actually “promised”… only “guidelines”.
If were were looking at a “President Gore” with bin Laden on the loose more than six years after the September 11 attacks, FoxNews would have a counter at the bottom of every broadcast declaring “Number of Days Osama has been free since 9/11″ displayed in prominent type. You know that and so do I. But not one single Conservative will ever hold Geroge W. Bush similarly accountable. Or even accountable at all. Ever.
Its quite telling that you didn’t even read Scott’s comment that completely refuted your assertion the Bush “let” Osama to get away. Quite telling.
Sigh….So his declaration of war, the Cole, the Kenyan bombings, Khobar Towers, WTC I didn’t tell Clinton that he was a “monstrous threat?” His own words prove you wrong:
You don’t become “obsessed” with one man and use your countries resources to get that man unless you know the man is a “monstrous threat.”
Do you even know anything about the subject matter at hand or do just go around the web finding a few links…reading a synopsis on the material, and then use it?
Again, Steve contradicts himself re Tora Bora. First he says the US let Bin Laden get away, then he says Bin Laden was cornered (neither of which is historically accurate).
But I do love the absolute re-writing of history: “However I stand by my assertion that, given the situation at the time, Bill Clinton tried, but failed to capture a man who, neither he, nor any Conservative, knew to be the monsterous threat he was.”
Sorry Steve. Everyone KNEW. Bin Laden strongly and repeatedly tried to get people to acknowledge how dangerous he was, but Democrats ignored him. Conservatives and the media did not. http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/02/11/no-evidence-of-a-saddam-osama/
This is off topic but since I do not think Steve has seen the post and since he complains about alleged double standards and persecution, he needs to click on this link.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/02/13/a-sentence-that-fit-the-crime/#comment-22867#comment-22803#comment-22809
Someone posted as Steve and I noticed the email/IP/and writing style was different (a really different for the IP from Amsterdam). I noted such in the comment responses under it.
I wanted to say that so everyone knew it appears Steve did not make the statement attributed to him.
You say a lot of things I and others here consider asinine and a product of blind loyalty to the left Steve, but I do not think you said the idiotic things the IP from Amsterdam stated.
Re: “Sigh….So his declaration of war, the Cole, the Kenyan bombings, Khobar Towers, WTC I didn’t tell Clinton that he was a “monstrous threat?” His own words prove you wrong:”
And what, pray tell, was George W. Bush doing trhrough the Summer of 2001? Or does he get the automatic Conservative FREE PASS that all Republican Presidents get?
Re: “You say a lot of things I and others here consider asinine and a product of blind loyalty to the left Steve, but I do not think you said the idiotic things the IP from Amsterdam stated.”
You are correct. I did not even know this post existed (as I did not read that thread).
Thank you for sticking up for me (honest, no sarcasm).
And thank you Curt for tossing in a gratitous insult, even for a thread I have never even read, let alone posted.
Summer 2001? Let me remember…. We had uncomfirmed reports of something so we were planning on how to seal our bases from attack thinking they were the likely targets. At least that was what we in the Army were doing. This was done as an extension of what OCONUS bases did in the 1990s.
As for the Whitehouse, with the recounts, lawsuits and pettyness of congressional politics there were few appointments allowed, little in the way of transition teams, and a general stall of government. There was also the Gorrillic Wall which created blind spots between the CIA and FBI.
So while not getting a “free pass” as your two minutes hate compells you to add, our President was not able to do much in the summer of 01 with all the antics from the election and a hostile congress.
You are welcome.
What was done in the summer of 2001? “And what, pray tell, was George W. Bush doing trhrough the Summer of 2001? Or does he get the automatic Conservative FREE PASS that all Republican Presidents get?”
Lemme get this straight, on the one hand you’re alleging that no one knew what a monster Bin Laden was until 911, and on the other you’re suggesting that perhaps GWB was wrong to have incorrectly done nothing? Well, let’s straighten this out…
As I said, there was a HUGE amount of threat warning from 12/92-1/01 showing that Bin Laden and Al Queda were extremely dangerous. This is verified in multiple testimonies from the Clinton Admin era officials to bother the joint House/Senate 911 investigation and the 911 Commission. Quotes available upon request, but the fact that the Clinton Admin knew what kind of a monster UBL was during the 90′s is backed by huge amounts of fact, and claims to the contrary backed by nothing but the proven manipulative opinion of Steve. BUT…what was being done under President Bush’s watch? Lots actually. Those same bi-partisan investigations showed that the Bush Admin did in fact take the UBL/AQ threat more seriously in many ways than the Clinton Admin had from 12/00-5/01. Starting in June, the Bush Admin went on the highest terror alert the nation had ever been on to date. The FBI had almost 80 investigations going. The CIA increased the number of people looking at AQ by almost 100x. Other intel agencies and national security entities went on the lookout for a terror attack as well. The problem was the threat information was all over the place ranging from a nuclear attack, a dirty bomb attack, an attack using Iraqi WMD, hijackings, bombings, suicide bombings, assassinations, and so forth. …but, let’s be a little specific so that morons not interested in historical fact have to really look at a lot of facts and thus have more to ignore right in their face:
Now, that’s just a a few of the things that I’ve got in my database. There are a lot more (about 3-4x as much) when you figure in the diplomatic stuff, the foreign intel reporting, the specific threat alerts to various law enforcement agencies, details of the FBI and CIA investigations etc., but my guess is that someone not interested in history would have sped past all this stuff, so why bother pulling out more just to have it ignored in favor of a false history aimed at appeasing a need to blame “CONSERVATIVES” or President Bush for anything while doing anything and everything to excuse and ignore the 8 YEARS of failures on the part of President Clinton; Procrastination is not a policy?
Philly Steve wrote:
Chris reminds Philly Steve what he should already know:
You already know all this, Steve; you just don’t like listening:
Re: “As for the Whitehouse, with the recounts, lawsuits and pettyness of congressional politics there were few appointments allowed, little in the way of transition teams, and a general stall of government. There was also the Gorrillic Wall which created blind spots between the CIA and FBI.
So while not getting a “free pass” as your two minutes hate compells you to add, our President was not able to do much in the summer of 01 with all the antics from the election and a hostile congress.”
Of course.
As always it’s (almost) all someone else’s fault.
Steve manages to ignore 3 full pages of things done in 01
“…not able to do much in summer of 01…”
typical. Glad I didn’t post the other 3/4 of what was done.
I also liked how he completely ignored and gave a free pass to any impact or effect at all that the historically documented, political gamesmanship by Democrats had on that summer. Then he’s got the audacity to accuse others of giving free passes?
The word twit seems more appropriate than troll
Yes…at most, 98% of it, is.
Yes Steve, I blame 98% of the war and previous multiple Islamic terror attacks targeting us and our allies (and even the Russians, Chinese, etc) to radical militant Islamists bent on restoring a Caliphate and destroying us infidels (including you) in “Dar al Hab”.
In the mind of poser-liberal types, it’s always more the fault of those charged with protecting than it is the actual killers.
Re: “Steve manages to ignore 3 full pages of things done in 01
“…not able to do much in summer of 01…”
typical. Glad I didn’t post the other 3/4 of what was done.”
I didn’t ignore it. Didn’t you read my post? I was agreeing with you. George w. Bush is not accountable for anything. Nothing is his fault. It’s all someone else’s fault (Bill Clinton). George W. Bush is never accountable. Someone else always is.
No Steve. That wasn’t my point. GWB IS accountable, and I’ve said it many times as have others, but America is not a new nation every time there’s a new party in the WH. It’s AMERICAN history, and American history will mention the D or the R next to each President’s name 10, 20, 50yrs from now, but more than anything history books will (and are) recording that there were 8years of increasingly asinine mistakes-mostly politically driven-followed by 8 months of simply not doing enough; it’s not a matter of Clinton’s fault or Bush’s fault. When you see conservatives or Republicans talking about how Clinton didn’t do enough to get UBL, it’s not that they’re trying to excuse GWB and/or put all the blame on Clinton…just a fair share, and in contrast poser-liberals who aren’t really open-minded or progressive at all seek to completely disavow any and all shortcomings or failures of the 1990′s and at every opportunity focus on BDS as if he’s up for re-election or something. He’s not. Bush is effectively out of power. Bill Clinton is out of power. I say-as do a quickly rising number of Democrats-that we should look at AMERICA’S failures and shortcomings, and in almost every case, these shortcomings (Iraq, AQ, UBL, IRS, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending)…these cross party lines, but too many nimrods have been deliberately ignoring any and all effects anyone with a D next to their name has had just so they could bash Bush as if that does one iota of good, and while I don’t fault all Democrats with that patriotic sin of omission…I do specifically accuse you of it with ample evidence on every single thread you post to support the claim. To that end, I challenge you, dare you, double dog dare you to step up and give equal credit of blame to where it is due, but given your repeated acknowledgment of even pure historical fact I suppose you lack the intestinal fortitude.
Your point was well made, to the point and, since it was willing to hold George W. Bush accountable, an opening for me to state something similar.
President Clinton was almost entirely focused on American issues of a domestic nature (“It’s the economy, stupid”). As a result we did, in my opinion, achieve quite a lot of good in some domestic areas during his term. I know that some of President Clinton’s “accomplishments” in my eyes are failure in yours. But then I do value a balanced federal budget, even if it means a tax hike: Which was achieved. The percentage of Americans falling below the poverty line did drop, to about 23% in his term. Not perfection, but an accomplishment.
On the negative side, President Clinton’s failure to take any strong actions internationally allowed problems to fester. For example the presence of American troops on Saudi soil was one of the chief reasons Osama bin laden gave for his September 11 attacks. Had President Clinton realized what an affront many Muslims took to non-Muslims troops stationed in the home of Mecca, he might (or might not) have taken the political heat for solving that problem. President Bush did address that problem when his Administration announced the closing of the formal base in 2002, removing one of the “sticks” in the eyes of Muslims.
My ire at Conservatives is when they defend George W. Bush with “mistakes were made’ comments, as though a botched occupation that is costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars was excusable. My level of rhetoric rises with the level of equanimity displayed by those on the other side.
Your willingness to acknowledge the cost of the botched occupation encouraged me to acknowledge that “Saint Bill” was certainly less that I had hoped, and much less than someone of his political skills should have been.
Enjoy your weekend.
Good comments Steve, but there are some flaws.
The war in Iraq has not cost trillions-that number (as is the case with any number vaunted by an opponent of the war) is a combination of the cost of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anti-terror ops around the world, and if one looks specifically at the costs in the supplemental costs bills you can see that a great deal of those funds are for rebuilding programs and systems that had been cut in the so-called “peace dividend” in the 1990′s.
Re the idea of a military debacle in Iraq. Please point me to a military defeat in Iraq, and lacking one…there is no military debacle. If one wants to argue that the diplomatic effort could have been done better than please explain how that happens.
Botched occupation. You still declare that with no real understanding of what botched means. Botched means a Dunkirk, a Kasserine Pass, a Tet Offensive with millions of enemy popping up unexpectedly, or something like the Blackhawk Down incident, or the failed Tomahawk strikes that were targeted against Bin Laden in the 90′s, or how about the hundreds of assassination/rebellion/coup attempts done in the 90′s against Saddam? Those are examples of botched operations; military failures.
Re: “The war in Iraq has not cost trillions-that number (as is the case with any number vaunted by an opponent of the war) is a combination of the cost of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anti-terror ops around the world, ”
A reasonable point, and I don’t want my overall evaluation of the occupation (as opposed to the military invasion and current military activities) to be hampered on how many dollars have been spent here or there. Let it be said, for my part, that a great deal of the money and lives being spent now are not being spent on improving the situation in Iraq, but essentially making up for previous political blunders after the initial invasion was successful. (Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule).
Re: “Re the idea of a military debacle in Iraq. Please point me to a military defeat in Iraq, and lacking one…there is no military debacle. ”
Agreed. The debacle was entirely political. On that point we agree completely.
Re: “Botched occupation. You still declare that with no real understanding of what botched means”
“Botched” means plane loads of currency, $ billions worth, shipped to Baghdad. All of it disappears after the planes land and no one can account for where it was even dispersed after the planes were unloaded (and I’m not talking about the money spent in the streets to pay for work done in cash. We would at least see the money sent to various military or reconstruction units. The money just “vanished”).
That, in my mind, constitutes “Botched”. But neither you, nor any other Conservative I have ever read, will even admit it happened, let alone that anything was wrong with it. Most of the time Conservatives just shrug and say, “oh well…” and defend it.
If you cannot admit that results such as that constitute “botched”, then you still agree with Dick Cheney that Donald Rumsfeld was the greatest Secretary of Defense in history.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN06312951
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/
If you read the Reuters story, it is apparent that we may have actually financed our own insurgency. Does that sound “botched” to you?
(excerpt)
“Democrats led by Waxman also questioned whether the lack of oversight of $12 billion in Iraqi money that was disbursed by Bremer and the CPA somehow enabled insurgents to get their hands on the funds, possibly through falsifying names on the government payroll.
“I have no knowledge of monies being diverted. I would certainly be concerned if I thought they were,” Bremer said. He pointed out that the problem of fake names on the payroll existed before the U.S.-led invasion.”
When I read alibis for this kind of incompetence (especially Bremmer using the legalese “I have no knowledge…” line), and recall that Medals of Freedom were handed out for this sort of “management”, then I do become irate. My only question is why aren’t you? Soldiers are now earning other medals… sometimes posthumously, to undo the damage these incompetents created.
On the military side, recall that many of the soldiers who might have helped secure the weapons depots that were left unguarded after the occupation of Baghdad, were sitting on ships off the coast of Turkey: All because the Bush Administration forgot to get Turkey’s permission for them to cross Turkish soil, before the war began. Remember when President Bush, at the last minute, promised Turkey $20 billion for them to cross, and was turned down because his team had not bothered to lay the diplomatic groundwork? Was that just another “oops”?
If a Democratic President had presided over this, Conservatives would be screaming. But as far as I can see, criticism is muted. Limited to “political mistakes were made”. Why aren’t you jumping up and down, demanding Donald Rumsfeld’s head on a pike, the way you would if a Democratic Secretary of Defense had presided over these types of political decisions?
Oh Steve…still can’t open those eyes.
“If a Democratic President had presided over this, Conservatives would be screaming.” You’re right. Myself, Iwouldn’t be screaming, but you’re right…many conservatives would scream and ignore the big picture just as you do.
:re the Turkey bit, you’re wrong. Turkey had just had an election (as had Germany btw) where anti-American politicians rose to power and prominence based on the same rhetoric as Democrats and terrorists. As a result, they balked at letting the 4th Inf Div enter Turkey. Time passed (it does that ya know), and the decision was made to ship the 4th ID not to Jordan (who had offered permission), but all the way to Kuwait to serve as a followup force. Only after the ships were moving and then gone did Turkey make any concessions, and they did so in full knowledge that it was too late. Want the dates and timeline?
re: the Medals of Freedom, I beg of you to show me how conservatives were thrilled with this? I say they were not, and are not. I know I was/am still ticked about it and made my displeasure with Dir Tenet published in Dec 2003 as well as throughout several books in 2004.
Planeloads of cash MIA? Yep. It happens. You might note that even MORE planeloads of cash were flown to Afghanistan and dispensed without receipts. Damn warlord accountants! Seriously man, that’s just the way it is in many places on this planet. It’s not like you walk up to Gen Dostum, offer him $5-10bn in pallets of cash to attack the Taliban, and then get a receipt. In Iraq, bribery was/is key to the entire system over there and has been for thousands of years=few receipts. I’m not happy about it, and it is another failure of Colin Powell’s State Department, but I do understand it. Curious, ya think President Clinton’s invasion of Haiti was peaceful because of Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy, the presence of the 82nd airborne in the air with USMC on the coast, or a planeload of money sans receipt?
Re: “Curious, ya think President Clinton’s invasion of Haiti was peaceful because of Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy, the presence of the 82nd airborne in the air with USMC on the coast, or a planeload of money sans receipt?”
How many American soldiers died in Haiti this week?
I’m not trying to paint any kind of perfection picture of Democratic presidents or their actions. That appears to be the standard Conservative alibi for George W. Bush: That if any Democrat, any time, any where, did anything wrong, then George W. Bush gets a free pass because at least one Democrat was worse. Is that the Conservative standard? That President Bush be no worse in any area that the worst somewhere else? OK. I’ll concede that George W. Bush is only the second-worst president at most (but not all) of the initiatves of his Presidency. Does that get him off the hook and a place on Mount Rushmore?
I still assert that the occupation (not the invasion) of Iraq was mismanaged for political (not military) purposes. If Conservatives want to let President Bush’ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld off the hook by saying it was all President Bush’s Secretary of State Colin Powell’s fault, then go ahead. But who is the person who is, in his own words, “The Decider”? And, when someone stands up and claims that responsibility, does one not also claim accountability? Or as I see repeatedly here, is it always “someone else’s fault” (whether the CIA is the alibi, or the State Department is the alibi, or the US Congress’s, that passed the resolutions and funding, fault. I always hear why it is “someone else’s fault”.
As an analogy:
When the raid on David Koresh’s compound went south in the first months of Bill Clinton’s presidency, even though the process had begun during George H. W. Bush’s presidency, Janet Reno “took responsiblity”. But Conservatives everywhere (and we will see their posts after this comment) to this day also blame Bill Clinton. Why do those same Conservatives always support George W. “The Decider” Bush’s passing the buck to his subordinates on the occupation of Iraq?
And ,please don’t post any of those “Bush Derangement Syndrome” claims against my comments. When a Conservative is capable of saying Hillary Clinton’s name without literally frothing at the mouth, then those “pots” can make accusations against my “kettle”.
We are spending thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars that could go a dozen places. From my liberal favorites to conservative favorites (we could build another “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska every two or three days for what we are now spending). Had the Bush Administration (whereever the buck lands) just listened to those who warned against not going in cheap, we might actually have achieved Donald Rumsfeld’s six months heavy involvement, with reduced presence now (long the lines of the Balkans). But we did go in cheap, which was not a decision made by Liberals. It was made by the Bush Administration. And we are spending billions and Americans are now giving their lives to make up for those decisions.
You bet I’m mad about those lives being spent because Donald Rumsfeld was so arrogant. You bet I want to see him keel hauled in every public forum for this. He is, at least, still alive and has all his limbs and body parts. A lot of people do not, solely because of him. And “The Decider” took no action to remove this man until the day after election day 2006. For three-and-a-half years we heard “we are turning the corner” spin. For keeping that blatantly incompetent Secretary in place, at the cost of thousands of lives, I hold George W. Bush accountable. Don’t you?
Lemme get this straight Steve, you agree that the post invasion difficulties are political/diplomatic not military, so you blame military (SecDef) instead of the political/diplomatic Secretary of State?
Wow. No convenient manipulation to support a political ideal there. Nope.
LOL!
Steve,
The frothing at the mouth I see is mostly from you. It was not Bush Sr that violated Posse Commatatus and ordered US tanks to Waco. President Bush has ever ordered me to fire on my own people.
Again, your style of writing is akin to the “so have you stopped beating your wife yet”.
I do not hate Hillary Clinton, but do not wish to see her or Obama President. It would be nice if you on the left would corrall your “anti-war” activist so we unarmed Soldiers and Service Members will not be attacked in recruiting stations and our own driveways. It would also be nice if universities protected conservative points of view like they protect leftist and not allow leftists to ‘crash’ conservative events.
You are right, I will not vote for Bush either. I do hold him accountable for not emptying out the DOS of Clinton appointees and underlings one of whom, even in 2007 in front of myself and two other officers at MNSTC-I HQ, Camp Phoenix, gleefully stated his “mission” was to sabotage all of our efforts. And you sound JUST like him.
As for your idiotic “conservative favorites” BS, I am sure you in your blind hate, failed to see the outrage from the right. That is also one of the issues we had with President Bush. Not only did he allow many leftist expansions of government through (even assisted in creating them), he also did not rally the republicans to drastically reduce spending and pork. Conservatives did not vote for congressmen in 2006, yet voted on conservative issues in their states. The issues, for the most part, won handily. Maybe the RNC has not learned that lesson, but I do not wish to teach them it with a Socialist Democrat in power.
My “conservative favorites” includes slashing civilain government, a “no pork” law (fat chance), implementing true immigration reform (we can even pattern ours off Mexico’s laws) and NOT amnesty, expanding our natural resource drilling/mining and refining capabilities while working to move forward technologically, ending welfare through better education and a change of culture from an entitlement/slave/dependent mentality to a producer/rights/responsibility mentality, and defending our nation both culturally and physically.
Re: “Lemme get this straight Steve, you agree that the post invasion difficulties are political/diplomatic not military, so you military (SecDef) instead of the political/diplomatic Secretary of State?
Wow. No convenient manipulation to support a political ideal there. Nope.”
Those are word games. You know, as well as I do, that the occupation of Iraq was placed under the main control of the Defense Department when Donald Rumsfled pulled an end run on his rival Colin Powell at State. So the major occupation decisions were made in the Pentagon, not Foggy Bottom. That has been documented and you know it.
Re: “You are right, I will not vote for Bush either.”
But, were he to announce, Constitution or not, I guarantee that you would vote for him. And do anything in your power to make sure he stayed in office, no matter what.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102115.html
Re: “I do hold him [Bush] accountable for not emptying out the DOS of Clinton appointees and underlings one of whom, even in 2007 in front of myself and two other officers at MNSTC-I HQ, Camp Phoenix, gleefully stated his “mission” was to sabotage all of our efforts. And you sound JUST like him.”
Back to that again. Bush is off the hook because it is all Bill Clinton’s fault.
What was that “sabateur’s” name? Such an action appears to be very serious and the person should be exposed for what he/she has done. What is the name?
Gosh Steve, I guess Paul Bremer was just window dressing then? Nope. If it was a military failure (defeat), then blame the military. If the failure was state, then blame state. They’re the ones dragging their feet-not the soldiers, Marines, etc.
You are parsing words again: Something the Bush White house does all the time. Donald Rumsfeld was a political appointee. His political decisions are not the fault of the soldiers who were ordered to carry them out (go in light). Political decisions made in the Pentagon (not securing the Iraqi weapons depots) were not the fault of the State department.
You are continuing the Conservative alibi machine that worked to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office far past the time his disasterous decisions were evident. As always, it is always “someone else’s fault”. Again, all the political decisions made, whether you want to attribute them to Donald Rumsfeld or Coling Powell to The Decider. But, of course, he must never beheld accountable, since everything is Bill Clinton’s fault, isn’t it?
Re: “My “conservative favorites” includes slashing civilian government,”
Would you like to reduce it so zero? And have an entirely military government?
No Steve, I am not a socialist. Really, your statement there was asinine even for your typical drivel. I would like government greatly reduced to the minimum needed for the nation. Also, if the government was reduced to “zero” there would BE no military as our Constitution puts the military under civilian control. All there would be is armed civilian militias and armed individuals (per the 2nd Ammendment) not under government control.
Again, that outlandish asinine statement was idiotic even for you.
Why isn’t it that, “You are continuing the liberal blame gaming armchair 20/20 hindsight quarterbacking?” This goes back to Scott’s repeated challenge to you:
I wonder what Steve would be typing out, during the aftermath of Normandy and Iwo Jima.
Steve continues to dodge and distract rather than hold anyone accountable regardless of political orientation. He seeks individual facts and half truths to support his position rather than seeking a position supported the big picture and the larger truth.
The thing is, there have been criticism from our side. As in all cases in life, things could always have been done better. Even within this blog and in this post, President Bush has received criticism, yet Philly Steve still insists on making sweeping, grandiose statements about “conservatives think this”, “conservatives think that”. Somehow, because we don’t see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time something doesn’t turn out right, it means we reject all criticism. By Philly Steve’s standards, if he were to be honest with himself, we’d be firing every general, every politician, every leader, every day for many bad decisions, and for decisions that weren’t bad, but had negative results because of enemies who actually use their brains and come up with counter plans and strategies.
The “Conservative alibi machine that worked to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office” which nominated John McCain, Rumsfeld’s chief and persistant critic for President.
Re: “Steve continues to dodge and distract rather than hold anyone accountable regardless of political orientation.”
No.
This Conservative demand that I put the occupation of Iraq into some sort of “historical context” that is acceptable to Conservatives is nothing more than a red herring argument, meant to imply that somehow, the Bush Administation’s management of the occupation of Iraq was some sort of brilliant operation and in exactly in line with what should have been expected.
America occupied Japan and Germany after WW II, with an insurgency in Germany (the “Werewolves”) that lasted only weeks. But that example was not good enough for Conservatives.
America occupied the Dominican Republic in the 1960′s. But that was in this hemisphere, and not good enough for Conservatives.
America invaded and occupied Grenada in the 1980′s. But that was not good enough either.
There is no example of an occupation that Conservatives will agree meets their “historical context” because all of the examples I gave were examples where the occupation was actually planned, rather than assumed. That enables Conservatives to let the Bush Administration (whichever cabinet secretary they choose as their “fall guy”) off the hook.
And that, I assert, is the real objective of Conservatives: to make sure that the Bush Administration does not run out of alibis, until January 2009, when George W. Bush will “get out of Dodge” and let someone else (whether named Obama, Hillary or John) to clean up his mess.
Re: “The “Conservative alibi machine that worked to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office” which nominated John McCain, Rumsfeld’s chief and persistant critic for President.”
??????
I recall posts on this very site from Conservatives excoriating John McCain, and promoting everyone EXCEPT John McCain for president. However, now that Senator McCain has sufficient votes to be the nominee, every single Conservative here has fallen in line and loves John McCain as their candidate for President (another prediction I made, which was greeted with mountains of denials and derision)
Re: “As in all cases in life, things could always have been done better.”
No.
Again, it is the kind of gentle criticism that echoed Donald Rumsfeld’s own words about “stuff happens” when the looting of Baghdad took place that irritates me. The looting went beyond the antiquities of the Iraqi museam. It went to weapons depots that were unsecured, enabling an insurgency made up of fired soldiers to have the werewithal to establish the insurgency to begin with. But Conservatrives insistance that this was just a minor “oops”, as though men and women of the aremd forces were not dying, to this day, for such a blunder (going in light and unprepared, against which Donald Rumsfeld was warned and fired the man who warned him against doing it).
I repeat, for the umteenth time. Had Donald Rumsfeld had a “D” after his name, instead of Conservatives saying, “Oh well, too bad”, they would be screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.
Re: “I wonder what Steve would be typing out, during the aftermath of Normandy and Iwo Jima.”
That, FIVE YEARS LATER, American troops would not still be getting killed by enemy troops on those very same beaches, as they were today in Baghdad.
Oh Steve, no one said it was “Brilliant.” You’re the only one making declarations of that scale. I wonder if you even see the irony in those defacto declarations of yours, your half truths, misquotes, half quotes, and pinhole-perspective-ravings when you typed, “I repeat, for the umteenth time. Had Donald Rumsfeld had a “D” after his name, instead of Conservatives saying, “Oh well, too bad”, they would be screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.”
Probably not. Till you do, the joke is clearly on you.
You have serious, serious reading comprehension issues if you think support of McCain for the general election, now that the Republican primaries have decided the GOP nominee, equates to falling in love with McCain.
Because that is what YOU want, since he has the “R” beside his name.
How can anyone take you seriously?! If you don’t want G.W.B. to leave the next Administration to “clean up after his ‘mess’”, let’s abolish the 22nd Amendment.
The fact is, events in life don’t operate on a timeline with an expiration date, based conveniently upon when U.S. elections are scheduled to take place. There’s never any neat, tidy ending, simply because one Administration leaves office. Succeeding Administrations pick up where its predecessors left off. We’re still dealing with the “aftermaths” of the Carter Administration, and every Administration that’s ever been; they’ve all led us to where we stand, in this moment in history. Grow up.
“persons“. Go pick up and read Timmerman’s “Shadow Warriors”. I bet you won’t. And so you’ll just remain stuck like a frog at the bottom of a well.
Re: “Because that is what YOU want, since he has the “R” beside his name.”
I have never called for the death of anyone. To even imply so is to be a liar.
Re: “We’re still dealing with the “aftermaths” of the Carter Administration”
Convenient that you are not willing to admit that we might be dealing with any aftermaths of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Does that have anything to do with the (R) after their names?
Re: “Administration to “clean up after his ‘mess’”, let’s abolish the 22nd Amendment.”
Something I beleive every single Conservative here would do in a heartbeat, solely for the sake of retaining George W. Bush in office.
Oh, that is just too rich! My God, man! Let’s look back at what I was responding to:
You are presupposing what conservatives think. Would it do your hurt feelings better, if I flipped your comment around and said “Since Donald Rumsfeld has an “R” after his name, liberals (not Philly Steve) are screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.”?
Of course we deal with “the aftermath” of prior Administrations. You don’t just start with a clean slate and bill of goods, on day one of a new president’s tenure. You don’t start over. It’s important to have a certain “consistency” in how we conduct ourselves and honor past agreements. It matters that the succeeding Administration can recognize where we are at in the world today, and then go from there, responsibly. Not simply ignore the last 7-8 years and what’s occurred. You build upon what has come before. If you wish to change the direction of the country, you do so responsibly.
The Bush Administration didn’t just drum up “regime change” from scratch. They built upon prior history, under the Clinton Administration.
My point, Steve, is that life is one continuous flow. Simply because a U.S. presidential Administration’s tenure comes to an end, it doesn’t mean that the rest of the world stops; that everything comes to a nice, neat, tidy end. I’m sure Jimmy Carter would have liked to have resolved the hostage crisis, under his watch. But he did not have that luxury of time. Administrations have expiration dates. Life’s constant flow doesn’t pay attention to that. The war we find ourselves in will end when it ends, and not a day sooner. Perhaps, in future wars, you would prefer we announce a timetable before it begins? We can say, “We’ll go to war with our enemies for 6 months. You soldiers have 6 months to win this thing, after which time, irregardless of whether we have the enemy on the ropes or are getting our butts kicked, we will pack it in, and go home.”
Essentially, that is the logic you are taking, Steve. And it is a completely accurate characterization.
You are sooooooo predictable with your sweeping statements and grandiose generalities. ALL conservatives this, ALL conservatives that.
Revisiting Philly Steve’s periodic piping about President Bush leaving the next president to “clean up his mess” as if wars are waged with expiration dates attached to them, here’s a juicy tidbit from the 2002 SotU Address:
Re: “You are presupposing what conservatives think.”
I was not calling for his death, which is what you lied about when you accused me of wishing so.
Re: “Of course we deal with “the aftermath” of prior Administrations.”
I was commenting ont he fac that we had Nixon (R), Ford (R), Carter (R), Reagan (R) and Bush I (R), and you chose, for some “unknown” reaso to choose the single (D) in that series.
No, Steve. I was using YOUR WORDS, not mine; just turning them around on you, to point out the ridiculousness of your constant sweeping, broad generalizations and caricatures of “conservatives according to the fantasy world of Philly Steve”.
You fail to comprehend the substance of the rebuttals to your original argument and do nothing but fish for ways to “save face”, Steve.
Carter (R)????
No wonder the gentleman hates Republicans. I first thought it a typo but he refers to the single (D) in the series. I guess Hitler (R) and Stalin (R) account for some of his sweeping condemnations as well? Good thing Lincoln (D) stood up to those nasty Republicans in the South.
My bad, I did not read back enough. My apologies as it seems it was a typo.
I get a bit annoyed when people make sweeping generalizations about what I think or would do and I let it goad me. I am a Republican who is not too disappointed with the party because I have rarely had much respect for the party. When they fell in behind Reagan or Newt I was with them as I am strongly conservative but the Republican leadership rarely is. When Reagan was elected I thought it a disaster, but the speed with with he restored America from the Carter debacle showed what a great man he was. He was the first politician to earn my personal admiration and respect for his intelligence and character.