Democrats Believe Iraq Defeat Bills Will Ensure They Get Re-Elected

so the NTY doesnt even have the respect to call him “President Bush” what a disgrace

power>patriotism

Of course it doesn’t “count” that the troop withdrawals are because the so-called “surge” is ended. We do not have the troops to send to continue the “surge”, that was known before it was started. These are not withdrawals, they were planned before the troops were sent. The levels next summer will be higher than they were before the “surge” began. Come back to us when levels drop below the pre-surge numbers.

All of the name calling and labeling cannot change the fact that “defeat” in Iraq was happened the day Donald Rumsfeld (the Greatest Secretary of Defense in US history, according to Dick Cheney) failed to secure Iraqi weapons depots, disbanded the military, and generally “went in light” despite the advice of his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

From that point on, all we have been doing is presiding over a civil war: One where we are now paying, training and equipping all three sides.

And President Bush’s “surge” has failed, after ten months, to come close to achieving its stated objective of a stabel central government that exists outside of the Green Zone. (Other than photo-ops for FoxNews).

Those are facts, even if those inside the Bush Bubble pretend otherwise. And stating those facts does not mean that Democrats hate America and out troops. In fact I beleive it is actually Republicans and Conservatives who hate our country and its soldiers since they are completely willing to continue the war, and our soldiers getting killed and maimed, just so that George W. Bush can Run Out the Clock to January 2009 without having to publicly admit his incompetence.

The surge is working? Really? After 3 whole months of lower violence you’re ready to declare victory?

Then can you please point to your posts where, after YEARS of increased violence in Iraq, you declared it a failure?

Because, you know, if you’re ready to declare victory after 3 months, then you should have declared failure after multiple years of the opposite, right? Well, unless you’re a hypocritical Conservative who’s just trying to get elected.

Steve,

Just to add real facts to your bile.

The National Socialist Pan Arab Ba’ath Iraqi Army was NOT disbanded by the 30 Country Coalition, it fell apart after its commissars and officers fled the field. The mostly Shia soldiers simply went home. The surge is working. Anbar, declared ‘lost’ by the left last year is fully functional as are all the cities in it. New Iraqi Army units are standing up and fighting the remnants of AQI (and its attached terror groups), Iranian/Syian/Jordainian/Chechen “insurgents”, and continuing to improve. The Iraqi Parliament is passing more bills than the US Congress. Tribes and clans are reconciling and working together to kill islamofascists. US and Iraqi casualties are far lower than they were last year and are still dropping.

It is simply amazing the amount of leftist talking point you spew as “facts”. And no, real debate does not mean one “hates America”. Sedition through groups such as ANSWER/ACT/ACORN/Move-on/WWP/Sparticus League and other such groups means one hates America. And that is who the Dems are tied to. That is where they have made their bed. When the Dems come to a real debate, they will lose. Considering the farce of the CNN “debate”, I doubt they will ever belly up.

Also, every major leftist candidate has stated they will keep US troops in Iraq in combat for the foreseeable future, how is President Bush running the clock out?

And Conservatives hate America “hate our country and its soldiers since they are completely willing to continue the war, and our soldiers getting killed and maimed”??? What a bunch of completely ignorant and asinine crap!! Considering most US Military members (around 90-95%) are conservatives, this alone blows your fantasy away. Also, considering that the death and injury rate for this war is the lowest in US history, you lose even more ground.

Lastly, before you shout “chicken hawk” and “if you support this so much, you join and go to Iraq”, today marks my 14th year of service in the US Army.

You, sir, are the reason Lenin called leftists “useful idiots”.

All the rhetoric opposing the war is mostly just BS. Those same people who rant and rave about continuing it, or who claim it was wrong, are the same people who will vote for Hillary Clinton despite the fact that she:
promoted the invasion
“lied about the intel”
authorized the war
supported the war
continues to fund the war
and has pledged to keep combat units in Iraq until 2013.

If the voices against invasion and continuing in Iraq really cared about the war and not partisanship, then they’d be ranting away at Hillary, and she wouldn’t stand a chance at the nomination or the general. Instead, when the voices of dissent pull the lever and support Hillary (ie GWB Iraq policies) they prove that they’re really just voices of partisan propaganda.

the parties in iraq are starting to work together?
do you have any substance for this, or is it wishful thinking? from all that i see ethnic cleansing, which was predicted, has happened. when democrats, particularly biden, wanted to manage the soft partition of the country instead of allowing chaos, the civilian leadership said it was a non-starter. now that it has happened, and the chaos that bush stood-by and allowed to happen, is sorting itself out, they want to take credit. the great unspoken truth here is that you now have an iraq under tremendous iranian influence. indeed it was due to irans that al-sadr’s militia stood-down. that more than anything has helped the situation and us military officials have said so. so be honest…is an iranian controlled iraq really what we lost 4000 soldiers, and borrowed over two trillion dollars, to accomplish?

“you say tomato I say tomatoe….disbanded or willfully allowed to disintegrate…” That’s a hoot! “willfully allowed to disintegrate” That’s like saying that all the King’s horses and all the King’s men “willfully allowed” Humpty Dumpty to “disintegrate.” There was no army anymore, just a bunch of individuals heading for the hills or their homes. What were we supposed to do, drive around with loudspeakers shouting, “We’re putting the army back together, please report to your units?” Yeah, that would have done it. This has always been the stupidest argument I have ever heard since the war and headen just doubled down on it. LOL

Re: “Lastly, before you shout “chicken hawk” and “if you support this so much, you join and go to Iraq”, today marks my 14th year of service in the US Army.”

Tell that to Disk “I had better things to do” Cheney.

There was no army anymore, just a bunch of individuals heading for the hills or their homes. What were we supposed to do, drive around with loudspeakers shouting, “We’re putting the army back together, please report to your units?” Yeah, that would have done it. This has always been the stupidest argument I have ever heard since the war and headen just doubled down on it. LOL

sure ’bout that?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/garner.html

ibfamous: put down the latest issue of Mother Jones Magazine and pick up a copy of the New York Times. Even they have been forced BY REALITY to report the good news coming from Iraq (they buried it on page A19).

Here’s a story from the BBC in case you think the NYTimes has suddently been taken hostage by Dick Cheney:

Sunday, 11 November 2007, 00:35 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Is Iraq getting better?
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad

Is Iraq getting better? The statistics say so, across the board.

Over the past three months, there has been a sharp and sustained drop in all forms of violence. The figures for dead and wounded, military and civilian, have also greatly improved.

All across Baghdad, which has seen the worst of the violence, streets are springing back to life. Shops and restaurants which closed down are back in business.

People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes.

Everybody agrees that things are much better.

But is the improvement only skin deep? And will it last once the American troops, whose “surge” has clearly made a difference, begin to scale down?

In the past few days, two events have underlined big changes that have happened in recent months on both the Sunni and Shia sides of the Iraqi equation.

Reign of terror

The Mehdi Army’s influence is now much weaker

On Thursday, in a crowded public hall in the mainly Shia city of Karbala, south of Baghdad, the local police chief, Brig-Gen Ra’id Shaker Jawdat, bitterly denounced the Mehdi Army militia, accusing it of presiding over a four-year reign of terror there.

It was an extraordinary occasion. One by one, men and women stood up and screamed abuse at the militia, blaming it for killing and torturing their loved ones.

It could not have happened a few months ago, when the Mehdi Army – the military wing of the movement headed by the militant young Shia cleric, Moqtada Sadr – was the real power in the streets of Karbala.

A few days later, Moqtada Sadr ordered his followers to halt all forms of military action nationwide, even in self-defence.

That was a turning-point in Baghdad too. The number of bodies being found daily, dumped randomly in the city after being abducted, tortured and killed in sectarian reprisals, dropped from dozens a day to less than a handful.

Scenes of rejoicing

On Friday, near Samarra to the north of Baghdad, fighters from a Sunni faction called the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI) launched a surprise attack on positions held by al-Qaeda in the area.

Police said the IAI killed 18 al-Qaeda militants and captured 16 others.

Shortly afterwards, another Sunni group known as the 1920 Revolution Brigades launched a similar operation against al-Qaeda at al-Buhriz in Diyala province, also north of Baghdad.

They captured 60 al-Qaeda suspects and handed them over to the Iraqi army, amidst scenes of rejoicing in the town’s streets.

These also were events that simply could not have happened until recently.

Both the IAI and the 1920 Revolution Brigades used to be insurgent groups themselves, fighting alongside al-Qaeda against the multinational forces and Iraqi government troops.

Blow to militants

Groups such as al-Sahwa are influential in Baghdad

Now, starting with the western al-Anbar province and spreading east to Baghdad and mainly Sunni areas to the north, there has been a gathering trend whereby Sunni tribes and nationalist groups have turned against al-Qaeda as their primary enemy.

The Americans have seized on the tactic, encouraging tribal and other Sunnis to form regional associations, such as al-Sahwa (The Awakening), as a vehicle for getting government and coalition support.

In the provinces, tribesmen joining up are paid $600 a month to protect their own areas against al-Qaeda.

The trend has spread deep into mainly Sunni districts of Baghdad, where al-Sahwa has filled the gap left by al-Qaeda.

American forces have recruited thousands of young men, who are given uniforms and $300 a month to act as neighbourhood guards (known in US military jargon as Concerned Local Citizens, or CLCs).

They apply in droves, as there are no other jobs in town.

US forces have moved into virtually every area and set up fixed positions. They have local mobile phone numbers emblazoned on their vehicles for the CLCs to call if they run into trouble.

This, combined with the way in which the US troop surge has proactively tackled any al-Qaeda presence it can detect, has dealt a massive blow to the Sunni militants.

Islamic State elements have disappeared – shops have reopened – my daughter can walk to school without wearing a headscarf

Baghdad resident

The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, is now openly claiming victory against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

US military leaders are more cautious.

“There is no part of Baghdad in which al-Qaeda has a stronghold any more,” said Brig-Gen Joseph Fil, commander of the Multinational Forces in Baghdad.

“But Baghdad is a dangerous place. Al-Qaeda, although on the ropes, is not finished by any means. They could come back swinging if they’re allowed to, in fact, we’ve seen it,” he added.

Bomb attacks rarer

Markets in Baghdad are said to be booming now security is better

But there is no doubt that it has lost out massively in Baghdad.

One resident of the mainly-Sunni area of Dora, in the south of the capital, summed it up.

“The Islamic State in Iraq (the umbrella name adopted by al-Qaeda groups) used to control most of the area like a phantom presence. I know Shia shopkeepers who were shot dead in their shops.”

“They put up notices warning people to wear strict Islamic dress. Everybody was frightened. When we called the police to report bodies on the street, they said it was a no-go area and they couldn’t come.”

“Now, the Islamic State elements have disappeared. Shops have reopened. My daughter can walk to school without wearing a headscarf. Some Shias who fled have come back. And most important of all, we haven’t heard of anybody being killed since July.”

The setback dealt to al-Qaeda and affiliates has had a knock-on effect in the Shia communities too.

The often massive, indiscriminate bomb attacks for which they were blamed, and which used to hit Shia areas on a daily basis, have now become a rarity.

The huge drop in bomb attacks has removed one of the main raisons d’etre for the Mehdi Army, the most active Shia militia in Baghdad.

Since neither the state nor the coalition forces had been able to stop the bomb attacks before, the Mehdi Army could pose as the only saviour of the Shias from slaughter at the hands of fanatical Sunni extremists.

Militia power

“They were on the streets every day, with guns, controlling and checking people,” said a Shia resident.

“When there were attacks on Shia shrines, such as Samarra last year, they killed many Sunnis in the area in revenge.”

“Now, they are much weaker. Many of the leaders have been arrested or killed by the Americans. Others have fled. Some are still around, but they are keeping a low profile.”

The US military admit that around 13% of Baghdad – mainly parts of the huge eastern Shia suburbs, Sadr City, where the Mehdi Army used to hold undisputed sway – remain to be brought fully under control.

But the decision by Moqtada Sadr to order a freeze on militia action has removed political cover from Shia militants who resist, and who are now regarded as “rogue elements”.

“When we go to the [Shia-dominated] Iraqi government with lists of militia leaders we want to get, they’re very supportive,” said Baghdad coalition forces commander Gen Fil.

This whole thing is so US-dependent – it’s temporary security – the Mehdi Army are just biding their time

Baghdad Sunni resident

One problem is that the Americans and the Iraqi government cannot use the al-Sahwa ploy of recruiting local youths in Shia areas to mount guard against the Mehdi Army. It simply would not work.

Unlike al-Qaeda’s situation in the Sunni areas, Shia leaders such as Moqtada al-Sadr enjoy considerable popular support among the Shia, even if elements of the militia have got well out of hand.

Some residents of Shia neighbourhoods are optimistic that another six months of sustained effort might see the militias off for good. Others are not so sure.

Massive challenges

The US troop surge led to a sharp drop in US and Iraqi casualties

The huge problem in both Sunni and Shia areas is that continued success is desperately dependent on a continuing American presence, while the US is planning to start drawing down its forces next year.

“In my Sunni area, people are happy to see their sons defending the neighbourhood in an official way, because it’s under an American umbrella,” said one Sunni.

“That means they’re not afraid that the Mehdi Army or another Shia militia will come through the lines and kill us.”

The Iraqi Army and police have frequently been accused of either colluding with or turning a blind eye to the Shia militias, some of which have operated openly under the guise of official security formations.

We need federalism, but we also need a dictator, a strong powerful government – if we don’t get the militia out, there will be no solution

Baghdad Shia resident

Especially among the Sunnis, there is little popular confidence in the Iraqi army, and much less, if any at all, in the police.

“Forget about the Iraqi police, they’re either Mehdi Army in uniform or professional thieves, or both,” said a Sunni living in a largely-Shia area.

“It bothers me that this whole thing is so US-dependent. It’s temporary security. The Mehdi Army are just biding their time, and waiting to come back out and get back to business, extorting money from people, forcing them out of their homes and then renting them out. It’s big business.”

“I’m not optimistic about the surge, because of the sympathies of the Iraqi police and army towards the Mehdi Army,” said a Shia from south-east Baghdad.

“It’s an ironic situation, where we need federalism, but we also need a dictator, a strong powerful government. If we don’t get the militia out, there will be no solution.”

Purging the security forces of militia influence and sympathies is a huge task that needs a strong, neutral political will and a sustained effort.

There are many other massive challenges that will affect the outcome of the current struggle.

Need for reconstruction

Everybody agrees that military and security measures on their own can only go so far if not buttressed by economic, social and political progress.

The Americans and Iraqi government are well aware of the need to follow up with services – electricity and water supplies are still sporadic – and job-creation schemes if they are to hold the ground they are clearing.

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said that next year will be the year of services and reconstruction. At this stage, Iraqis are looking for performance and delivery, not promises and fine words.

One of the main stated objectives of the US troop surge was to clear a space for the Iraqi politicians to enact nation-building legislation and pursue national reconciliation as the cornerstone of the New Iraq.

But virtually none of the key pieces of required legislation has yet been passed by a fractious Iraqi parliament which has been wracked by factional disputes.

There is still no shared and agreed vision of Iraq’s future. Kurds and some Shias want a loose, federal arrangement, while Sunnis and some others want a stronger, more centralised state.

It matters. To which Iraq are people signing up with the security forces swearing allegiance?

In the absence of progress at the top, the Americans are counting on developments and reconciliations at grass-roots levels, a “bottom-to-top” approach. How far that process can go at that level alone is an unanswered question.

Despite the progress in the security arena, the story is far from over. The casualty figures are down, but people are still being killed every day.

While things have improved greatly in Baghdad, inter-Shia power struggles in the south of the country remain intense, and insurgent activity continues strong around Mosul and Kirkuk in the north.

Nobody can underestimate the magnitude of the task ahead. And with the clock for US troop withdrawals ticking ever more loudly in Washington, it is a race against time.

But there can be no denying that many Iraqis, especially in Baghdad, are more optimistic now than they would have dared believe possible a year ago.

What’s clear is that violent Islamic extremism is being defeated across the board in Iraq. Both Sunni Al Queda and Shia Mahdi are being defeated. And more importantly, this defeat is being witnessed in Muslim nations throughout the world. Already, polls in those countries indicate a drop in those who support violent jihad.

Iraq is close to meeting the definition of Victory laid down repeatedly by President Bush: A nation that can govern itself and be an ally in the war on terror.

I realize you lefties soaked with defeat will never admit how very wrong you are. I imagine many of you still think that President Reagan had nothing to do with winning the Cold War. It’s likely that those of you who were old enough fought his efforts just as vigorously as you are fighting President Bush’s effort TO SAVE YOUR SORRY LIVES.

Naw Rovin, always happens when Salon links…get the worst of the braindead coming over to spew their rhetoric.

For those asking for evidence on the two sides in Iraq working together I suggest you click on the Iraq categories on my sidebar. Mike, Scott, Word and I have been writing about it for sometime.

But Iknow you won’t check the posts out, just as you will ignore Mike’s recent comment. Just makes it easier for you guys to claim defeat if you keep the lies going.

It’s the return of the Copperheads.

Re: “”Osama bin Laden will die of old age or Kidney disease before President Bush’s “Dead or alive” promise comes true. The Taliban will again control most, if not all, of Afghanistan. Iran will have a safe haven in southern Iraq. Turkey will be at war with Kurdistan. And the Sunni sector of Iraq will be the home of Fundamentalist Sunni schools recruiting the next generation of al Qaeda terrorists.”

It’s a free country, so Philadelphia Steve and the Democrats are entitled to make any predictions they want to make. I think at least 4 of the 5 predictions above will be proven false; in any case, time and events will eventually tell the tale.”

Which four?

The Taliban already controls most of Afghanistan outside of Kabul, so that one already happened.
Ditto for southern Iraq being a vassal state of Iran, so that is a fait acompli.
Turkey is now launching air attacks into Kurdistan, so that one is coming to pass.

That leaves Osama bin Laden leading out the rest of his live, safe and sound as he ever was and Sunni fundamentalist schools springing up in Iraq. Both of those are well on their way now. Iraq already has enshrined the Quoran as the supreme law of Iraq, just like Saudi Arabia.

So, which “four” of the “five” will be proven false?

The answer will be, like Bush’s empty promise about bin Laden, forgotten by 100% of Conservatives within one news cycle.

Trying to pretend that the debacle that has become of the occupation of Iraq is all “someone else’s fault” is part of the White House spin that every Conservative repeats, with no one holding the Bush Administration even slightly accountable for anything, ever.

So true.

Remember when American conservatives prided themselves on their ability to take a no-nonsense look at reality and act in accordance with the facts? And remember “the buck stops here?” Sure, it was a democrat who came up with that line, but I’m pretty sure the republicans also liked the idea back in the day. Ah, memories.

Paul and Philly Steve: The only people making wholly unsubstantiate “predictions” based on doubious or incredible sources are YOU TWO.

Right. Because our pre-invasion predictions about Iraq, where we claimed that Saddam was no threat to the US, had little to do with Al Qaeda, and Iraq would prove next to impossible to turn into a stable government, turned out to be just so, so wrong. Right? Right?

But you do NOT HAVE REALITY ON YOUR SIDE!

See above.

No Robert, Iraq is selling their own oil and US corporations buy it just like everyone else.

Paul,

Does Move-On give cut and paste garbage to post? Or are you that beholden to the Socialist party line? Read some other posts on this site going through mountains of evidence showing an Iraq-AQ connection, WMD developments, convoys of heavy trucks racing to Syria ahead of our forces, and so on.

Really, “useful idiots” is too generous a term for the left.

No Mike, not people who wanted us to succeed. People who wanted to steal our Treasury and hand it off to their friends and corporate masters. In other words: the Bush Administration.

Funny line about “the poor Iraqis”. You mean the people who’s country we bombed the crap out of because we wanted to fight our enemies in “the poor Iraqis” country rather than our own.
Love the fake concern. You’re a hoot, Mike.

BTW, the 9/11 hijackers went to school and lived in the US. There’s a bigger connection between them and the United States then with Iraq.

“Osama made Iraq the centerpiece of his effort for worldwide jihad.”
No, that was W made Iraq the centerpiece of his war on terrorism. Osama/ W, worldwide jihad/ war on terrorism: same differences.

Reagan? You have to be kidding.
He supplied arms to Iran in the 80’s. You do know current RNC Talking Points (TM) say Iran has been at war with America since the late 70’s, don’t you.

I’ll tell you what, Mike. Just to show no hard feelings, let’s get together dig up the Reagan’s grave and we can both spit on the traitor’s cold dead body.
It’s the least us REAL Americans can do.

Re: “Robert: Who created those “benchmarks” anyway? People who wanted us to succeed?”

I believe they came from the Bush Administration. Not that any Conservative is permitted to know this, of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090402338.html

But don’t worry, the Bush Team will com eup with new slogans, excuses and alibis that Conservatives can beliee without questin: All so that George w. Bush can finish running out the clock to January 2009, and skip town with someone else to clean up his mess.

Who created those benchmarks again Paul? Philly Steve?

Steve: you might want to take a closer look at that article you linked. Where does it say the Bush Administration authored those benchmarks????

Take a closer look at paragraph three from the WAPO link you cite:

“Congress had set as part of a list of 18 benchmarks of progress”

P.S. Still waiting for you both to admit you opposed Reagan’s efforts to win the Cold War. Either that or admit you’re still living in your mother’s basement and don’t really know anything that some defeatist/socialist college professor hasn’t crammed into your limited cranial cavity.

Who created those benchmarks again Paul?

My mistake. I remember hearing Administration officials touting the benchmarks so loudly back in Jan and Feb 2007, I assumed they’d written them themselves. Either way, read below and tell me that these benchmarks were thrust on the Bush Administration.

Previewing the “surge” on Jan. 10, 2007, a senior administration official said that “the Iraqi government needs to meet the benchmarks it has set in order to do the things on which a broader reconciliation are required.” The benchmarks the senior administration official mentioned were all ones that remain unmet today: “They’re the oil law; they’re de-Baathification, narrowing the limitations of the de-Baathification law; they’re provincial elections to bring the Sunnis back into the political process at the local level. There is also continuing, and we would hope even accelerating, the transition of security responsibility to Iraqis elsewhere in the country and in Baghdad, because if this works it will actually enable Iraqis sooner to provide security in Baghdad. And we have — would like, and the Iraqis have made clear that one of their benchmarks is to take responsibility for security in the whole country by the end of the year.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-1.html

In his weekly radio address on Jan. 13, 2007, the president himself said: “America will hold the Iraqi government to benchmarks it has announced. These include taking responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November, passing legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis, and spending $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction projects that will create new jobs. These are strong commitments. And the Iraqi government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070113-2.html

On Feb. 2, 2007, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley reiterated that the benchmarks provided the standard against which the “surge” would have to be judged. “One of the advantages about the benchmarks that we have talked about and the president talked about is they are gauges for whether that strategy is succeeding, both narrowly, in terms of the Baghdad security plan, but also more broadly, because, as you know, some of those benchmarks involve the reconciliation effort,” Hadley said. “So we are going to try and monitor the progress and our response is going to be, if we don’t see progress, we’re going to be talking to the Iraqis and emphasize the importance that we, and they take the steps that they need to do.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070202-6.html

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, on March 28, 2007: “We believe in benchmarks, and we worked with the Iraqi government on benchmarks.” The president, on May 10, 2007: “One message I have heard from people from both parties is that the idea of benchmarks makes sense. And I agree. It makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward.” White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, on May 10, 2007: “Keep in mind, benchmarks also are not new. The president talked about them in [the] State of the Union. We talked about them in Amman in November. Secretary [Condi] Rice put a list of 17 together in a letter to Sen. [Carl] Levin. So you do need to have metrics.” The president again, on May 17, 2007: “We understand that benchmarks are important.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070328-5.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070510-6.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070510-8.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070517.html

So, the point someone was desperately trying to make, that these benchmarks were thrust on Bush and the Iraqis by the “Defeatocrats” is, like most of the other pro-war claims made on this page, false. Ouch.

But it’s important to note your error as it appears again in the remaks Paul made about the 9/11 Report, Duelfer and Curt’s links on Saddam-Al Queda connections.

While you did catch me in an error, assuming the Bush Admin wrote the benchmarks instead of having written them collaboratively with the Iraqis and Congress, it’s not a very material error, is it?

In the meantime, with no support whatsoever, you would dearly like to believe that because I made that one error, it means I’ve been wrong about everything else, including 9/11, Duelfer and poor Curt’s Bush apologizing. Funny how you were able to cite where I was wrong about the benchmarks, but not about these other things.

As for Reagan, while the Cold War is actually irrelevant to this subject, I’ll have you know that I fully supported Reagan back in the day. I was just a snot-nosed 18-year-old who absolutely loved the idea of American bombs dropping on some poor hapless brown people. I’m glad to say, I’ve grown up since then. But anyway, at the time, Reagan perfectly articulated my own homicidal desires.

No Mike, not people who wanted us to succeed. People who wanted to steal our Treasury and hand it off to their friends and corporate masters . In other words: the Bush Administration.

Mike, this is the alarm bell that rings in the pathetic argument of class warfare that the passionate liberal belives in their hearts that what they do is for the downtrodden and destitute. They would prefer that corporations did not exist forgetting, no, not recognizing that those mean corporations supply 60% of the tax base that allows these kids to drive down the road in their VW buses, smoke their “peace-pipes”, and wipe their asses.

Their world turned up-side down on Dec 12, 2000 and they have never recovered. Their professors told them that day they were f**cked because the “capitalist pigs” were in charge. Never mind that the economic growth in the past 4 years is on a pace never achieved. Never mind that unemployment is at an all time low. Never mind that two nations have a chance at the same liberties afford to this “selfish” nation. Never mind that over 4000 of our finest have sacrificed their lives to give these opportunities to those who have lived in tyranny. It’s all about Boooooooosh and the corporate “masters”.

You can’t reason with this morons Mike. Their selfish agenda does not allow them to reason. Just be glad you aren’t living in their miserable world, and hope their children get a better education than they did.

Oh, it’s Cuckoo Land Mondays at Flopping Aces!

Robert said: President Reagan “was one of the greatest traitors to the USA.”

O.K. Robert… No further need to regard your comments with anything but the contempt they deserve. You’re an idiot!

Paul finally discovered he was WRONG about the benchmarks being the brain child of Democrats and can’t understand why the error is significant. No surprise there. Paul can’t see that ALL the willful disinformation he readily laps up has warped his judgement.

And Paul doesn’t feel the Regan/Cold War analogy is relevant? Really? How old were you back then Paul?

Every single argument you nutters are pulling out about Bush and Iraq is just another variation of the defeatist whine I witnessed during our efforts to put Pershing2 missiles in Europe and initiate work on ballistic missile defense. The lefties fought it every step of the way and some still do.

I’m sorry you don’t see the parallel Paul, but something tells me it is because of your relative youth and inexperience.

P.S. Rovin said: “You can’t reason with this morons Mike. Their selfish agenda does not allow them to reason. Just be glad you aren’t living in their miserable world, and hope their children get a better education than they did.”