Meanwhile, the Democrats are working on getting us to see through their frame:
“After six years,’’ said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, “they’ve got only fear to sell.’’The Times doesn't specifically call attention to this as a language ploy, even though the quoted text comes right after the discussion of "victory" and "appeasement."
Another Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, called the Bush speech “a long repetition of old messages and rhetoric to scare the American people’’ and said she would push for a Senate vote calling on the president to replace Mr. Rumsfeld.
পোস্টগুলি
৪৫টি মন্তব্য:
Only Republicans and conservatives use language ploys and speak in 'coded language.'
If you look at what democrats are trying to sell, it is :
that the world is now more dangerous because of Bush. (fearful message)
That Bush wants to starve your Grandmother by ending social security(more fear)
Bush is ignoring global warming and that is going to destroy large chunks of the world ( yet more fearmongering by dems)
The more Americans are scared of a terrorist attack (especially those poor doomed souls in Indiana), the more they like Bush.
The more Americans realize that Bush is exploiting this fear and exaggerating or outright misrepresenting the threat (Iraq=9/11 for example), the less they like Bush.
Seems like the latter is starting to occur en masse, thank God.
If the Bush administration believed its rhetoric, wouldn't it be calling for a more general mobilization and tax to deal with this new Hitler?
On the other side, the democrats are making an error by appearing to be on the left of the President on defending the country. If the enemy is Islamofacism, why are we fighting it so unseriously? With that approach, the dems could1)actually help defend the country from Islamofascism and 2) peel off defense oriented republicans, which must be pretty low hanging fruit at this point.
If the Bush administration believed its rhetoric, wouldn't it be calling for a more general mobilization and tax to deal with this new Hitler?
Only if you think "we face a dire threat" automatically implies "we need higher taxes and more government".
But meanwhile, back in reality, we already have the most powerful and lucratively funded military in the history of the human race. One would hope they'd be able to deal with the problem without the need for the mobilization of millions of civilians.
I think the President should be trying to sell patience, and I'm not sure he has. My main question is: What can we accomplish in the next two years that we haven't accomplished in the last three? And why haven't we accomplished those goals in the last three? (Where'd that six come from, anyway, Rep. Emanuel, with regards to Iraq?). Does staying in Iraq further US goals? I argue that there are diminishing returns, I'm just not sure where the crossover point is.
It's wrong, I think, to assume that if Americans withdrawal, then suddenly all those forces in Iraq will unite to attack the West. They'll attack each other first -- as Sunnis find Shiites and/or Kurds and/or whomever easier to kill, in Iraq (and vice versa), than they find Americans to kill in the USA.
One cannot say the word "victory" often enough.
"the democrats who are playing politics with this war."
What war? There is no war being waged. There's a show of a war being waged to garner votes from nervous voters and wishful thinking from people that want the US to Do Something!
Meanwhile crowds being blown up in Baghdad doesn't even make it to conscious awareness anymore (hint: it's happening everyday, we're losing in Iraq by any rational accounting). Oh, and the Taliban are in control of maybe a third (guessing about the percentage but it's a lot). And there's no special show of concern about any of this from the administration. Draw your own conclusions but be honest with yourself.
As for the first point in the posting. Bush is the good cop (Victory!) to Rumsfeld and Cheney's angry, bad cop (Appeasers!). How transparent do they have to get?
The Democrats (and liberals in general perhaps) are sorely mistaken when they attribute votes for a more aggressive foreign policy to fear. They should know better, as they've never won an election using fear as a central motivational factor. Americans don't do fear, contrary to what the scaredy-crats say. I'm not pleased with the domestic agenda of either party, and am only marginally pleased with the foreign policy of the current Republican administration. I just wish somebody would try to do better.
I love how michael somehow reconciles:
There is no war being waged
with
crowds being blown up in Baghdad doesn't even make it to conscious awareness anymore (hint: it's happening everyday
and
the Taliban are in control of maybe a third (guessing about the percentage but it's a lot)
... without noticing that claims 2 and 3 refute claim 1.
We are, indeed, fighting a war -- in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places. And if, like michael, you beieve that
there's no special show of concern about any of this from the administration.
Then you're too busy hating Bush to actually listen to his words and notice his actions.
"We are, indeed, fighting a war -- in Iraq and Afghanistan"
No, there are troops stationed in both places with no real plan. There's a difference.
"Then you're too busy hating Bush to actually listen to his words and notice his actions."
I don't hate Bush. I don't think he's a good president, but that doesn't equal hate. And the thing is I pay attention to what he does, not what I wish he were doing (the fatal blogospheric error).
Crushing fascists in Iraq and, yes, in Iran and Syria will keep them far, far from our shores.
Bwahahahaha!
You'd never know this guy was a Horowitz fan if he didn't provide the link :-)
If the discussion is about Iraq, and a democrat talks about six years, well that's confusing -- the US hasn't been in Iraq for six years. I don't know the context of Rep. Emanuel's quote, but Ann's placement makes me think of Iraq.
vw: agoluout
Doyle said...
"The more Americans are scared of a terrorist attack (especially those poor doomed souls in Indiana), the more they like Bush."
If you're referring to the recent Daily Show skit, it bears noting that while much fun was had laughing at how silly some of the "targets" in Indiana were, there are targets in Indiana that are of slightly more import, as the Senator from New York should well know. For example, in the sleepy little town of Newport, IN, in addition to the sort of home cookin' and bowlin' lanes mocked by Jon Stewart and co., there is a federal facility that contains some more old fashioned home cooking: 250,000 US gallons (950 m³) of VX Gas, which - given favorable winds and given that 200ml will kill a person - could potentially wipe out the entire population of the United States east of the Rockies. Even if the facility were merely bombed, the spoil would wash into the Wabash River, whereafter everything downstream - which includes northern Kentucky and the entirety of the Missisippi south of St. Louis - will have to start learning to love bottled water.
Terrorists are trying to create chaos, panic and death, not to bomb particular targets. If the government didn't make a list of potential targets, you'd complain - not unreasonably - that it was in dereliction of duty.
Or do you subscribe to the Clinton method? That it is essentially a law enforcement issue, not a military issue?
This is also the Kerry method, btw, and noted liberal George Will was the one who pointed out that the London terror plot was actually a vindication of this method.
Recall, the plot was foiled by British authorities well before (too long before, actually) it was to take place. The plotters hadn't even procured passports yet.
Also, the surveillance used to catch them was warranted.
The problem with the military method (i.e. preemptive invasion) is that it creates more terrorists than it kills. Why? Because people get really pissed when you invade their countries, or countries they have sympathy for.
Who knew?
What I'd like a democrat to explain is how, specifically, withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq will help move Iraq closer to a stable, democratic society.
What are we doing with 250,000 gallons of VX gas?
I saw "The Rock." It's one of those things we wish we could disinvent.
Still, as a resident of NYC that works at the target-rich 42nd and Lex (Chrysler Bldg, Grand Central Station), I'm pretty appalled at NY's ranking on that DHS report.
And saying that preemption breeds terrorists is laughable.
Haven't Iran and North Korea gotten more threatening since September 2003?
Isn't anti-American sentiment setting all-time highs these days?
We haven't had another 9/11 despite the Iraq War, not because of it.
ahhh doug:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/world/middleeast/01cnd-military.html?hp&ex=1157169600&en=1fe8dd0fc7c09a05&ei=5094&partner=homepage
bush is ignoring global warming. please name a responsible scientist who does NOT believe global warming is current and happening (noooooo not rush limbaugh - he's the drugest)
and as to the draft - since not too many prime candidates for the military are rushing to the induction booth, would you please explain where we are going to get the troops to carry out further bush misadventures?...or are you enlisting?
and Joe, poor Joe said:
"I have yet to hear a cogent plan from the left on how they would fight this war. They only offer criticism and denial."
Gosh Joe...wash your ears. You got some of them thar Quayle potatoes in them? Democrats would fight this war:
1. where it should be fought (Afghan anyone?
2. against who it should be fought against (terrorists...anyone spell terrorists? - just shout it out when you know the answer)
3. in a time frame known to Iraq so that it isn't open ended (Let the next president solve it...huh huh...i gotta go play me some golf)
4. in a manner set by the generals AFTER they have the goal(s) clearly defined (the asides in this one are too long to list)
5. with the requisite number of appropriate troops
6. with a clear mission other than standing between several religious factions who want to shoot us on sight.
Would you please explain then to me what "stay the course" means? keep on truckin'? keep doin' that voodoo that you do so well? keep killing 60 americans a month for the duration? keep spending 1.5 billion a week (that we know of) ON WHAT?
oh and turn out the lights. we only get 4 hours of power a day.
No, there are troops stationed in both places with no real plan. There's a difference.
Please provide proof of your claim that there is no real plan.
Haven't Iran and North Korea gotten more threatening since September 2003?
Only in the sense that Iran and North Korea have been getting steadily more dangerous since the 1970s and 1950s, respectively. But there's nothing new about their nuclear programs, missile programs, saber-rattling, etc.
In fact, while Iran itself is more dangerous than it was before the American occupation of Iraq (since it has had more time to develop nukes), it is much less of a threat to the United States specifically -- as our military is now well-positioned to strike against them, should they give us cause to.
Simon, I'm not exactly sure that staying in Iraq is helping move it towards a stable, etc. democracy. It certainly doesn't seem that way -- how long are you willing to let this experiment run on -- 'til your middle schooler is draft age? If neither leaving nor staying helps, what does one do? How is staying in Iraq preventing the inculcation of fanaticism in other countries?
I'm not saying I have the answers, but the President and his supporters seem to be saying "Shut up and let me work." Well, they've had 3 years....how much time is sufficient to determine whether this road the US is on is the wrong one? Questioning the path we are on does not equal appeasement.
So, seven machos, how long are you willing to have troops in Iraq? Five more years? 10? 20? 50? Will the US be successful then?
Never watched The West Wing, by the way. Even though it had a Madison connection.
I remember hearing/reading many times that the re-enlistment numbers for soldiers in Iraq far exceeded expectations. These are the people who are witnessing the progress first-hand. Anyway, for me this belies the notion that our efforts over there are a total failure, for who would want to sign up for a mess?
I feel bad for our soldiers over there. It's unreasonable to demand instant gratification in such a tremendously difficult situation. It must be very frustrating.
hdhouse, how peaceful was Iraq before we invaded? According to Cindy Sheehan, Clinton killed more Iraqis with sanctions than Bush has. And Madame Albright declared that the 500,000+ lives lost were "worth it" on Meet the Press.
As for the global warming, my point wasn't whether or not it exists, it was about democrats complaining about Bush using fear when it comes to terrorism, which does exist, yet they use fear when it comes to global warming, which may exist, but isn't wiping out Americans. So why is it that it is ok for democrats to use fear, but when Republicans use it, it is out of bounds?
And you support the war in Afghanistan, yet doesn't that war create more terrorists and therefore make America less safe. Liberals have asserted that the islamists hated Saddam, and we know they love the Taliban. So doesn't attacking the Taliban create terrorists far more than attacking their supposed enemy in the form of Saddam? Your support of the Afghan war makes us less safe according to left wing logic.
MadisonMan -
Are you then prepared to give the real answer to the question - the one that is utterly obvious to all concerned as the anti-war answer, admitted or not? That you do not care what effect our withdrawal from Iraq has on Iraq?
To some extent, my earlier question was disingenuous; it is self-evident that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq cannot aid stability in that county; I might as well ask you to explain why 2+2=5. All know and understand that U.S. forces are vitally necessary in Iraq at this time; I say that because the shared presumption that Iraq's security forces cannot yet stand on their own underlies both the GOP and the Democratic position, although each approaches it from the opposite side of the coin. The GOP's stay the course position assumes that there is course left to be stayed, while the democrats' position that the war is failing would be disproven if the Iraqi forces did not need our assistance.
Hence, it seems to me, that the only answer available to the man who opposes the war is that he does not care what happens to Iraq; he does not care what the consequences are for Iraq, nor what consequences might befall us as a result. To concede the necessity of our presence while demanding our withdrawal is to assert that you do not care about what happens to Iraq or Iraqis. It is to assert that one is not concerned enough about what fate befalls Iraq, because whatever it is, it is not worth any more American lives.
And to be sure, that is not a terrible position to take. You know, Doyle has a picture of Russ Feingold in his profile, and I imagine that if the worst thing anyone could ever say about Feingold was that he didn't want American soldiers to be risking their lives over what happens to a bunch of muslims six thousand miles away, I imagine Feingold could live with that. In fact, the idea that American blood shouldn't be spilled for someone else's cause is as old as the Republic. It's just not a very liberal position to take, is all.
Nor is is a truth I expect to see admitted; you will no more see an anti-war person admit that he doesn't care what happens in Iraq than you saw them admit that they didn't care about Saddam remaining in power. There is a difference between voicing concern and caring. Caring is voicing concern and taking the neccessary action to deal with that concern. Those who opposed the war in the first place didn't care about Iraqis then, and sure enough, nothing has changed: they do not care about them now. They offer the concern and sympathy of the priest and the levite rather than the caring of the samaritan.
Two hours and 18 minutes between Ann's post and the first "you just hate Bush" argument. Not bad!
"According to a 2004 poll, should the U.S. declare war on North Korea, at least 20% of South Koreans would side with North Korea, while 30% are undecided on the issue."
I wonder how many of those South Koreans in the 20% would also be opposed to the South Korean government asking the United States for help in the event that North Korea invades the south? I also wonder how many of them have ever visited North Korea and are aware of what a Korea unified under Pyonyang's control rather than Seoul's control would look like?
I understand that there is a very strong sentiment in South Korea for a unified Korea. I just wonder if perhaps the people answering in the 20% are a little too flushed with romantic idealism.
Instant gratification???? its been 3 years. 3 years. 2600 dead. 20000 so badly wounded they can't return. a third of a trillion dollars on the low end. AND NO END TO IT.
what is the end game? tell me that you wierd-cons? what is the exit? no one goes into a war except president numbnuts without a "and here is the end game" clearly defined. but this looser, this fool of fools, this oarsman on the titanic hadn't a clue and he still hasn't a clue, either that or he is so incredibly stupid he can't get the words out (or both).
and seven nachos (god i love to make fun of you...you are sooooo easy)...why are you here? why aren't you there? its a piece of cake? its pacified? hey you could go to afghanistan...you could stay in one small part of the capital because YOU IDIOT, the rest of the country is so unsafe you wouldn't survive the night...now that is victory for you isn't it. helluva job there brownie.
you utter fools on the right will never figure out that you have to apologize to the rest of us for your simplisity, but some day when that rapture hits you and that nice walk toward the light moment shines your way, i hope to god that your 72 virgins great you with a club and a whip. if there is a merciful god, an all forgiving god, you will be the test.
According to a 2004 poll, should the U.S. declare war on North Korea, at least 20% of South Koreans would side with North Korea, while 30% are undecided on the issue.
According to the article it was an online poll, which means it has no statistical validity.
Still, it is true that a sizable minority of deeply stupid South Koreans like North Korea more than us. But, well -- so what? How is that a problem, exactly?
Murtha just listened to conservative experts like former NSA Director General William Odom. Hardly a liberal Democrat and the original "cut and run" advocate (strategic withdrawal).
First of all, Odom called for withdrawl in May of 2004 -- well after numerous other people had done so. So calling him "the original 'cut and run' advocate" is simply wrong.
Secondly, while Odom was a general, his experience is in intelligence analysis, not military strategy or politics. He is no more qualified to comment on those subjects than any other amateur enthusiast.
Finally, Odom's other brilliant ideas include letting Iran have nuclear weapons and implementing an economy-destroying $3/gallon tax on oil. I'm sure he's was a talented spook twenty years ago, but here and now the man's clearly an idiot.
The question is not just what will happen in Iraq if we pull out before the job is done, but also about its effects on the overall War on Terror. OBL has stated that part of the reason that he felt he could attack us is that he didn't think we had the heart for fighting any more. Bloody our noses, and kill some Americans, and we will retreat. No surprise, given Vietnam, Iranian embassy seizure, the Lebanon Barracks, and all the Clinton years.
Cutting and running would give just the message to terrorists and other nepharious people around the world that the way to defeat us is to bloody us enough, and we will give up and retreat. We have been doing so since the early 1970s in one place after another. Afghanistan and Iraq are the first places we have stood and fought, taking casualties, since then.
To those who keep saying that we don't have a strategy in Iraq, wake up, quit listening the the MSM and Kos, and instead listen to the President and his Secretary of Defense.
I will admit that they really didn't have much of a plan the first year or so. But then they laid out the plan that they have been following since then, and the big thing left to do is to bring the Iraqi security forces the rest of the way up to the level needed to maintain security. And that is happening as we speak here.
In the current sectarian violence in Baghdad, the Iraqi army is performing better than many expected. The police are more the problem right now. This current round of violence may delay our troop withdrawls a bit, but not that much, as the Iraqis continue to train up as this goes on.
Also, note, this is not a civil war, as is commonly portrayed by the MSM, et al. As one pundit pointed out, you can't have a civil war when one side has 85% (up from 80% at the time of our invasion) of the population and most of the guns.
Rather, the Shiite militias are finally striking back at the Sunnis after three years or so of indiscriminate civilian murder on the part of the later, and 100+ years of oppression. It is also highly likely that the reason for this finally happening is because of Iranian meddling - the most active militia in this is considered an Iranian proxy. And the Iranian meddling is most likely tied to our opposition to their nuclear ambitions.
Nevertheless, the Iraqi army is now actively fighting the Shiite militias, and because they are typically better armed and trained (and backed up by our air power and artillary), winning handily. But note, this is primarily Shiites fighting Shiites, with some Kurds thrown in.
But note also that the government now has the backing of not just the main Shiite clergy, but also most of the Sunni tribal leaders, after a recent agreement granting amnesty. Also a major show of force by joint Iraqi American forces has gone a long way at pacifying the worst parts of Baghdad in the last couple of weeks.
"Instant gratification???? its [sic] been 3 years. 3 years. 54,000 dead. 100,000 so badly wounded they can't return. a [sic] third of a trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation) on the low end. AND NO END TO IT.
what [sic] is the end game? tell [sic] me that you wierd-cons? what [sic] is the exit? no [sic] one goes into a war except President Truman without a [sic] "and here is the end game" clearly defined. but [sic] this looser, this fool of fools, this oarsman on the titanic [sic] hadn't a clue and he still hasn't a clue, either that or he is so incredibly stupid he can't get the words out (or both). Who knows? We may end up with troops there 40 years later.
and hdhouse (god I love to make fun of you...you are sooooo easy)...why [sic] are you here? why [sic] aren't you there? its [sic] a piece of cake? its [sic] pacified? hey [sic] you could go to Korea...you could stay in one small part of the capital because YOU IDIOT, the rest of the country is so unsafe you wouldn't survive the night...now that is victory for you isn't it. helluva [sic] job there brownie. [sic]
you [sic] utter fools on the right will never figure out that you have to apologize to the rest of us for your simplisity [sic], but some day when that rapture hits you and that nice walk toward the light moment shines your way, i [sic] hope to god [sic] that your 72 virgins great [sic] you with a club and a whip [cool]. if [sic] there is a merciful god, an all forgiving god [sic], you will be the test."
-c.a. 1953 in reference to the Korean War
[No, I don’t know what “simplisity” is either.]
There is a plan in Iraq. It has been the same plan since the first day of the invasion. That is to 1) take out Saddam and 2) install a democratic government that is legitimate and can defend itself.
The left often makes this statement "There is no plan."
Classic leftism is to make assertions and to advocate the truth to the assertions without any real factual basis.
I enjoyed this statement...
"...If the Bush administration believed its rhetoric, wouldn't it be calling for a more general mobilization and tax to deal with this new Hitler...."
The idea is to take Hitler out when he is still young and weak. You don't need extra money, just the willpower to do it. Bush needs courage from the democrats, not more money.
do you people really believe what you're writing in here?
i mean,
No one liked us any more or less under Clinton. I know you'd like to think they did. But that's patently false. Get your head out of your ass. See the world for what it is, not what you wish it would be.
thats just ridiculous. clinton was met with adoring crowds and basically treated like elvis when he went abroad. bush gets jeered and protested. are you this obtuse?
The plan was remove Saddam, institute a constitution and free elections, provide training and security for Iraqi defense forces until they can carry the burden on their own. The plan proceeds apace.
No one promised it would be quick, or easy, or without casualties. But I would rather our military face them there than our civilians face them here
funny, i thought the "plan" was to remove the terrible wmd's saddamn had, and all the rest was an afterthought. and, the administration very much said it would be easy. do you forget the flowers and hugs comments? do you forget that people were fired for suggesting that the cost of the war would be $100 billion? do you forget that the administration suggested that the occupation would pay for itself after a year?
for christs sakes, what is with you.
1. You really favored invading Afghanistan? Al-qaeda in Afghan bad, al-qaeda anywhere else gets a pass? Iraq was a safe haven for them. I favor killing them wherever they are, and anyone who assists them.
sweet jesus, al-queda was not in iraq before we deposed saddam and rendered it into a near-failed state. joe, you cannot be serious with these comments. saddam and the baath was a secular party. saddam cracked down on fundamentalists. does this sound like a regime that would be in bed with al-queda?
sweet jesus, al-queda was not in iraq before we deposed saddam and rendered it into a near-failed state
The statement "Al Qaeda was not in Iraq" is incorrect. Iraq had been giving aid and shelter to members of al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations for years prior to the invasion, with Zarqawi being the most notable example of this. There is also a pretty substantial paper trail of captured Iraqi documents detailing Iraqi/al Qaeda cooperation, pre-2003.
It is, of course, true that there are more members of al Qaeda in Iraq now than there were before -- and apparently fewer of them anywhere else, of course.
In any case, declaring Iraq a "near-failed state" three months into its government's first term of office is uncharitable, to say the least.
saddam and the baath was a secular party. saddam cracked down on fundamentalists. does this sound like a regime that would be in bed with al-queda?
Huh. For years I'd read, in history books, that the United States and the USSR were allies during the Second World War. But I see now that that's obviously logically impossible, because the USSR was an atheistic totalitarian communist dictatorship and the United States was a capitalist, overwhelmingly Christian democracy. So obviously we didn't help each other at all during the second world war -- why, that would have been absolutely ridiculous!
Look, genius: yes, Hussein and bin Laden hated each other's guts. What's that got to do with anything? Bitter enemies have been uniting against more-powerful mutual enemies since the dawn of human history. Hussein and bin Laden helped each other for the same reason -- they both knew that *neither* of them would get what they wanted until the United States was out of the picture.
hdhouse = Mary?
an awful lot of similarities...
Seven Machos said...
hdhouse:
1. Bjorn Lomborg.
No...Seven...I said a reputable scientist not one who has 50+ websites dedicated to laughing at him.
Joe said...
You are apparently clueless as to why we went into Iraq and the al qaeda connection in that country under Saddam, as well as the FACT that Saddam had WMDs and used them on Kurds and Iranians.
Joe, are you referring of course to the WMDs that Reagan sold him in the 80s? and the HUGE stockpile so idiotically announce by Senator Rick and Sean in breathless "now we have proof" Geraldo style? and what al qaeda connection do you refer to? the mythical Prague meeting perhaps?...hahaha..when you get tired of kissing Rumsfeld's butt let us know ok?
knoxgirl said...
hdhouse = Mary?
an awful lot of similarities...
Jesus perhaps but Mary no.
Sloanasaurus said...
There is a plan in Iraq. It has been the same plan since the first day of the invasion. That is to 1) take out Saddam and 2) install a democratic government that is legitimate and can defend itself.
No sirreee. That is the goal. Where is the "Plan" like in HOW DO WE DO THAT....That's one of the basic problems of the arrogant right...you don't know your asses from a hole in the ground.
"It is, of course, true that there are more members of al Qaeda in Iraq now than there were before -- and apparently fewer of them anywhere else, of course."
How on earth do you back this up?
It isn't like al Qaeda members advertise, so obviously any claim about whether there are more/less of them in any country is going to be purely speculative -- all we can do is infer al Qaeda's numbers from the level of their activity, which is up in Iraq and down elsewhere. That's why I said there were apparently fewer al Qaeda outside of Iraq.
Are you suggesting that al-Qaeda has stopped admitting new members?
I'm sure they are, but those new members appear to be flocking to Iraq. And whether they're managing to recruit new members faster than we capture or shoot the old ones is questionable.
Also keep in mind that most of the terrorist violence in Iraq seems to be of domestic, ethnic origin.
joe....joe....joe heehee
Joe said...
hd, so if Reagan sold the WMDs to Saddam, I guess you are conceding he actually had them?
At one time he had them....but since no one has been able to find them or any evidence of them in the past 15 years most thinking people would assume that he doesn't have them any more. the weapons inspectors tried to tell bush that but ohhhh no. he wouldn't have any of that. why powell even went before the UN in that famous speech now referred to as the "i'm a lying asshole in retrospect" speech and show illustrations of those now infamous mobile wmd labs.
we just sat around and lapped it up as powell was a hero and a straight shooter but in this case, he simply lied at the administrations request.
now let's see what else joe says....
" BTW the myth that we armed Iraq has long been discredited; most of their weaponry came from Europe, Russia and China. And the al qaeda presence in Iraq is also well documented, aside from the Prague meeting, as others on this thread have pointed out....."
I guess you weren't alive during the Iran Iraq war and there aren't any good books on the subject and certainly no one wrote anything about an Ollie North or anything?
To be born stupid is just the luck of the draw. To grow stupid...oh well.
I guess you weren't alive during the Iran Iraq war and there aren't any good books on the subject
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research institute (run by those nefarious American jingoists, the Swedish government), between 1973 and 1990, the Soviet bloc and China were responsible for 80.4% of foreign military aid to Iraq, France for 11.8%, and Egypt for 1.3%. The United States comes in at 0.5%, between Denmark and Switzerland (those warmongers!).
So, no, we didn't arm Iraq. Iraq was a Soviet client state slowly attempting to achieve a degree of independence (hence their deals with France).
and certainly no one wrote anything about an Ollie North or anything?
I'm about 70% convinced that you're actually a war supporter deliberately trying to make anti-war lefties look like idiots.
Oliver North transferred weapons to Iran, not Iraq.
ahhh revenant...of course he double dealt and sold to Iran..well duhhhh.
but the proof of the pudding is that he "double dealt". get it? iran and iraq...get it? look at the foreign policy? look at the deal on the day reagan took office.
look! open your little baby blues and look. nnooooooo not the rose colored bush glasses...the clear ones.the ones that u use for truth?
got 'em on? see the difference?
but the proof of the pudding is that he "double dealt". get it?
Allow me to amend my earlier remarks. I'm now 80% sure that your "left-wing idiot" routine is just an act.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন