And now he would like you to pay attention to domestic issues. Okay?
ADDED: "The war is over"... remember Phil Ochs singing that?
AND: "What Obama said about the surge when it mattered."
August 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
209 comments:
1 – 200 of 209 Newer› Newest»called on the president to publicly credit his predecessor for the surge policy. Mr. Obama did not.
No class.
And he's off to the links tomorrow.
Come on, Fen. He acknowledged his 'live' for his country.
We'd rather like it if he paid attention to domestic issues, too. I expect it won't be... hey, now we can save this money we don't have to spend... but, hey, now we can redirect the war spending elsewhere because all this extra cash will be laying around.
Did anyone actually expect him to admit that the surge worked?
Maybe my expectations are just too low to be disappointed by his behavior.
Boring, mundane, muddled speech. Bush deserved a little more credit for getting to where we are in Iraq. His attempt to link the economy and that last decade and the cost of the war to our situation today was awful. He inspired no one tonight.
Mission Accomplished
Thank you, American military forces.
Thank you, allied military forces.
Thank you, Iraqi allies.
Thank you, General Petraeus.
Thank you, President Bush.
Congratulations, and good luck, free people of Iraq.
I'm watching Ben Rhodes answer questions after the address at WhiteHouse.gov, and he seems more informed than the President.
He's the most competent person I have seen in the entire Obama administration. Where have they been hiding him?
Ben Rhodes is explaining the "why" behind everything! He's not talking down to people!
"And he's off to the links tomorrow."
Maybe he's trying to connect w/ non-urban folks. Next, he'll take up hockey.
BTW, what's wrong w/ golf? I think it's a great way to build business relationships. Presumably BHO was doing something along these lines when he played (and, reportedly, talked about the economy) w/ Bloomberg during his recent vacation.
I just looked him up on Wikipedia. Turns out Mr. Rhodes is Obama's speech writer and probably the person who wrote the speech Obama just gave. LOL!
I had trouble following him.
What did he say? Was there a point of some kind? Why did he give the sppech?
(He looked like a big head on a tiny body.)
This needless war has cost us much- something he can not say, but I like this statement from him: But we have also understood that our nation's strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.
This is just starting to make sense to me (pardon me, I'm slow):
Obama reads a speech. Immediately afterwards the White House has the person who wrote the speech, not Obama, answer questions about topics covered in the speech.
They even knew what the questions would be ahead of time. They still didn't think it was a good idea to let the President answer them himself.
Any illusions I had about Obama's intelligence just died.
Roeschi...Then why is Obama making us into a jobless desert with every chance he can find to make a decision? It is because the middleclass are the marxists' main nemisis which they call the evil Bourgeoisie, meaning we are criminals for acting like independent businessmen.
We are not leaving Iraq!
Just like Korea, Germany, Japan, and the multitude of other nations we have built huge military bases in and refuse to leave, we are now permanently entrenched, despite whatever nonsense the president says!
Proof, you ask?
How about the largest Embassy in the World, built with yours and my tax dollars?
Within the security of the Green Zone (ever wonder why they need a fortified zone like this, when, supposedly, the Iraqis love and welcome U.S.? Well, in reality, they hate our colonial guts!)
If you think we are going to hand this baby over to the Iraqis, you're crazy. We have over 5,000 employees there! Paid for with, you guessed it, your tax dollars!!
Ben Rhodes was free from Teleprompters and spoke from the heart. No wonder he was such an improvement.
...wherein KV accidentally but almost completely explains the entire rationale of the Iraq War. Put in the part about how Iraq borders virtually every problematic country in the region and the part about how vital it is to have a beachhead of American military force in the region, just as we have in Asia and Europe, and you are there, dude.
Halfway impressive.
I did not watch [never watch any president's speeches except when ush launched Iraq war] but why now and what was the goal of this speech? So he can point to when he "pivoted" his full attention to Bawrecking the economy even more than he has to date?
Has anyone noticed the liberal commenters have mostly stopped defending Prez Obama? I bet Jeremy can't afford his internet bill anymore.
A.J. -- I have noticed that. Even when the insolent ones come around, the energy just isn't there. You can sense the lack of commitment and the disappointment.
That said, the leftist commenters who stick around are generally awesome, and I appreciate them.
And now he would like you to pay attention to domestic issues. Okay?
LOL
Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have always stressed that all military war spending is an unnecessary waste of good funds needed here at home to payoff SEIU union bosses, Acorn vote organizers and welfare queens. That's just how they see things.I guess it keeps us in balance, but after the last 4 years and TARP we need re-balancing in the other direction
"Then why is Obama making us into a jobless desert with every chance he can find to make a decision? It is because the middleclass are the marxists' main nemisis...."
Hahahahaha!
So silly, so dumb.
You can blame our corporate masters for obliterating the American job market, as they ship ever more jobs overseas where they pay slave wages to non-Americans rather than living wages to Americans. It is the corporate boards and CEOs and CFOs who see an American middle class (or even healthy working class) as a problem to be solved...through elimination.
"...wherein KV accidentally but almost completely explains the entire rationale of the Iraq War."
Heh. :-)
I did think that Japan and Germany might be a little annoyed to find out they don't have their own countries, though.
I like how KV thinks politics-as-usual is unusual. Was he/she born yesterday? The day before yesterday? Are you really that alarmed/naive? Even at this late date?
As Bugs Bunny used to say:
What a Maroon!
Congrats President Bush!
What I would have said:
I was opposed to the start of this war. I was opposed to the surge -- until it started, and then I gave out soldiers support to see how it would play out. I give credit, however, to my predecessor for sticking to his guns and tumbling onto a strategy that has allowed us to get to where we are today.
Or something like that. I almost wrote stategery.
When Presidents talk about previous Presidents, do they name them? I couldn't decide if I should have written predecessor or George Bush.
I missed the President's speech. I always do.
Robert:
If you are right about CEO's, wouldn't they be destroying their best customers [American middle class] by moving all the jobs overseas?
It angers me to see old video of Obama spouting off about the Iraq war, like he was an expert, when he was barely out of the Illinois state senate.
Mission accomplished? The "mission" was to prevent Hussein from using WMD or providing them to our "enemies."
FAIL.
There never were any WMD after the early 90s, when they were destroyed.
Of course, that's not really a mission, but a flimsy and never convincing excuse to attack a country the control of whose oil and strategic location we desired. The swine who planned and executed the war thought it would be a quick win, with easy riches to be reaped. The usual suspects--Halliburton and other connected war profiteers--did reap great and easy riches, but the American treasure was squandered...on death, destruction, torture, misery, and...failure.
Aghanistan is also a failure, but one we're not ready (yet) to retreat from as we are Iraq.
It angers me to see old video of Obama spouting off about the Iraq war, like he was an expert, when he was barely out of the Illinois state senate.
Our elected reps should know when they should STFU about something on which they have little or no knowledge or experience.
...tumbling onto a strategy...
Heh, that Bush, even when he's right, it's necessary for all right-thinking people to toss something in there about how stupid he is.
Total coincidence that he tumbled onto the right strategery and super-genius Obama tumbled onto the wrong strategery, right?
Do the folks who expect BHO to thank W also expect BHO to blame W?
More Americans disapprove of the Iraq war than disapprove of BHO.
Maybe BHO did a favor by not reminding Americans that Iraq was 1.5 times more lethal that 9-11 (never mind the fiscal costs), and this was a preemptive war of choice that failed to find WMD.
Can't you cons see that W's deserved "credit" for "fixing" a total disaster he created is necessarily limited.
Maguro:
Agreed! That allegedly esteemed Iraq Study Group was unable to "tumble" into anything but a cut & run recommendation. How come no one called Lee Hamilton or Sandra O'Connor or James Baker to get their hindsight opinion of the Surge?
On 9/12/2001, the Iraq War looked pretty necessary to those responsible for our country's security.
Richard Dolan: a flimsy and never convincing excuse to attack a country the control of whose oil and strategic location we desired. The swine who planned and executed the war thought it would be a quick win, with easy riches to be reaped. The usual suspects--Halliburton and other connected war profiteers--did reap great and easy riches, but the American treasure was squandered...on death, destruction, torture, misery, and...failure.
OMG. You're so ignorant. Try to stay away from foreign policy topics if you want to be treated with any respect here.
Just before the speech CNN replayed Obama, Biteme and Hilary all denouncing the surge. It was wonderful until I remembered that Larry, Curly and Moe were now running the country. I do, however, give CNN credit for reminding their viewers.
Jeez, if Obama has lost CNN, who does he have left? Christiane Ananpour perhaps?
"If you are right about CEO's, wouldn't they be destroying their best customers [American middle class] by moving all the jobs overseas?"
Look around you...that's exactly what's happening. The CEOs either are too heedless, focused as they are on each quarter's profits and their own metastasizing riches, to see or care what happens to the American market or to make the connection between their behavior and the health of the American market, or they simply have have such hubris as to assume "expanding markets" overseas will make up for the exhausted market here at home. Or they assume(d) Americans would continue to do as they have done for decades--live beyond their means on a binge of credit spending.
I read a book about parasites some years back--in fact, I bought it at a downtown NYC Barnes and Noble the evening of 9/10/01--in which was described a parasite that would eat away its host's insides until there was nothing left but the outer husk. (This is in contrast to many parasites, who live in symbiosis with their hosts, or who move through different hosts through their life cycle.) If I recall correctly, at this point, the host having nothing left to provide nourishment, the parasite would expire.
This describes the behavior of American capitalists quite well.
@ Fen...
OMG...you've offended some poor schnook named Richard Dolan by ascribing to him remarks he never made!
Cookie, shame on you for patronizing capitalist running dog oppressors like Barnes & Noble.
How do you live with yourself, comrade?
Hey, Robert Cook, did you pretend arrest the war criminals yet under your pretend international law? Because I know it's been your masturbatory fantasy for years...
Robert Cook...What happened recently to the offshore oil industry against a Federal judge's injunction? What happened to jobs at GM and Chrysler Auto dealerships closed for being alive and Republican? What is happening to the Health Insurance company employees as we speak. I accept that World competition made possible by computers managing cheap labor is at the base of the massive loss of jobs...so why is Obama using that crisis to do two things: 1) kill off as many local un-shipable overseas jobs as he can, and 2) organize the rest using the Chicago way on any free enterprise that is still making any money into new fascist top down monopolies that are being created and protected by phony needs for Regulation of everything coupled with an intentional freeze on bank loans.
Yeah Barnes & Noble- are they considered a duopoly?
The war is over? What about the other war that he escalated?
Shouldn't we be paying attention to that? After all, it's lasted even longer than Iraq which was the third longest war we've fought. And it requires us to occupy a Muslim country, which I'm sure is only increasing the terrorist quotient and making them not like us. Plus he's airraiding villages and attacking countries preemptively that didn't attack us (and actually did Afghanistan attack us), and didnt' consult the UN before doing so, which fails the international test.
Plus I know a woman who's son died there and she's against the war and has absolute moral authority so we should really listen to her.
Hey, where are the body count stories? You know, we really should see the draped coffins coming back from this war, a war of choice.
I feel so bad for all the liberals who accused the neocons of being chicken hawks who went off to fight the real war on terror and are now stuck in that quagmire known as Afghanistan.(oh wait, that didn't happen...)
Where are those draped coffins? Where are the antiwar protests?
You know, I went to the big antiwar protest in Washington when Bush was president. It was full of frumpy old white people and goofy young white people.
Maguro,
We all have our embarrassments.
When I can, I patronize independent bookstores, but they're disappearing rapidly, even here in NYC. Last year, I bought the mammoth hardcover COLLECTED STORIES OF J. G. BALLARD at St.Marks Books, when I could have saved over $10.00 on the price if I'd bought it from Amazon.
I remember when B & N was a humble little discounter, with small stores peppered around NYC, their specialty being the sales of remainders and popular paperbacks. Their aggressive move to increase their market, and their great success in doing so, has helped kill the independents, and now Amazon and other online retailers are killing even B & N, (I understand they're looking for a buyer).
roesch-voltaire wrote:
ut we have also understood that our nation's strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.
Yikes, is he about to throw Afghanistan under the bus? I would say this speaks badly for Obama's escalated war in afghanistan. But since Afghanistan is apparently cost free, has no casualties and doesn't cause the terrorists to hate us the normal rules for wars don't apply.
THe war on terror is a diversion from the real war on the middle class. One waged by Barack Obama.
"Cookie, Cookie, lend me your comb?" What TV show was that from?
We all have our embarrassments.
Like the decade Robert Cook spent trying to allege that the United States was somehow beholden to some law making its duly elected leaders war criminals, subject to some unknown tribunal.
Like that embarrassment?
For a prosperous middle class, Mr. President, just leave us the hell alone.
It's alright, bro, we all have moments of weakness. Sometimes I do wonder why you haven't up and emigrated to Cuba or Venezuela by now, but whatever. I'm sure you have your reasons.
Cook said:
even here in NYC...
*figures*
Robert Cook said: "There never were any WMD after the early 90s, when they were destroyed."
I guess someone should have told Hans Blix that when he said as late as Dec 2002 that there were literally tons of WMDs that were unaccounted for.
We invaded a few months later. Now they're accounted for.
What's your problem again?
Robert Cook wrote:
//I read a book about parasites some years back--in fact, I bought it at a downtown NYC Barnes and Noble the evening of 9/10/01--in which was described a parasite that would eat away its host's insides until there was nothing left but the outer husk.//
Wait, you bought a book from a NYC Barnes and Nobles and not the mom and pop book store? I thought you would have more principles than giving money to the evil parasitic corporations
I used to be far left liberal and had ideas that the game was rigged etc by maniacal, devious big business,etc. But I grew out of that. Partly because I saw so many of those titans were liberals. And also because I saw the liberal Dems creating a system of winners [people sucking at the gov tit forever] and losers [people who were borderline financially but would never stooop to take a govt handout like subsideized housing, paid daycare, food stamps, etc.
Obama is a bigtime believer in the govt picking winners and losers; the billion dollar bailouts and mortgage re-dos are examples of how liberals think the govt can equitably pick winners and losers in a country with 305 million people.
Sixty Grit:
Heh you had me going there - then I realized you were lampooning our own Cookie.
And damn you must be as old as me.
Okay, the War is over. So it's time to tally up the score and see who won.
My verdict...
America got its fucking ass kicked.
We removed Saddam Hussein's regime and thereby provided the opening for a new Iranian-friendly Al-Qaeda-connected anti-American enemy to emerge. Even after seven years of fighting, we don't really know who this enemy is, the details of their organization, and who their leaders are. Why? They-- the enemy-- know what they are doing, and they are as good at fighting their side of this war as we are incompetent at fighting ours.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is dysfunctional, with no clearly defined structure. It can't provide the basic services that are necessary for a bare minimum existence to its citizens. Nor can it provide any semblance of security. The enemy is waiting for the opportune moment to gain greater control and cause more disruption for our Iraqi friends; we've even told the enemy that this moment will be forthcoming and all they need to do is wait for it.
Even our defeat in Vietnam was better than this. It's the worst military defeat in the history of our nation... or at least so far. We've still got the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran to deal with. And the enemy in Iraq will still be there.
Yet there are lying conniving conservatives among us who claim that the "surge" worked. Bullshit! Bush's reinforcements were just intended to provide a last ditch effort to mitigate the political cost for the establishment to pull out; it didn't have any lasting impact whatsoever on the enemy. But the surge-supporters need to make whatever point they can to help their side win the November elections here. Those domestic elections have been the real battleground for the last ten years; the only victory that is important for the establishment is victory there.
Robert Cook wrote:
There never were any WMD after the early 90s, when they were destroyed.
Of course, that's not really a mission, but a flimsy and never convincing excuse to attack a country the control of whose oil and strategic location we desired. The swine who planned and executed the war thought it would be a quick win, with easy riches to be reaped.
You'd think the democrats and CLinton/Gore who the dems love so much they give him standing o's wouldn't have carried the charade of Iraq being a country that had yet to disarm going till the eve of Bush's inauguration. You'd think the UN wouldn't keep sanctioning Iraq after 1992. You'd think the Congress wouldn't pass the ILA in 1998, since they knew in 1992 that Iraq hadn't disarmed. You'd think Sadaam Hussein wouldn't have had to keep on lying about disarming up through his capture since the gig was up back in 1992. It's almost like noone got the memo about Iraq being disarmed in 1992, not the president, not the congress, not the UN and not even the Iraqis.
Also, speaking of taking over a country for their oil, why did Obama escalate in Afghanistan again? Oh yeah, for that UNOCOL pipeline that Michael Moore revealed in Fahrenheit 9/11. That was the REAL reason for us to invade Afghanistan. So all those libs saying Iraq was a diversion from the "REAL war on terror" (wink wink) were simply pissed that Bush forgot about his seizure of the UNOCOL pipeline and instead diverted to another Oil grab in a different country. And the libs wanted him to get back to the REAL oil grab which was in Afghanistan.Turns out libs are neocons.
OK, so Mission Accomplished.
Tomorrow morning, when an American is killed or wounded in Iraq, I'll be waiting to hear Cook and the rest of the anti-war types start screaming, "Zero lied, ..."
roesch-voltaire said...
This needless war has cost us much-
Yes, breaking Al Qaeda was totally unnecessary, but it hasn't cost as much as Porkulus.
Robert Cook said...
through elimination.
No, you insolent leftard. It's through the regressive taxation via the cryptological vessel known as the IRS tax code, that traitorous communists like you slobber for, that has allowed the disparity of seeing corporations regardless of size take their money elsewhere for a better tax shelter/dodge. That's where it starts, that what your retarded kind support and you have the nerve to blame it on simple business economics? Fuck you.
It's also interesting to note for the other commentariate here that you and your buffoonish idiocracy known as leftards, never site the level of insourcing into the country and how many outsourced labor is coming back stateside.
Julius, you bloviating idiot who writes five times more than necessary....
We removed Saddam Hussein's regime and thereby provided the opening for a new Iranian-friendly Al-Qaeda-connected anti-American enemy to emerge.
Only a knave would believe that Sunni Al Queda and Shia Iran could ever establish any long-lasting alliance.
Even after seven years of fighting, we don't really know who this enemy is, the details of their organization, and who their leaders are.
Perhaps you don't, but this is because you are not well-read and not privy to classified information. Most of the leaders are dead.
the Iraqi government is dysfunctional, with no clearly defined structure
Except the Constitution and the government.
It can't provide the basic services that are necessary for a bare minimum existence to its citizens. or can it provide any semblance of security.
This is disgusting hyperbole.
The enemy is waiting for the opportune moment to gain greater control and cause more disruption for our Iraqi friends
Who?
It's the worst military defeat in the history of our nation... or at least so far. We've still got the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran to deal with. And the enemy in Iraq will still be there.
Unlike after every other war when all enemies everywhere disappeared and we picked rose petals out of our asses.
I'll stop there because you bore me, and because you don't really have any idea what you are talking about. My point is made. I win.
Robert Cook said...
There never were any WMD after the early 90s, when they were destroyed.
Broken needle on a record is all you are. Can't wait for you to become worm food.
What's the reason for this obsession with "mission accomplished" moments? All it does it set us up for unneeded embarrassment on every subsequent and inevita le suicide bombing attack.
I wish I could have more confidence in our political leadership before I go to Afghanistan in a few months. My last trip to Iraq ended up with a lot of dead men because Rumsfeld convinced Bush that fewer men at arms is better. I have little hope for a coherent strategy.
How long with the left focus on WMD when it was one reason out a dozen for the Iraq War? Don't you realize it was the one put in to appease you and nothing more?
Apart from the occasional Chicago thuggery, this guy is a rank amateur.
And you'd better understand that our adversaries and enemies figured that out sometime before about April 2009.
Dead Julius...Actually the come back surge that came in 2006 killed so many Al Qaeda forces came after the entrenched Al Qaeda in Iraq guys had started killing the local Sheiks and their family to replace them as authority figures in Iraq. THEY WANTED THE OIL! That timing was the game changer when Bush's surge came into that situation. Al Qaeda in Iraq was then wiped out, except for a few who went to Somalia and Afghanistan to re-group. Remember, there is nothing anyone wants in Afghanistan except for a chance to get nukes if Al Qaeda rolls Pakistan.
Robert Cook wrote: "You can blame our corporate masters for obliterating the American job market, as they ship ever more jobs overseas where they pay slave wages to non-Americans rather than living wages to Americans. It is the corporate boards and CEOs and CFOs who see an American middle class (or even healthy working class) as a problem to be solved...through elimination."
I'll quote you again, its so apt, "So silly, so dumb."
Robert Cook is like one of those guys stuck in a bubble of his own fictional "facts." Julius is one of these people as well, though not a terminal case like Robert.
These people are very annoying.
AJ Lynch wrote: ""Cookie, Cookie, lend me your comb?" What TV show was that from?"
The song refers to the character "Kooky Burns" (kooky as insane) on the 50's series 77 Sunset Strip. But it wasn't heard in the series. It was an attempt to promote the character as a teen icon and thus prop up the show's flagging ratings.
You have to admire the cleverness of all those dead guys who beat us by tricking us into blowing them up. It's the sneakiest piece of military genius since the time the French surrendered to Hitler to lure him into a false sense of security.
Seven Machos wrote:"These people are very annoying."
If I were a cruel and insensitive man who delights in freak shows and the hopeless struggles of the helpless I'd say they are very entertaining.
"Kooky Burns"
Error! Error! (Nomad closes in menacingly) Sterilize error!
The character was "Kooky Kookson" and was played by Edd (no kidding, two d's) Burns.
The last time I saw Edd Burns it was on the MST3K experiment Cat Women on the Moon (again, no kidding)
Is Robert Cook his insane reincarnation? Could be...
I'm thrilled to learn that the last combat brigade left Iraq two weeks ago. Except that my former unit, the 53rd Infantry Brigade, is now in Kuwait, running convoy security missions into Iraq. But they don't count, because the BDE HQ is in Kuwait.
Everything this President says about everything is a lie.
When are opponents of the Iraq War going to wake up and realize the following obvious truths?...
1. We could have invaded any of several countries in the general area of the Middle East because the important thing was to establish a military beachhead and a genuine ally in the region for the long term.
2. President Bush was brilliant in understanding that a war in Afghanistan is utterly unwinnable because a basic assumption of modern warfare is that there is a sovereign government to oust and at least some state and municipal infrastructure in place.
Well, the war in Vietnam is definitely over, and it ended in a way to gratify the moral sensibilities of all leftists. At the end of the war, 100,000 supporters of the wicked puppet government were summarily executed. Another 300,000 were sent to re-education camps to be instructed in the error of their ways. There's nothing like forced labor to help one overcome the limitations of a bourgeoise background. Over a million ethnic Chinese (whose families had lived in Vietnam longer than the family of Phil Ochs had lived in America) were forced to evacuate the country. Their belongings were confiscated. The Amerasian children were denied schooling, and the children of black fathers were exposed to particular abuse. The Vietnamese had to fight a further war with China....None of these sorrows and travails were mourned in any folk song that I know of.
This is arguing spilt milk all over again, but this whole arguing facts we know now as if they were known back when the decision was made to go to Iraq (ie hindsight) is the height of dishonesty, but also completely characteristic of the left.
But to go over it again, because the retards keep repeating the dumb talking points. We had every justification to invade Iraq over it's WMD"s even if it was ultimately determined that they didn't have any.
It was incumbent on Iraq to verifiably disarm not incumbent on us to prove that Iraq had no weapons. There was already a history of unaccounted for weapons, not including the other alleged weapons that Iraq had yet to account for from the previous inspections.
THe history of Iraq and it's disarmament and charges that it hadn't verifiably disarmed did not start with Bush, but with Clinton where there were 8 LONG years of Iraq not living up to it's obligations. Unless Clinton was lying, and the UN was lying and Iraq was lying. History doesn't reboot itself simply because a new president takes office. On the last day of Clintons presidency it was assumed by EVERYBODY that IRaq had not complied. ANd how can we prove this? Because they were still being contained! Because the last time we had inspectors on the ground they had to leave due to yet more non compliance and we bombed Iraq. Because the congress passed the ILA which called for regime change. Because the UN passed 15 resolutions. None of that history was any different the day later when Bush took office.
History doesn't reboot itself simply because a new president takes office.
You mean that moronic reset button shit doesn't work?
"You mean that moronic reset button shit doesn't work?"
Well, it works in the same sense that Staples "EASY" button works.
Obama on Iraq in 2002 (per Michelle Malkin):
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now he says Rove & Bush were actually patriots. Dumb patriots. He's the smart patriot.
Think about "a war based on reason." I guess that's what he thinks he's waging in Afghanistan. A reasonable war.
Quaestor:
Really that song line was not in the show? And it was 77 Sunset Strip. I could have sworn it was. But Ed Kookie Kookson could be right because they would not have used his real last name [Burns] on the show.
In 2002, I thought Obama was busy voting present in the Illinois state senate.
-con't-
There are three possible truths as to what happened to Iraq's weapons, but as you'll see in any case none of those truths would make our invasion any less relevant.
One, Iraq had weapons but destroyed it's stockpiles prior to the invasion of the war. Or moved them to Syria. But maintained it's ability to regenerate it's programs on a moments notice once we got out of their hair. Now, we have evidence of things being moved out of the country and we have evidence of sites being looted and equipment removed. We can't prove a negative, and there's no way of verifying this unless we wanted to invade Syria. But Iraq had close to a year to move it's stockpiles while we discussed going to war (so much for us rushing to war). Is it so far fetched that it simply moved its weapons?
Two, IRaqi scientists said Sadaam paid them and demanded that they continue to make WMD's but that they were incapable of doing so and strung him along out of fear for their lives. This might explain why Iraqi soldiers assumed they would have WMD's to use against us on the eve of the war, and it might explain why Sadaam was so adamant about subverting previous inspections. Because he THOUGHT he did have WMD's and was simply fooled into believing a falsehood. Does that invalidate removing him as a threat? If these scientists were so credible as to fool him would we not be fooled as well considering he acts as if he has something to hide? He's still suggesting that he wants weapons he just can't produce them. The intent to get weapons therefore is there, and so long as it is we would need to continue containing Iraq, and it would continue praciticing subterfuge and the UN would pass more resolutions, until we either ended containment or got tired of the standoff and removed Sadaam through an invasion.
Three, Sadaam's story. He lied to the world to project strength to his enemies. However, if we are containing him and his lie is convincing wouldn't we also think he had weapons? If he failed at his ruse we would cease containing him perhaps but his enemies would know he was lying. You coulnd't have one without the other. And again, that just shows that Sadaam needed to at least show that he had WMD's if only to keep his enemies at bay. Yet, the very reason that he would have for his subterfuge also is the reason why he would seek out actual WMD's. If the impression was that he didn't have WMD's his enemies would pounce, so he would always need to keep up the ruse. Because he needed them.By the way, this disproves Robert Cooke's argument that everyone knew in 1992 that Iraq had disarmed. Clearly the UN ddint', clearly Iran didn't.
Which rationale does robert cooke want to argue? Whichever way you slice it, Iraq either had the weapons or had the need to project that it had WMD's and in either case it only proves that we needed to contain Iraq and if that failed remove Sadaam Hussein. Which had already been adjudicated as far back as 1998 when the congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act.
Seven wrote:
2. President Bush was brilliant in understanding that a war in Afghanistan is utterly unwinnable because a basic assumption of modern warfare is that there is a sovereign government to oust and at least some state and municipal infrastructure in place.
It's only unwinnable when you only deploy one or two battalions into a huge mountainous country and rely on mercenaries to do the heavy lifting. That is the principle reason that Obama bin Laden escaped.
But that failure didn't stop Rumsfeld and cohorts from insisting that all we needed were special forces to win wars anymore. That didn't work, as Gen Petraeus finally demonstrated.
If we fought these wars as though we were serious about winning instead of having our military rotate in and out like they were punching a clock, then we'd be in a much better position now.
Except for the occasional office hours, Obama is [still] having the time of his life. And he'll continue having the time of his life regardless of what happens to the country.
Skyler -- What is the objective in Afghanistan? Who will change what policy there? What geographical area do we wish to hold? What resources do we wish to take by force? What tribute do we wish to exact? Which peoples do we wish to annihilate?
Think like an officer.
Well, an exception has to be made for Cookie.
But that failure didn't stop Rumsfeld and cohorts from insisting that all we needed were special forces to win wars anymore. That didn't work, as Gen Petraeus finally demonstrated.
Thats simply not true.
1) Rumsfeld never said all wars, just the one against the taliban
2) special forces on horseback, calling in live air, worked VERY well in accomplishing the mission. They destroyed the Taliban. It was so successful that its being taught at war colleges
3) Gen Petraeus and his COIN doctrine are about nation-building, not STA Teams
Also, having served in USMC forward command posts and also op centers on the Germantown and Wasp, your kind of monday-morning quaterbacking is ridiculous. The people who claim they could do it better, even with the luxury of hindsight, only manage to make an entirely new set of mistakes.
Seven go insult someone else. You don't impress me enough to bother me with your third grade name calling.
Maureen Dowd throws in the towel...
"The recession redo, paid for by the nonprofit White House Historical Association, was the latest tone-deaf move by a White House that was supposed to excel at connection and communication. Message: I care, but not enough to stop the fancy vacations and posh renovations." - NYT
BHO What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
2002
Shall we laugh or cry?
Fen, having been in a reconnaissance battalion during the period in question, I can assure you that we were being told in 2004 and after that special forces were the key to victory in Iraq. It was a ludicrous idea and it took Rumsfeld's ouster to end that silly talk.
MM -- it's "strategery."
Nice word. I actually use it.
Like refudiate, it will last for many years.
Fen, having been in a reconnaissance battalion during the period in question
3D LAR. You?
Skyler -- What's the objective in Afghanistan?
I wrote about the "not enough troops" meme five years ago, here: http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/06/debunking-not-enough-troops-meme.html
Further, going into Iraq with a lighter footprint, rather than heavier, was a Franks move. Rumsfeld asked him if he needed more troops, and Franks said no, the worry was that more troops just meant more trigger happy kids and more targets for the bad guys. I think he was probably right, although we did want the 4th ID to come in through Turkey, and the SAINTED Colin Powell couldn't make the deal.
Macho-- by 2008, when Obama took over the war in Afghanistan, we had been there for EIGHT YEARS. We had MANY chances to win that war. Talk to any analyst, talk to any afghani... the WAR IN AFGHANISTAN COULD HAVE BEEN WON. But it may be too late now. I pray and hope it's not too late. But it may be too late. We missed our chance-- the people were with us-- the momentum was on our side. But it wasn't a priority, it wasn't important. Because we INVADED IRAQ. For no reason that is now possible to articulate in a sentence. For no reason that is reasonable. Now we will be OUT of Iraq in a year. What did we gain? What did Iraqis gain? There have been serious changes, but in the balance, was it worth it? Iraq was a stable dictatorship, Hussein would have died at some point, it was slowly liberalizing (go back and read about the satellite tv in Baghdad before the war)... was it worth 4000+ american lives, 200,000+ Iraqi lives, to have a venal, third rate parliamentary democracy buffeted by terrorism?
Bush's war came to its end this month... the whole thing led up to this. All the conservative nationalism, the red-baiting, the howls of liberal treason, "flypaper" theory, etc. It all comes down to this. 4,000 americans died to make a mideast shithole shitty in a slightly different way. And I was a liberal commie asshole for opposing the war. Fuck you.
the WAR IN AFGHANISTAN COULD HAVE BEEN WON yadda yadda
Montagne -- Let me let you in on a little secret. I worked at the State Department during the time of which you speak. I sat in on many meetings. I keep asking the question: what is the objective in the war in Afghanistan? I know the answer to this question.
I'll ask you, in a different way: what would it mean or have meant to win the war in Afghanistan?
we INVADED IRAQ. For no reason that is now possible to articulate in a sentence.
We invaded Iraq to establish a military beachhead in an important region in a country neighboring many very problematic nations.
You lose.
A beachead. A $60 billion, 4,000+ dead beachhead. For a war against Iran, I presume?
We all lose.
The Taliban initially came to power in Afghanistan because they provided security. They were terribly oppressive, but they stopped banditry on the highways and exactions from local toughs.
If security had been provided to the Afghan people, they would be behind the central government today.
For a war against Iran, I presume?
If by a war against Iran you mean to maintain enough direct regional influence to keep Iran from harming American interests, and to keep all the other countries there from harming American interests, then absolutely.
You'll say American interests are only oil, of course. Which shows what a raving simpleton you are.
By the way, what's winning in Afghanistan look like?
they would be behind the central government today
What central government? What drooling moron believes Afghanistan has anything approaching a central government?
Macho, I think you should ask the same question over and over again in a superior tone. It's a supremely impressive and powerful rhetorical weapon that I've seen jerkoff cons deploy to devastating effect time and again. Go with that. I'll help, here you go:
what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?what's winning in Afghanistan look like?
Afghanistan had a central government in 2001. It was called the Taliban. Just saying, it's possible for Afghanistan to have central control. Jerkoff.
The Taliban was far, far less in control of Afghanistan than the current regime is, though the current regime is nothing remotely approaching a central government.
You are a fool and you have no idea what you are talking about.
It's interesting that you say that we could have won in Afghanistan yet you cannot say what winning is. It's amusing that you know nothing about the political situation there but still feel able to spout about it. Are you European by chance?
Machos, it's highly interesting that you know nothing, yet you talk and talk about nothing, which you don't know about. You are wrong about everything, about which you know nothing, and you're a jerkoff. Are you a jerkoff jerking off right this minute, by chance?
p.s. Fuck you.
Montagne -- You simply do not know what you are talking about.
For you to suggest that the Taliban was in any way in control of Afghanistan at any time is simply drooling idiocy. No one has ever been in control of Afghanistan because Afghanistan is not a place that has the infrastructure in place for control.
Anyway, pray tell, what would a win in Afghanistan get the United States? What is our objective there? Can't you at least pretend to know, the way you have to pretended to know all the other things you are full of shit about?
Montagne Montaigne wrote:
Macho-- by 2008, when Obama took over the war in Afghanistan, we had been there for EIGHT YEARS. We had MANY chances to win that war. Talk to any analyst, talk to any afghani... the WAR IN AFGHANISTAN COULD HAVE BEEN WON. But it may be too late now. I pray and hope it's not too late.
Why do you hope and pray that it's not too late to win in Afghanistan, but all but hoped we lost in Iraq? I would first off argue that winning the initial battle against the Taliban was in fact relatively easy, but if we were drawn into battles in the mountainous regions it would not have been easy, and it would have cost far more money and lives. And by mission you mean nation building in Afghanistan. What's the difference between nation building in Afghanistan or Iraq? Wouldn't Afghanistan in fact have cost more? Would they, our enemies have hated us less because we occupy one muslim ground over another? Which is easier, building replacing a govt of a functioning nation or building a nation from scratch? BAnd why so insistant on winning in Afghanistan. Here's the thing about Afghanistan and the war on terror. The war was against Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, not against the Taliban. The Taliban simply were letting OBL stay as their guest and wouldn't let us simply take him. So we had to try to forcibly remove him or at the very least make the country uninhabitable for AL Qaeda. But here's the thing about OBL and Al Qaeda, they move. They're nomads. They don't stay in a central location. So, Afghanistan was the place to fight the war, until OBL and co. jetted out to other locations, then the face of the war changed. That's what was so funny about the dems whole "Iraq is a diversion from the real war on terror" and how we have to fight them in Afghanistan. Except they were no longer in Afghanistan. Why divert all your troops to an area where they are not?
The initial battle against Sadaam was easy. It was the insurgency that was hard. And it occured because Al Qaeda thought that Iraq would become the front to fight us. In essence it was a flypaper strategy, Al Qaeda poured its resources into Iraq, partly because it saw the degree of viscous attacks that Bush received when attacking Iraq and felt it could use the left and critics of the war to it's advantage. But if you want to fight a war, the real war against terrorism you fight the war on the battlefront that it occurs on. And Al Qaeda is just as capable of determining that as we are. Which is again one of the reasons that you should have supported Iraq. Because you don't cede Iraq and it's reserves to AL Qaeda. You don't provide a new terrorist state to Al Qaeda and it's operators.
The initial battle against Sadaam was easy. It was the insurgency that was hard.
True, just as the initial war against the Taliban was easy. The hard part in both was staying in control. It was and will be easier in Iraq because Iraq is a functioning nation-state with infrastructure. Afghanistan is not.
The reason we'll never win in Afghanistan is that building a state where there isn't one would cost an exorbitant amount of money.
We should, of course, maintain a military presence in Afghanistan for as long as is necessary -- 20 years or 100 years or 1000 years.
But this crazy idea that we are going to "win" and go home is goofy, sophomoric nonsense. There's nothing to win. We cannot hold Afghanistan because there is nothing to hold. We can't even annihilate Afghanistan because there is nothing to annihilate.
Montagne further wrote:
But it may be too late. We missed our chance-- the people were with us-- the momentum was on our side. But it wasn't a priority, it wasn't important. Because we INVADED IRAQ. For no reason that is now possible to articulate in a sentence. For no reason that is reasonable. Now we will be OUT of Iraq in a year. What did we gain? What did Iraqis gain?
I've already articulated one reason to go to war with IRaq. We needed to have them verifiably disarm. Al Qaeda had said it was their god given right to have nukes, and we needed to address one of the prime proliferators who might find it in his interest to offload WMD's to them. We saw the need for Iraq to disarm as far back as 1998 when congress passed the ILA we just weren't to clear on how to achieve the result. We needed to have Sadaam and his sons out of the way. We also needed to hold Iran in check and getting Libya to give up it's programs was icing on the cake. Having Iraq thumb its nose at disarmament for 9 years wouldn't exactly cause Iran to think we were serious about our demands. Further, having our forces on the border of Iran makes it far easier to launch operations SHOULD THEY BECOME NECESSARY, then to have to get approval from Saudi Arabia to fly our troops over their land or whatever logistical nightmare you could dream up.
What did we gain? A free Iraq. Not only a democratic one, but one that is free of Sadaam Hussein, meaning we no longer have to contain him. And we have a front to use should we need to deal with Iran later. You'll note that though Iraqis supposedly hated us, now that we are leaving 70% of the people polled said they don't want us to go, and are afraid that their armies arent ready.
//There have been serious changes, but in the balance, was it worth it? Iraq was a stable dictatorship, Hussein would have died at some point, it was slowly liberalizing (go back and read about the satellite tv in Baghdad before the war)... was it worth 4000+ american lives, 200,000+ Iraqi lives, to have a venal, third rate parliamentary democracy buffeted by terrorism? //
until he and his sons died we would have to endlessly contain them. Containment was in itself a messy proposition that was in freefall, but we needed containment to work to not cause containment to fail in other areas. For example, if we couldn't contain Iraq, could we hope to demand Iran to disarm? Wouldn't they look at our efforst with Iraq and say that we had made plenty of threats but ultimately did nothing so why should Iran disarm?
And what do you hope to gain in Afghanistan? Are they somehow more amenable to democracy than Iraqis? Is it less messy there. Do they hate us less when we occupy afghanistan versus Iraq? If you realistically look at what you can achieve in Afghanistan and applied the same critical eye that you do to Iraq you'd have to come to the same conclusion about victory. What did we gain? What did Iraqis gain?
And was it worth it.
What I find so hilarious is how you think somehow all the tired and ridiculous talking points you and your side hurled at the evil neocons don't apply to your good war. Iraq was criticized for costing too much and taking too long. Afghanistan has taken longer, and if you really wanted to WIN there it would lead to far more deaths than have occured up till now and would similarly break the bank. Not saying that therefore the money shouldn't be spent by the way.
But after hurling all that invective against evil neocons who send other boys off to die for oil, you then turn around and suggest it will all be different in the GOOD war just makes you non credible. Are all the libs saying Iraq was a diversion from the real war chicken hawks if they aren't enlisting in Afghanistan?
Montagne Montaigne wrote:
Bush's war came to its end this month... the whole thing led up to this. All the conservative nationalism, the red-baiting, the howls of liberal treason, "flypaper" theory, etc. It all comes down to this. 4,000 americans died to make a mideast shithole shitty in a slightly different way. And I was a liberal commie asshole for opposing the war. Fuck you.
you were an asshole because you were an asshole, as were most anti war types. You are also a hypocritical asshole because unlike the vast majority of libs who were actually against any wars, but said they were for afghanistan simply because it was a talking point against Bush's incompetence, you think that somehow the GOOD war negates any negative commentary you made ENDLESSLY about Iraq. As if your GOOD war wouldn't cause them to hate us, lead us into a quagmire, cause us to have to nation build (and if you thought nation building was hard in Iraq think about building a nation when all you have is huts), wouldln't last longer than Vietnam, wouldn't lead to the death of more innocent afghanis and soldiers, wouldn't require us to air raid villages etc. And when there was an insurgency they would similarly be described as "The Minutemen" who are only defending their country from invaders (and wouldnt you fight against an invader if they attacked your country?) and couldn't be spun as yet another act of American imperialism. And before you say otherwise, it was already done by Michael Moore who suggested that the only reason we went into Afghanistan was because of the UNOCOL pipeline.
So you're an asshole for thinking your stupid talking points didn't apply to you and your chicken hawk oil grabbing neo liberal friends who have no problem with occupying countries. And lets not forget all the neo con baiting Bush was in league with the terrorists and brought down the towers bullshit we had to deal with (and if that were the case wouldn't that make them treasonous), all the suggestions that any terror threat was simply scare mongering ("There is no terrorist threat"), that the Patriot Act and its provisions, many of which already used against various targets (like the Mafia) was akin to Nazi Germany.
But, you support the GOOD War! So are you sending your boys to fight the good war, or are others dying for your war of choice? How about all the liberals who said Iraq was a diversion from the real war on terror? Are they the new chicken hawk war mongers? Do you think that because it's a war that you support that it's not a war of choice? And in YOUR war of choice it would similarly come down to this - however many americans died to make a mideast shithole shitty in a slightly different way.
And here's something else. You did your darndest to undermine a war that became a war against Al Qaeda (thus not a diversion at all) and called anyone who supported it a war monger, neocon facist, while our soldiers were fighting and dying. Your side were gleeful in wishing for defeat because you wanted to embarass Bush. And do you know waht? The vast majority of neo cons and conservatives would never be so dismissive and/or act as saboteurs for your GOOD war. They may not think that it's as winnable or that as many resources should be put there (especially considering OBL isn't even there anymore) but you would hear very few say for example that the Taliban were "The Minutemen".
'And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.'
That would be nice.
Montagne Montaigne wrote:
Bush's war came to its end this month... the whole thing led up to this. All the conservative nationalism, the red-baiting, the howls of liberal treason, "flypaper" theory, etc. It all comes down to this. 4,000 americans died to make a mideast shithole shitty in a slightly different way. And I was a liberal commie asshole for opposing the war. Fuck you.
you were an asshole because you were an asshole, as were most anti war types. You are also a hypocritical asshole because unlike the vast majority of libs who were actually against any wars, but said they were for afghanistan simply because it was a talking point against Bush's incompetence, you think that somehow the GOOD war negates any negative commentary you made ENDLESSLY about Iraq. As if your GOOD war wouldn't cause them to hate us, lead us into a quagmire, cause us to have to nation build (and if you thought nation building was hard in Iraq think about building a nation when all you have is huts), wouldln't last longer than Vietnam, wouldn't lead to the death of more innocent afghanis and soldiers, wouldn't require us to air raid villages etc. And when there was an insurgency they would similarly be described as "The Minutemen" who are only defending their country from invaders (and wouldnt you fight against an invader if they attacked your country?) and couldn't be spun as yet another act of American imperialism. And before you say otherwise, it was already done by Michael Moore who suggested that the only reason we went into Afghanistan was because of the UNOCOL pipeline.
So you're an asshole for thinking your stupid talking points didn't apply to you and your chicken hawk oil grabbing neo liberal friends who have no problem with occupying countries. And lets not forget all the neo con baiting Bush was in league with the terrorists and brought down the towers bullshit we had to deal with (and if that were the case wouldn't that make them treasonous), all the suggestions that any terror threat was simply scare mongering ("There is no terrorist threat"), that the Patriot Act and its provisions, many of which already used against various targets (like the Mafia) was akin to Nazi Germany.
But, you support the GOOD War! So are you sending your boys to fight the good war, or are others dying for your war of choice? How about all the liberals who said Iraq was a diversion from the real war on terror? Are they the new chicken hawk war mongers? Do you think that because it's a war that you support that it's not a war of choice? And in YOUR war of choice it would similarly come down to this - however many americans died to make a mideast shithole shitty in a slightly different way.
And here's something else. You did your darndest to undermine a war that became a war against Al Qaeda (thus not a diversion at all) and called anyone who supported it a war monger, neocon facist, while our soldiers were fighting and dying. Your side were gleeful in wishing for defeat because you wanted to embarass Bush. And do you know waht? The vast majority of neo cons and conservatives would never be so dismissive and/or act as saboteurs for your GOOD war. They may not think that it's as winnable or that as many resources should be put there (especially considering OBL isn't even there anymore) but you would hear very few say for example that the Taliban were "The Minutemen".
jr565 said:
It was incumbent on Iraq to verifiably disarm..."
This is why Iraq allowed UN inspectors in in the late Fall of 2002, led by Hans Blix.
"...not incumbent on us to prove that Iraq had no weapons."
Actually, given that we were the aggressors in fomenting, planning, and executing the invasion and war against Iraq, it was incumbent on us to prove Iraq had weapons, just as it is incumbent on the police and the court system to prove a defendant--even one with a known criminal history--is guilty of the actual charges lodged against him in any particularl trial. We may not divest a person of life or liberty simply because he "is known" (or assumed) to be or to have been associated with criminal parties or acts.
"...the last time we had inspectors on the ground they had to leave due to yet more non compliance and we bombed Iraq."
Which last time are you referring to? In the 90s or in March 2003? The actual last time the inspectors were there, from November 2002 to March 2003, the inspectors never found a dot of evidence indicating any extant weapons or weapons programs. They had not completed their inspections and said they needed several more months to do so, but the Bush administration had their war plans already drawn up, an invasion date already set, and there would be no postponement. The inspectors were told to leave Iraq for their own safety as war was about to commence. Talk about war being the "last choice" was all lies all along; war was Bush's first choice from the start.
Later, Bush repeatedly lied about what happened, asserting without challenge to a cowardly and compliant press that Saddam had "refused" to allow inspectors in to Iraq until there was "no alternative" but to invade.
This is why Steven Colbert's masterful "fuck you" performance at the White House Correspondent's dinner was so brilliant: he skewered not only the Bush administration but the press, the highly paid and well-connected Washington press corps, (and by extension, the mainstream media as a whole), for their complicity in spreading the lies and leading the cheers that led us into the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Robert Cook reads The Utne Reader with one hand.
NTTAWWT.
Combat operations in Iraq will be over when some folks in Iran say it is over; not before.
Skylar wrote:
"It's only unwinnable when you only deploy one or two battalions into a huge mountainous country and rely on mercenaries to do the heavy lifting. That is the principle reason that Obama bin Laden escaped."
I don't believe OBL "escaped," other than in the sense he was either blown to bits or encapsulated permanently in the mountains. We have not seen any evidence of OBL other than audio since the earliest Afghan actions. It is incumbent on the U.S. intelligence operations to maintain the fiction of OBL remaining "at large" to encourage AQ to continue to develop "communiques" from OBl and to discourage his martyrdom.
Prior to the Afghan action OBL was constantly on video. It is just as easy to produce candid and secure video as audio. Much more difficult to fake video.
RV said This needless war has cost us much- something he can not say,...
Why can't hey say it? He had no problem saying it ad nauseum while on the campaign trail or while condemning the surge in the Senate. Did something change now that he can't say it?
Skyler,
The reason why there wasn't a big deployment of troops in Afghanistan immediately, is because of logistics. Afghanistan is landlocked.
well i must have come late to this party.
And to all of you who think that the "surge worked" please be reminded that it was a last ditch to save a horrible situation from going down the tubes and it worked only to the extent that Iraq became safe enough for us to reduce the fighting part of our forces on a temporay (count on it) basis. If Obama handn't pressed the "out - now" issue we would still befuddling our way there and God forbid if McCain-Palin where guiding the ship of state, someone would have to spend time with Sarah pointing Iraq out to her on a big Rand McNally atlas.
yea this was Bush's war. one that he knew how to start but was clueless on how to end it. Saddam was long since dead and Bush was trying on Lawrence of Arabia clothes to avenge his daddy.
Obama is president. He is getting us OUT of one horrible Bush mess and has about a dozen more to go.
Cut some slack here unless you have a better idea - which I haven't read in this thread.
I turned the sound off during his speech. It was much more relaxing.
Instead of the speech, I listened to the song by Stars called In Our Bedroom After the War.
Pogo:
Wrong again. I've never read the Utne Reader.
@Michael:
Ditto re your 7:20. I've been saying the same thing for 7 years.
I turned the sound off during his speech. It was much more relaxing.
I think that's the first time I saw him give a speech where his head wasn't swiveling like he was at a Wimbeldon game.
'twas a joke, Mr. Cook.
You've certainly never read any international law, either, Robert.
Here is the proper order that you should proceed in the future:
1. Read.
2. Spout.
Doing it the other way around risks making you look like you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
re: bin Laden. Nothing but audio tapes from him for years? Dead. Dead, dead, dead.
My political sense here is that Obama believes that people will reward him somehow for his alleged foreign policy exploits, which will somehow compensate for his generally disastrous term.
I doubt it very much. Obama strikes me as very tone deaf when it comes to politics. I also note that the photographs of him no longer have the god-like sheen. I guess that could only be kept up for so long.
Libtard: Bush was trying on Lawrence of Arabia clothes to avenge his daddy.
This is what passes for foreign policy analysis for the Left.
Ignorant. Stupid. And arrogant about it.
Hey HdHouse, how's that "smart diplomacy" working out for you? Iran is going to get nukes on Obama's watch. While Iraq no longer has a WMD program thanks to Bush. History will notice the distinction.
HD will be fiddling here all fall and through the elections while his party and particularly the left wing of it, burns. I admire him for that.
HD House and Robert Cook: Let me save you both some trouble.
BLPDHBFO
Bush
Lied
People
Died
Halliburton
Blood
For
Oil
Winning in Afghanistan does not require nation building. We should be there to punish the afghans for attacking us and destroying the will of fanatical Muslims to attack us again. If they are left in a worse state then all the better.
Surely that's sarcasm, Skyler. Right?
Did anyone actually expect him to admit that the surge worked?
No. It was a best a no-win speech for him. He wasn't a supporter of the war in Iraq and had pledged a timetable to get out.
To have acknowledged the surge worked would go against his historical statement and would have likely upset his base at a time when he needs their support.
I can't imagine any words that would have impressed his opponents.
So now he's made his speech and now he'll move on.
Its clear his heart's not in this "war" stuff.
But hey, the new carpet and drapes look nice.
Actually, given that we were the aggressors in fomenting, planning, and executing the invasion and war against Iraq, it was incumbent on us to prove Iraq had weapons,
You really have no clue.
Iraq was the aggressor. They invaded Kuwait, they were defeated, they signed a cease fire. Part of that agreement was to give up its WMD program.
And the reason jr says: "...not incumbent on us to prove that Iraq had no weapons" is because the UN resolution said as much - Iraq was required to provide evidence it had destroyed WMD programs it had already admitted to. It wasn't up to inspectors to go and search them out, all they were there for was to confirm Saddam had destroyed them. They were there to witness proof, not to search for it.
Also, I have to ask, since you and your kind placed so much faith in harshly worded UN resolutions: whats the point of them if you wont allow them to be backed with the threat of force?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
/via wiki
Fen said...
"While Iraq no longer has a WMD program thanks to Bush."
good mornin' there shitforbrains.
Have any luck finding those WMDs so far? No? Really?
But Bush promised. That was all a lie you say? No kidding. Really? He lied?
omg
Skyler: Winning in Afghanistan does not require nation building. We should be there to punish the afghans for attacking us and destroying the will of fanatical Muslims to attack us again.
And when Paki nukes fall into the hands of the Jihad?
What then? Blame Bush and go golfing?
I dont think you understand the big picture.
Phil Ochs - at the end he was nucking futz!
Who's the liar?
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
I could go on, but you get the picture, don't you Mr. House?
Apparently the UN lied too HDHouse.
I love it when all these leftards bring up International Law as if 1) they understand the nature of it, and 2) they've actually read the resolutions Fen cited above, when then reality is that they haven't and they don't. Nor do they plan to.
www.un.org
Go there you ignorant fucks. Read those resolutions. Then come back here and shut the fuck up.
"The swine who planned and executed the war thought it would be a quick win, with easy riches to be reaped."
"Swine" as a political epithet hasn't been much in vogue since the heyday of the Daily Worker. How amusing to see Robert Cook reviving it in such a quaintly retro way.
HDHouse: Have any luck finding those WMDs so far? No? Really?
Libtard thinks Iraq didn't have WMD programs? Really?
UNSCR 687, approved on 3 April 1991, required Iraq to disclose fully its weapons’ programs and stockpiles, yet the former Regime decided later that month only to declare partially their programs and weapons.
■In the week following the passage of UNSCR 687, MIC Senior Deputy Dr. ‘Amir Al Sa’adi convened a meeting of all the senior managers from the missile, chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons programs. These program heads brought with them inventories of weapons, missiles, launchers, accessory equipment, bulk agents, raw materials, and production machinery, along with recommendations of what to declare and what to hide.
Al Sa’adi and the program heads wrote a paper detailing a series of options for Iraq’s response to the resolution. These options, according to Al Sa’adi, included:
■Declaring everything and actively cooperating with inspectors.
■Declaring all sites and weapons but saying nothing about activities under development such as the nuclear program, and not volunteering information responding to questions when asked.
■Hiding everything. They based this option on the Coalition’s claim that it destroyed everything during the war.
■A fourth option may have called for Iraq to make a simple declaration of a few lines and to let the UN respond with clarification of what was required.
■One or two of the options contained a provision that Iraq should unilaterally destroy the biological program. Another option called for Iraq to declare only BW research and development work
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
Hey HD_Libtard, maybe you can get one of your handlers to translate all this into bumper-sticker speak for you to understand. Idiot.
Surely that's sarcasm, Skyler. Right?
I'm not very good at sarcasm. I don't believe in rewarding people who melt our skyscrapers. The more we kill them, the less likely they'll have the will or means to attack us again, and the less likely someone else will have the nerve to try. I have little pity for people who allow animals like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to rule them. They have a responsibility to overthrow their own torturers, and failing that, they must be accountable for their rulers' actions.
Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels over there, and wasting our own treasury.
Libtard! leftard! nananana boo boo!
Robert Cook wrote:
Later, Bush repeatedly lied about what happened, asserting without challenge to a cowardly and compliant press that Saddam had "refused" to allow inspectors in to Iraq until there was "no alternative" but to invade.
First off, when we left Iraq at the end of Clinton's term there were no inspectors. For two years. We had passed the Iraq Liberation Act which called for regime change and transition to democracy and after yet more initial compliance which then turned into non compliance from Iraq (which had become their modus operandi for the entire time of their containment, hence the need to pass 15 previous resolutions) Clinton removed all inspectors and them bombed them. And since that time, until Bush took office no one was minding the ship, and there were no inspections at all. Bush got the security Counsel to unanimously pass 1441, Iraq's final chance at compliance. To even get Iraq to the table we had to park our navy on it's borders, soemthing we could only do for a short period of time and at very great expense to us.
We demanded (as it was Iraq's last and FINAL chance to avert war) unconditional compliance. And yet again Iraq turned in it's standard issue semi serious compliance. What makes anyone think that Iraq wouldn't continue to string along the Security Counsel as it had done every time it had the chance in the past. We weren't allowed to talk to the scientists off site (and that might have been helpful considering the scientists were saying that Sadaam had tried to get weapons but they couldn't deliver and were stringing him along. Having scientists admit that Iraq had the intent to get weapons would go along way in proving to the world that Iraq was not in fact complying). And at any rate, if we believe Sadaam he'd have to keep dicking over the security counsel as otherwise his ruse would have been revealed and he needed to suggest that he had weapons for his enemies.Which is why I asked you which narrative you wanted to argue as to why Iraq acted for the entire containment process as if it had weapons (did it have weapons and move them, want to get weapons but was stymied by scientists, or lying about having weapons becasuse it needed to project strength to it's enemies). I look forward to your resonse on that by the way. The suggestion that somehow inspectors should scour the countryside looking for hidden weapons like it was an easter egg hunt, was never the terms of the ceasefire and was not Iraq's obligation. Yet that became the talking point the left used to attack Bush.
What was so offputting to the world and what everyone is so outraged about Bush was that when most people suggested 1441 was Iraq's last chance at compliance they simply assumed that it was just another piece of paper in a long line of similarly worded papers. When Bush said it was Iraq's chance, he was serious. So if that was yet another miscalculation on Iraq's part, then again, they are to be faulted for misjudging the situation. But to argue that Iraq was fully compliant is ludicrous.
Even Hans Blix said chemical weapons he raised the problem that ‘some 6,500 chemical bombs containing 1,000 tons of chemical agents and “several thousand” chemical rocket warheads are unaccounted for…. "
How did he know about the 6,500 chemical bombs? Because those were still unresolved from the LAST inspection that Iraq hand't complied with.
(The Crypto-Jew)
I have little pity for people who allow animals like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to rule them. They have a responsibility to overthrow their own torturers, and failing that, they must be accountable for their rulers' actions.
this "thinking only applies to BROWN peole, right?
It's certainly not the approach we adopted for WHITE people (Germany) who ELECTED their tyrant.
garage,
You never cease to amaze me.
Ok, I'm about ready to head for the Minnesota State Fair. The first thing that I'll eat is a foot long hot dog. Before I leave, I'll head over to the Hippodrome, or whatever it's called now, and buy some new mocassins.
Fen commented… And when Paki nukes fall into the hands of the Jihad?
If you destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda and the rest, it would make it a lot easier for Pakistan to control their own country. In fact, by international law, since they are not controlling their own borders and have ceded several provinces to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then we have every right to intervene and attack AQ and T in Pakistani ceded provinces as well.
We won't do that, but that's because we don't know how to look after our own interests anymore. We think that our military is built for window dressing and saber rattling.
Saber rattling has its place, but if you never swing that saber when provoked then the rattling is no longer going to scare anyone.
Robert Cook really has to explain to us why Iraq acted the way it did for the entire course of containment. Because Iraq suffered for Iraq's non compliance, even before the war. What was the rationale for Iraq to suggest to the world that it had weapons. Why did the UN pass 15 resolutions against it and why did Clinton sanction the hell out of it and bomb it on repeated occuasions and why did the inspectors who last inspected the country believe that Iraq had weapons.
I laid out the three rationales presented, and maybe Robert can come up with others. But I think it's incumbent on all the people claiming BUSH LIED to explain to us where Iraq was coming from when it acted the way it did.
Do they think that containement was unnecessary? That Iraq didnt' have the intent to get weapons? Because it's actions then are completely baffling.
Please give us your best guesss, Robert as to where Iraq was coming from.
Skyler --
1. Al Qaeda isn't Afghans. It's young, moneyed Arabs.
2. The objective of a war is never just to kill and punish people. That is so lacking in statesmanship as to be comical.
3. Your lack of political aptitude is astonishing even to me, a take-no-prisoners Jacksonian.
Garage Libtard! leftard! nananana boo boo!
Apparently it stings you enough to bother posting a response.
Makes sense, as you guys feel the need to remind everyone how "smart" you are. Like little highschool punks with small penis syndrome. If you really had it, you wouldn't need to talk about it.
But its your turn to beclown yourself Garage: do you deny that Iraq had a WMD program? do you deny that Saddam was prepared to restart production once the UN was out of his hair?
The Taliban could not exist without Pakistan's help. Wherever you are getting your intel, Skyler, you need to stop going there.
Ask Robert Cook about how both Obama and Bush should be jailed as war criminals under law that only Robert Cook knows.
Joe was confused: this "thinking only applies to BROWN peole, right?
It's certainly not the approach we adopted for WHITE people (Germany) who ELECTED their tyrant.
I'm pretty sure that we killed a whole lot of Germans and held the people responsible for the ELECTION of their dictator. Only after we destroyed their country did we decide to rebuild them.
We haven't destroyed anything to speak of in the war on terror yet. They have never surrendered or stopped their attacks.
People who assume racism based on nothing are usually the ones who are the closet racists.
And Afghanis are not "brown" people (whatever that could mean). They are caucasian if you haven't noticed.
Apparently it stings you enough to bother posting a response.
Oh yeah? You're a rightard poopy face!
We haven't destroyed anything to speak of in the war on terror yet. They have never surrendered or stopped their attacks
Really so Iraq, a veritable paradise...no bomb or combat damage?
Afghanistan, exactly what are we supposed to "destroy" Skyler? It's 1,000 years out-of-date ALREADY? Should we use nuclear weapons or just poison gas, to kill tens of millions of Afghani's?
Seven has three points:
1. Al Qaeda isn't Afghans. It's young, moneyed Arabs.
2. The objective of a war is never just to kill and punish people. That is so lacking in statesmanship as to be comical.
3. Your lack of political aptitude is astonishing even to me, a take-no-prisoners Jacksonian.
1. Yeah, they're Arabs. What's your point? They were allowed to operate in Afghanistan. Thus the Afghans are guilty of abetting their attacks.
2. Why not? Says who? War is the opposite of statesmanship. This is the entire problem in this war. The only morally proper way to fight a war is totally.
3. I do not lack political aptitude simply because I would like to return to the American tradition of total warfare. Since we abandoned total warfare as a policy (Korea), we have not fared so well in the results of our military actions. We've got a very big, powerful military that is designed for total war, and we allow our enemies to limit us to playing by their imposed geopolitical rules. That's what we need to stop doing or this war will likely never end.
We installed a new government in Afghanistan long ago, Skyler.
Perhaps you too busy fantasizing about wanton death to notice.
Garage: Oh yeah? You're a rightard poopy face!
You dodged the questions, Libtard. Here they are again:
1) do you deny that Iraq had WMD programs?
2) do you deny that Saddam was prepared to restart production once the UN was out of his hair?
You are allowed to declare yourself ignorant and pass on foreign policy discussions re Iraq. At least that would set you apart from your fellow Libtards who are making fools out of themselves.
Joe asked,
Afghanistan, exactly what are we supposed to "destroy" Skyler? It's 1,000 years out-of-date ALREADY? Should we use nuclear weapons or just poison gas, to kill tens of millions of Afghani's?
Sure, why not? But that isn't really necessary. We should have used twenty divisions, not two battalions. If you have American soldiers in strength at every crossroad, village, and pass, then you are on your way to victory. As it is now, the enemy is nightly planting bombs just outside the gates of our bases.
It's ludicrous that we haven't put in a full effort. Units rotate in and out like they're on a time clock. We should send over all the forces we can and leave them there until we're done. It does wonders for motivating people to succeed.
Skyler -- There is no need for total war in Afghanistan. There is no money for total war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan does not threaten us and, in fact, we installed a new government in Afghanistan already.
Furthermore, the United States has only entered one "total war." The Indian Wars (which are what these wars are analogous to), the Spanish-American War, the Mexican War, and all of our military history were not "total war."
Still further, as I and others have noted, even if we had the money and the political will for total war, what short of wanton killing could we do in Afghanistan? You seem to be laboring under the illusion that there is a nation there that is unified in some way.
We installed a new government in Afghanistan long ago, Skyler.
Yeah, right. We installed the government that kicks us around and tells us what to do over there. What a joke.
We didn't destroy the enemy before we rushed in and for political reasons declared the war over and insisted that it was a sovereign nation. The same idiocy happened in Iraq.
FIrst you make them surrender and destroy their ability to fight again, then you rebuild. You don't rebuild before you win. It's been lunacy.
Seven, the Civil War was a total war.
WWII was total war.
I'm not sure why you leave them out of your analysis.
I agree that there are similarities to the Indian wars, except that the Indians never had the means or desire to attack major cities. Also, the Indians for the most part were not fueled by a religious fervor to destroy us. There were some religious aspects, but these were generally not the overriding and unifying reason for their fighting us. But tactically the similarities are pretty strong.
By total war, I am saying that we should pursue our enemies wherever they are, such as in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and other places. We should do it with a massive effort and no time outs for the military. Units should not do rotations in and out of theater, they should stay in theater until the war is over.
We have institutionalized the war. In the long run this desire to fight the war on the cheap only serves to drag it out longer and cost us a lot more in lives and money. Had we gone in to Afghanistan full strength from the beginning when we had everyone's attention, this would have been over a long time ago.
1) do you deny that Iraq had WMD programs?
We didn't find any evidence of any programs rightard.
2) do you deny that Saddam was prepared to restart production once the UN was out of his hair?
Who knows. It certainly was not worth invading and occupying Iraq.
(The Crypto-Jew)
We should have used twenty divisions, not two battalions. I
So you just moved in Mobyland…I can safely ignore you after this.
1) In the posting, a portion which I did not use, you say “why not” in response to my question in re: nuclear weapons/weapons of mass destruction and millions of dead Afghani’s, making you a supporter of mass murder.
2) “twenty divisions” well considering we only possess 13 Combat divisions, active, we’d seem to be a little short of your policy prescription, shouldn’t your position at least be physically POSSIBLE, to be taken seriously?
3) “twenty division” is upwards of 800,000 troops, you know…try to grasp, Afghanistan is LAND-LOCKED, and has little infrastructure…at even 100 pounds per troop per day the daily logistic requirement for 800,000 troops would be, FORTY THOUSAND TONS PER DAY! How, pray tell, was the US supposed to support this massive force?
4) Finally, 800,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan is a great way to LOSE the war….sooner or later Afghani’s must fight the Taliban, not the US, and I believe the Afghan People might have gotten a bit nonplussed by the presence of so many “infidels” in their country. They were tired of the “Arabs” of Al-Qaida operating in Afghanistan, I can only imagine their take on a horde, far larger thant he Soviet Army of the 1980’s operating in the homeland.
So for a host of reasons, it’s safe to say Skyler is really a Moby or an idiot….either way I don’t really feel the need to continue with you. When you get around to answering the moral/logistical/doctrinal contradictions within your own position, get back to me.
we should pursue our enemies wherever they are, such as in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and other places.
Thus, you are saying that we should invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two sometimes allies. That would be absurd for so many reasons that I cannot possibly list them. Pakistan is a nuclear country. Saudi Arabia is an oild hub and invading it would drive up oil prices and anger the entire world. Saudi Arabia is also home to Mecca.
In the long run this desire to fight the war on the cheap only serves to drag it out longer and cost us a lot more in lives and money.
No. You are wrong. Look at the cost in lives and money of any war in American history and compare it in real money terms to World War II (or, as you point out, the Civil War). Not even close on either count.
You don't seem to be able to think in political objectives, Skyler, not to mention what is tenable economically or morally. It's scary.
Joe complained: making you a supporter of mass murder.
It's not murder, it's war. I don't much care about these people who attacked us. They are responsible for attacking us, no one else. It would set a good example for others to behave themselves. But really, that wasn't necessary, so we're just talking about what the outer limit of allowable responses was.
2) “twenty divisions” well considering we only possess 13 Combat divisions, active, we’d seem to be a little short of your policy prescription, shouldn’t your position at least be physically POSSIBLE, to be taken seriously?
Why are you limiting yourself to active army divisions? You left out the three active and one reserve Marine divisions and you left our the reserves and national guard. You also left out the fact that we can make our military bigger. There is another Marine division that is mothballed (for lack of a better term) and we can call it up with some effort.
3) “twenty division” is upwards of 800,000 troops, you know…try to grasp, Afghanistan is LAND-LOCKED, and has little infrastructure…at even 100 pounds per troop per day the daily logistic requirement for 800,000 troops would be, FORTY THOUSAND TONS PER DAY! How, pray tell, was the US supposed to support this massive force?
It's a big effort, but if we aren't willing to put in a total effort then we shouldn't be fighting. With that many soldiers, I'm sure we could convince or commandeer any ports necessary to support us. Allies come easy when you come in strength and treat them well. Pakistan would have supported us more with a little more encouragement. Or else.
4) Finally, 800,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan is a great way to LOSE the war….sooner or later Afghani’s must fight the Taliban,
Not if we kill the Taliban first.
and I believe the Afghan People might have gotten a bit nonplussed by the presence of so many “infidels” in their country.
What do we care? Seriously. Too many people have bought into the notion that we are only allowed to make people love us. That will never happen. What we need to do is make it so that the ones that don't love us are discouraged from attacking us. There is nothing wrong with punitive wars.
Skyler is crazy. QED.
Seven, we're in a very serious war right now and we're fighting it like it's cocktail hour at the Pentagon.
Just because we've been fighting a limited war up to now doesn't mean that it should remain a limited war.
Skyler -- We can't afford your total war and there is no political purpose to it.
I have asked you this several times: what is your goal? Besides killing people, I mean. Do you really believe you are going to forever root out fanatics?
Yes, the goal is killing people and destroying their ability to attack us.
You cannot change the mind of religious fanatics. You must end that mind. Those that attacked us and supported that attack must be reduced to a state of no longer being a threat. Since they won't change their religious convictions . . . .
Or do you think that peace, love and charity will change them? Hasn't so far.
(The Crypto-Jew)
Yes, the goal is killing people and destroying their ability to attack us. I
“War is an act of violence designed to compel the enemy to our Will” Violence, yes, but the goal is not death and destruction Skyler, it is to compel the enemy to our will. You mistake extermination with war….
Skyler -- Killing people for their beliefs is not a political goal of a people with our character. I'm sorry you weren't around in Cambodia in the 1970s. You would have fit in swell.
You mistake extermination with war….
No. I recognize that in this war against terrorism, the terror exists in minds, not in weapons. Minds are rendered safe from attacking us only when they are changed, or failing to be changed they must be ended.
I don't care about Afghanistan. I don't care about the people there. They are responsible for being good people. Failing that, they deserve what they get. If they stay in the stone ages for another few millennia, that's their own doing. There's no excuse for it anymore.
We needn't kill everyone, and don't make the mistake of thinking I said that. We only need to kill the fanatics. But we have to find them first. And to find them we need a lot of people, like on the order of twenty divisions instead of the two battalions we thought were enough at the start.
Seven, you make the mistake of moral equivalence.
Killing people for political beliefs such as suppoting freedom and capitalism is bad.
But killing murderers and baby butchers and those that would enslave us and inflict sharia law on us is a good thing.
You see, not all ideologies are equal. Understanding right and wrong, good and evil, is the most important role of civilization. If we don't understand that these murderous people are bad, then we will at their mercy for a long time.
We are in no danger of being enslaved by Afghans or anyone. Save your irrational rhetoric.
Maguro, tumbling was not meant to be pejorative. I would have used the word stumbling for that.
Think of tumbling as in safe cracking. You need to try -- carefully -- a bunch of things before the click.
Hope the remaining service members left behind will be okay. I hope our country provides for them when they return (Repubs will oppose this, see Agent Orange).
Tens, probably hundreds of thousands of people died for a heap of lies. No weapons of mass destruction were found, the reason we invaded and occupied that country.
Would as many people have died if we had not invaded and occupied? I doubt it. The invasion led to more death. (so much for "pro-life" hypocrisy).
Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 and did not pose a threat to the United States. Colin Powell humiliated himself before the UN with nonsense about anthrax, rail chemical labs, etc.
This episode is a stain on our nation's history. It was a deeply corrupt occupation with US contractors ripping off US taxpayers and even Iraqi oil. We tortured people.
And now the same people who got us into this mess are rewriting history and demand we follow their advice into more terrible decisions.
Synova:
"but, hey, now we can redirect the war spending elsewhere because all this extra cash will be laying around."
The President mentioned Afghanistan as a target for those resources.
BTW, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was all financed by MORE DEBT.
SKyler:
those that would enslave us and inflict sharia law on us is a good thing.
Idiocy. Idiocy generated by the largest propaganda effort in this history of the world.
We are in no danger of of being "enslaved" by Muslims nor of having sharia law, which I doubt you even understand, imposed on us.
It's a flaming bag of bullshit.
God help me, I agree with Seven Machos!
We are in no danger of being enslaved by Afghans or anyone. Save your irrational rhetoric.
Whoa.
No weapons of mass destruction were found, the reason we invaded and occupied that country.
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY BIG LIE ALERT....THIS IS AN EMERGENCY BIG LIE ALERT...THIS IS AN EMERGENCY BIG LIE ALERT
WMD's were ONE reason within the AUMF. You can keep trying to lie like this Alpha, but it's not going to work.
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY BIG LIE ALERT...
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY BIG LIE ALERT...
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY BIG LIE ALERT...
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Althouse Gabfset, in progress.
We are in no danger of being enslaved by Afghans or anyone.
Not according to them. And they keep getting stronger the less we do about it. There's no immediate danger that we will live under sharia law today or next month, but that is certainly their long term goal, and they intend to kill a lot of us trying to make it happen.
You can ignore that truth, but it doesn't change it.
So many dumb statements, so little time, and, shockingly, Seven Machos, in his colloquy with Skyler, makes sharply cogent points. How to pick a few comments to respond to?
Allen S.--Your partial listing of prominent Dems, (Clinton, Pelosi, et. al.) who asserted Hussein's possession of WMD merely succeeds in illustrating that the deluded and/or deceptive among our political class are not exclusively Republican. Assertions are merely that. None of those who trumpeted dire warnings about Hussein's WMD ever offered proof of their assertions--just as no proof has been put forth to substantiate present day claims that Iran has or will soon have nukes--and none of them decided to invade Iraq. We can assume much of the rhetoric was standard boiler-plate bullshit by politicians trying to assert their macho bona fides.
jr565: I don't know that Iraq ever claimed to have WMD after the mid-90s when they had destroyed them. Certainly, in the period prior to our invasion in 2003, Hussein denied having any remaining WMD, repeatedly, and he allowed the UN Inspectors in to begin a new inspections regime. In the months prior to 9/11, both Condi Rice and Colin Powell publicly stated that Iraq was "effectively disarmed" and could not project a threat to its neighbors. That doesn't sound to me as if anyone in our government at that time believed Hussein to have had WMD. Until it became a convenient "belief" to have when that was our the selling point chosen to foment support for the war among the public and in Congress.
Skyler: Afghanistan did not attack us; Afghans did not attack us. Arab terrorists attacked us, and they were members of a stateless organization. Much of the planning for 9/11 was conducted in Germany and even in America.
Further, our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are mass murder, as we were the aggressors against both nations, and, notwithstanding that we claim to have killed many terrorists, the majority of those imprisoned, tortured, rendered into refugees, wounded or killed in either country have been noncombatant citizens. You mentioned the Indian Wars at one point; the Indians were merely doing what many Iraqis and Afghans are doing, and what I presume you would do if America were invaded by outside forces: defending themselves and/or their land against an aggressive invading force. In short, our killing of the American Indians was mass murder--genocide, if you will--and the reservations we "allowed" them to live on were essentially concentration camps.
Oh, and Skyler? Your apparent belief that we are in any danger of being "enslaved" by the Afghans or any band of Islamic terrorists is just...crazy.
Here are a couple of pertinent columns at today's COUNTERPUNCH:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
(See the lead article by Paul Craig Roberts, Ronald Reagan's Assistant Director of the Treasury.)
and:
http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon09012010.html
Wow, links to Counterpunch. There's a credibility-builder.
EMERGENCY BIG DOPE ALERT!
EMERGENCY BIG DOPE ALERT!
EMERGENCY BIG DOPE ALERT!
Joe, Hussen's phantom WMD were the only argument the Bush Administration had to justify our invading Iraq. Oh, yes, they slapped together a list of other balderdash to create the appearance of a substantive argument for their criminal scheme, but they went on tv and before Congress and they repeated and sold the one--and the only--claim they knew would cause enough alarm to convince Congress and the public to support an invasion: Hussein has nukes and he's gonna git us!! (The claim of "nukes" of course, was implied and suggested, never stated outright, but that was the real kicker they wanted us to fear.)
I wish I could end the BIG DOPE ALERT, but on these comment pages, it's a perpetual emergency.
Do they sell Counterpunch at Barnes & Noble?
Robert Cook:
1) At a minimum it must be said that there were up to 16 reasons, IIRC given for the AUMF.
2) YOU have dedcided WMD were THE Reason....
I'll give you this Cooksie you are more consistent than Alpha...Alpha will excuse any Democrat. YOu are willing to go after Obama.
However, Consistency does NOT equal Truth.....
Libtard thinks Iraq didn't have WMD programs? Really?
UNSCR 687, approved on 3 April 1991, required Iraq to disclose fully its weapons’ programs and stockpiles, yet the former Regime decided later that month only to declare partially their programs and weapons.
■In the week following the passage of UNSCR 687, MIC Senior Deputy Dr. ‘Amir Al Sa’adi convened a meeting of all the senior managers from the missile, chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons programs. These program heads brought with them inventories of weapons, missiles, launchers, accessory equipment, bulk agents, raw materials, and production machinery, along with recommendations of what to declare and what to hide.
Al Sa’adi and the program heads wrote a paper detailing a series of options for Iraq’s response to the resolution. These options, according to Al Sa’adi, included:
■Declaring everything and actively cooperating with inspectors.
■Declaring all sites and weapons but saying nothing about activities under development such as the nuclear program, and not volunteering information responding to questions when asked.
■Hiding everything. They based this option on the Coalition’s claim that it destroyed everything during the war.
■A fourth option may have called for Iraq to make a simple declaration of a few lines and to let the UN respond with clarification of what was required.
■One or two of the options contained a provision that Iraq should unilaterally destroy the biological program. Another option called for Iraq to declare only BW research and development work
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
Hey Alpha_Libtard, maybe you can get one of your handlers to translate all this into bumper-sticker speak for you to understand. Idiot.
Robert Cook: Hussein has nukes and he's gonna git us!! (The claim of "nukes" of course, was implied and suggested, never stated outright, but that was the real kicker they wanted us to fear.)
You are such a troll. You are talking about Condeleza Rice's statement:
We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon.
And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Robert, just because you soiled your pants doesn't mean the rest of us did.
1) do you deny that Iraq had WMD programs?
Garage: We didn't find any evidence of any programs
Are you really this stupid? Even the UN says Saddam had WMD programs.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/sres98-920.htm
"34. The July meeting examined each component of the material balances as presented in Iraq's biological weapons full, final and complete disclosure.
(a) Biological weapons munitions. Iraq declared that it had produced and filled with biological weapons agents special warheads for the Al Hussein missiles and R-400 aerial bombs. Iraq also disclosed the development of biological weapons spray tanks and some other weapon systems for the delivery of biological weapons agents. The experts' assessment of major declared biological weapons weapon systems are summarized below:"
The Libtards here have redefined the meaning of stupidity. Even Iraq admits that it had WMD programs.
38. Iraq acknowledges concealment actions during the period 1991-1995. The goal was to satisfy the initial inspectors with limited amounts of missile and chemical weapons capabilities, which were duly destroyed in accordance with Security Council resolutions. However, as the Commission pursued the objectives of those resolutions, the Government of Iraq took further steps, including the secret unilateral destruction of retained weapons.
39. The pervasive extent of actions by Iraq to conceal proscribed weapons, production capability and documents and to limit knowledge about the degree of advancement of Iraq's weapons development efforts became obvious after the departure from Iraq of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamal in August 1995. The Commission was then confronted with the fact that Iraq had successfully implemented concealment on a large scale.
40. Examples exist in all weapons areas. Programmes which were hidden include: indigenous missile production programme, the VX programme and the entire biological weapons programme. Over 150 boxes of documents preserving know-how of proscribed activities had been carefully selected and hidden from the Commission for years.
Post a Comment